DiscussMormonism.com

So here goes:

Was the Book of Mormon a consequence of Joe stringing everyone along for years? imagine you are joe. You swear up and down the white indian teleporting into your room every so often wants you to have this weighty gold brick with a record on it. You get married, people think your a scam artist and then you start realizing that if you don't produce the book the gullible saps will even lose faith in you. So you swear the towel covering the brick is said gold plates and stick your head in a hat, relying on the saps to transcribe your colorful rantings.

Was the Book of Mormon just an end to a continual tall tale that helped joe learn how to spin even bigger tales?

Mercury wrote:So here goes:

Was the Book of Mormon a consequence of Joe stringing everyone along for years? imagine you are joe. You swear up and down the white indian teleporting into your room every so often wants you to have this weighty gold brick with a record on it. You get married, people think your a scam artist and then you start realizing that if you don't produce the book the gullible saps will even lose faith in you. So you swear the towel covering the brick is said gold plates and stick your head in a hat, relying on the saps to transcribe your colorful rantings.

Was the Book of Mormon just an end to a continual tall tale that helped joe learn how to spin even bigger tales?

At the risk of offending every TBM in sight...the Book of Mormon was the defining moment in which a game became a religion.

Mercury wrote:So here goes:

Was the Book of Mormon a consequence of Joe stringing everyone along for years? imagine you are joe. You swear up and down the white indian teleporting into your room every so often wants you to have this weighty gold brick with a record on it. You get married, people think your a scam artist and then you start realizing that if you don't produce the book the gullible saps will even lose faith in you. So you swear the towel covering the brick is said gold plates and stick your head in a hat, relying on the saps to transcribe your colorful rantings.

Was the Book of Mormon just an end to a continual tall tale that helped joe learn how to spin even bigger tales?

Mercury, I would suggest that you read the Book of Mormon, paying particular attention to the complexity of the "plot," the doctrine taught, and the desription of the social and cultural structures. Then read the eye witness accounts of the way it was produced.

Then see if you can figure out how a 3rd grade educated farmer could have produced the text in about a 9 week period of time.

Then come back and we can talk about whether or not it was a slapped together attempt to shore up a failing following.

charity wrote:Then see if you can figure out how a 3rd grade educated farmer could have produced the text in about a 9 week period of time.

I completely and fundamentally disagree with the notion that he had to have created the whole story in 9 weeks, even if that's how long the dictation took. He was telling the story of Moroni's visits for years, and during that time, or even prior to that time and during it, he could have been creating the story in his mind. Or, if any of the various manuscript theories were correct, it would already have been created by the time the dictation started. At the very least, Joseph could have created most of the elements of it in his noggin in the several years this was an active topic with him. There's no reason he couldn't have.

The awkward language and grammar mistakes in the original manuscript can be more than accounted for by your 3rd grade educated farmer who'd read a little, so he knew how to think and write, but not how to do it well, or correctly.

Besides, Charity, are you one to believe that David Copperfield really is magic because you can't see or imagine how he does what he does?

Is the most obvious thing to believe, if you can't figure out how Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon, that an angel visited him for several years in a row, and then let him take home some golden plates weighing dozens of pounds, which an ancient Israelite had lugged up to New York from Central America, just to bury them in Joseph Smith's hometown, and then God had him translate these plates by staring at a rock he'd found at the bottom of a well he was helping dig, which is sitting in his hat?

This is really the most obvious thing to believe just because you can't imagine how Joseph Smith might have done it?

To me, it's one of the least obvious explanations possible.

Humankind is slowly but surely putting together an ever more comprehensive picture of what ancient America and its inhabitants looked like, and the Book of Mormon story is simply not there. And it's not because Satan convinced the archeologists to hide the evidence. There is, quite simply, no evidence at all that the things written in the Book of Mormon actually belong anywhere in the account of the ancient Americas.

Setbag, I would be one of the last people on earth to say that the Book of Mormon can be PROVEN to be true by any means other than a spiritual witness.

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

On the Hebraic side of the question, there are some points that seem compelling to believers, like Nahom and chiasmus. Of course, there are possible nonsupernatural explanations for these points as well.

On the New World side of the equation, you don't even have that, although some apologists are very good at convincing people without adequate background knowledge that you do.

charity wrote:Setbag, I would be one of the last people on earth to say that the Book of Mormon can be PROVEN to be true by any means other than a spiritual witness.

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

Hey can I go over the top and spin out of control, too?

I find nothing compelling in the form of any evidences. The spiritual witness business is bunk too. Moroni's promise doesn't work either.

By the way, welcome to the board, Charity.

charity wrote:Setbag, I would be one of the last people on earth to say that the Book of Mormon can be PROVEN to be true by any means other than a spiritual witness.

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

I would say there are possible parallels, but no compelling evidence. Sorry, charity, but it's just not there.

Runtu wrote:

charity wrote:Setbag, I would be one of the last people on earth to say that the Book of Mormon can be PROVEN to be true by any means other than a spiritual witness.

But when you say there is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon, you have gone over the top and spun out of control. Can't you be honest and admit that there are a few compelling evidences? At least that?

I would say there are possible parallels, but no compelling evidence. Sorry, charity, but it's just not there.

Could you explain the difference?