If plates then God

[Philo Sofee]

Mg, I do not see any reason to leave God out of consideration but believing in God does little to help me believe in plates or the Book of Mormon.

I think you are trying to make an end run to avoid the question of how the Book of Mormon fits historical realities.

Considering that article pointing out that Joseph Smith had no official training in creative writing I think that is an empty digression. I think he was not hampered by a bunch of academic rules which would have prevented him from creating the book. You do not need a college degree to be a good story teller. Talent lacked by most people , myself included, is what is needed along with drive imagination and ego.

And to follow up on this sage observation, Dan Vogel's Charisma book demonstrated that even with Smith's contemporaries, it was not about the level of education that mattered. Smith had intelligence. That made the difference. His intellgence made it seem as if the supernatural was at play, and Smith most definitely played upon that angle as it elevated him, and the ego knows no bounds when control over people is at hand, and man did he ever play that hard for 20 years.

[MG 2.0]

Mg, I do not see any reason to leave God out of consideration but believing in God does little to help me believe in plates or the Book of Mormon.

I think you are trying to make an end run to avoid the question of how the Book of Mormon fits historical realities.

Considering that article pointing out that Joseph Smith had no official training in creative writing I think that is an empty digression. I think he was not hampered by a bunch of academic rules which would have prevented him from creating the book. You do not need a college degree to be a good story teller. Talent lacked by most people , myself included, is what is needed along with drive imagination and ego.

Brian Hale’s essay points out that pre 1830 there is very little evidence that Joseph had the ability to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon.

Coming to a belief in God was only a first step for me in coming to a realization that the plates and the Book of Mormon (as a bonafide and ancient book of scripture) were a real possibility.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

Brian Hale’s essay points out that pre 1830 there is very little evidence that Joseph had the ability to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon.

I'll see your Brian Hales, and raise you a Dan Vogel in his book Charisma, demonstrates using contemporary evidence of Smith's own followers, and non-Mormon neighbors that Smith was certainly intelligent enough and had the ability.

[MG 2.0]

And here is the connection. If the Book of Mormon had its origins in the visionary realm the likelihood of there having been real plates comes up a notch

You're really outdoing yourself, MG. if the Book of Mormon had its origins in the "visionary realm" (like the Book of Moses), then Joseph himself possessing real plates is unnecessary. Ockham's Razor.

Again, I suppose my writing lacks clarity. The Brian Hales essay gives a plethora of evidence that Joseph would have been unable to write the Book of Mormon on his own. I suggested that folks might want to read his essay.

If Joseph couldn’t have written it that leaves very few alternatives. Many of them debunked. This allows for the strong possibility that a visionary experience was involved which resulted in plates coming forth that were translated. The visionary experience being Moroni who as a matter of fact told Joseph about the plates, etc.

Angels don’t lie.

Earlier I mentioned to you that comparing the Book of Mormon and the BofMoses seems to be a false analogy/comparison to me and then suggested you were going the circular reasoning route to get there.

By the way, I am making no effort to “outdo myself”. I’ve been running at a fairly even pace throughout this thread.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Brian Hale’s essay points out that pre 1830 there is very little evidence that Joseph had the ability to write a book as complex as the Book of Mormon.

I'll see your Brian Hales, and raise you a Dan Vogel in his book Charisma, demonstrates using contemporary evidence of Smith's own followers, and non-Mormon neighbors that Smith was certainly intelligent enough and had the ability.

I’ll hand you the fact that if Joseph did have the ability to cobble together a complex and cohesive book as the Book of Mormon on his own then, well, we would need to take that seriously. I think there is evidence…and plain common sense…to demonstrate otherwise.

I’ll see your Vogel, and raise you a Kyler Rasmussen:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... vidence-1/

At the end of the day you’re going to go your way and I’m going to go mine. I’ll respect your path as I’m sure you will respect mine and other believers that find it reasonable and sensible to ‘keep the faith’.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

"Beyond the norm" isn't justification to invoke the supernatural. Life is filled with events that are contingent on a multitude of other events -- we have no ability to retrodict the odds that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. History is full of events that had not been "normal" before they happened. Likewise, especially when we are talking about complex historical events, it is nearly certain that we will not have access to every detail. Again, the argument you describe requires presupposing it's ultimate conclusion. Inability to access sufficient information to explain some aspect of a cluster of events does not provide a rational basis to invoke the supernatural. We call that "God of the Gaps," and it's fallacious. It's a classic argument from ignorance, which is fallacious.

Presuming the existence of your creator God permits you to invoke a supernatural explanation that supports your claim to a creator God. It's completely circular.

I suppose I may not have been very clear. I’m not presuming…along a linear timeline…an A priori position the existence of God. There has been a significant amount of foot work that has gone into the presumption that I gravitate towards nowadays. There were a few years in which my A priori was that it was unlikely that there was a God.

Alas, I did not remain in that place. Mainly through intellectual reasoning and looking at what I felt to be somewhat incontrovertible evidence of the likelihood of a supreme intelligence of some sort. I then reasoned…using purpose and meaning as a guiding star…that this supreme intelligence might very well be the God which Joseph Smith and other prophets claimed to interact with.

That, then, made all the difference. So yes, when it comes to the plates and angels I’m open to these things.

I don’t see the discipline of logic as being the beginning and the end. I leave room for faith and lack of complete understanding when it comes to many things. I am not committed to getting stuck in a logic rut even though logic and reasoning have their place

Makes things more interesting.

You seem to be stuck in a rut of all powerful logic. A faith of sorts.

Regards,
MG

If you are going to purport to show some kind of reasoning to support your beliefs, then you need to demonstrate valid reasoning. I have no beef at all with people having faith in God. But what you are purporting to do is engage in reasoning. My argument is that what you are actually doing is creating an appearance of an argument based on reason, while ignoring the things that separate reason from simply making things up.

Your implication that I’m using logic as a faith is absurd. I’m not using logic to claim the existence or non existence of anything. I’m using examples of how you pretend to be reasoning while ignoring everything that distinguishes reasoning from wishing.

I’ll keep saying this until it sinks in: Once you conclude that your creator God is real, everything after that isn’t reasoned conclusions. It’s possible that Jews have the right Good. It’s possible that the Muslims have the right God. It’s possible that the Navajos have the right God. Once you make every creator God that anyone can imagine possible, you have no reason-based way to choose among them.

You returned to the God you know, which isn’t much of a surprise. And that’s perfectly fine as far as I’m concerned. It’s your pretense of reasoning to conclusions that are a trivial result of your assumptions that I am criticizing.

[MG 2.0]

I suppose I may not have been very clear. I’m not presuming…along a linear timeline…an A priori position the existence of God. There has been a significant amount of foot work that has gone into the presumption that I gravitate towards nowadays. There were a few years in which my A priori was that it was unlikely that there was a God.

Alas, I did not remain in that place. Mainly through intellectual reasoning and looking at what I felt to be somewhat incontrovertible evidence of the likelihood of a supreme intelligence of some sort. I then reasoned…using purpose and meaning as a guiding star…that this supreme intelligence might very well be the God which Joseph Smith and other prophets claimed to interact with.

That, then, made all the difference. So yes, when it comes to the plates and angels I’m open to these things.

I don’t see the discipline of logic as being the beginning and the end. I leave room for faith and lack of complete understanding when it comes to many things. I am not committed to getting stuck in a logic rut even though logic and reasoning have their place

Makes things more interesting.

You seem to be stuck in a rut of all powerful logic. A faith of sorts.

Regards,
MG

If you are going to purport to show some kind of reasoning to support your beliefs, then you need to demonstrate valid reasoning. I have no beef at all with people having faith in God. But what you are purporting to do is engage in reasoning. My argument is that what you are actually doing is creating an appearance of an argument based on reason, while ignoring the things that separate reason from simply making things up.

Your implication that I’m using logic as a faith is absurd. I’m not using logic to claim the existence or non existence of anything. I’m using examples of how you pretend to be reasoning while ignoring everything that distinguishes reasoning from wishing.

I’ll keep saying this until it sinks in: Once you conclude that your creator God is real, everything after that isn’t reasoned conclusions. It’s possible that Jews have the right Good. It’s possible that the Muslims have the right God. It’s possible that the Navajos have the right God. Once you make every creator God that anyone can imagine possible, you have no reason-based way to choose among them.

You returned to the God you know, which isn’t much of a surprise. And that’s perfectly fine as far as I’m concerned. It’s your pretense of reasoning to conclusions that are a trivial result of your assumptions that I am criticizing.

Thank you for your civility. As long as we’re saying things until they sink in I will mention that periodically I have made clear that I believe that God speaks to other nations and other Sages/Rabbis/Pastors/Clerics/Priests.

Always has and always will. Jesus taught the same thing in the New Testament. The Book of Mormon does also.

My belief is that God speaks to prophets and has restored saving ordinances and Priesthood authority in the LDS Church. As Terryl Givens has said, we are the temple custodians. The work that goes on there plays an important part in God’s plan. The church has a four fold mission. A different ‘mission statement’, if you will, than any other system of belief in the world. We are peculiar but not alone in the sense that God loves and works with all his children to bring them along from where they are.

Returning to a belief in the Godhead consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost did make the most sense.

My point in returning to this thread was to point out another reason to think that the story of the plates and the angel fit in with a larger picture.

Joseph’s inability to write the Book of Mormon on his own at the age and experience in which we find him during the coming forth and translation of the Book of Mormon provides another clue as we put the restoration puzzle together.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

If you are going to purport to show some kind of reasoning to support your beliefs, then you need to demonstrate valid reasoning. I have no beef at all with people having faith in God. But what you are purporting to do is engage in reasoning. My argument is that what you are actually doing is creating an appearance of an argument based on reason, while ignoring the things that separate reason from simply making things up.

Your implication that I’m using logic as a faith is absurd. I’m not using logic to claim the existence or non existence of anything. I’m using examples of how you pretend to be reasoning while ignoring everything that distinguishes reasoning from wishing.

I’ll keep saying this until it sinks in: Once you conclude that your creator God is real, everything after that isn’t reasoned conclusions. It’s possible that Jews have the right Good. It’s possible that the Muslims have the right God. It’s possible that the Navajos have the right God. Once you make every creator God that anyone can imagine possible, you have no reason-based way to choose among them.

You returned to the God you know, which isn’t much of a surprise. And that’s perfectly fine as far as I’m concerned. It’s your pretense of reasoning to conclusions that are a trivial result of your assumptions that I am criticizing.

Thank you for your civility. As long as we’re saying things until they sink in I will mention that periodically I have made clear that I believe that God speaks to other nations and other Sages/Rabbis/Pastors/Clerics/Priests.

Always has and always will. Jesus taught the same thing in the New Testament. The Book of Mormon does also.

My belief is that God speaks to prophets and has restored saving ordinances and Priesthood authority in the LDS Church. As Terryl Givens has said, we are the temple custodians. The work that goes on there plays an important part in God’s plan. The church has a four fold mission. A different ‘mission statement’, if you will, than any other system of belief in the world. We are peculiar but not alone in the sense that God loves and works with all his children to bring them along from where they are.

Returning to a belief in the Godhead consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost did make the most sense.

My point in returning to this thread was to point out another reason to think that the story of the plates and the angel fit in with a larger picture.

Joseph’s inability to write the Book of Mormon on his own at the age and experience in which we find him during the coming forth and translation of the Book of Mormon provides another clue as we put the restoration puzzle together.

Regards,
MG

Asserting a fact you haven’t proven isn’t a “clue” to anything. And, once you posit your God, everything fits in with as many pictures as the human brain can imagine.

[Philo Sofee]

I'll see your Brian Hales, and raise you a Dan Vogel in his book Charisma, demonstrates using contemporary evidence of Smith's own followers, and non-Mormon neighbors that Smith was certainly intelligent enough and had the ability.

I’ll hand you the fact that if Joseph did have the ability to cobble together a complex and cohesive book as the Book of Mormon on his own then, well, we would need to take that seriously. I think there is evidence…and plain common sense…to demonstrate otherwise.

I’ll see your Vogel, and raise you a Kyler Rasmussen:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... vidence-1/

At the end of the day you’re going to go your way and I’m going to go mine. I’ll respect your path as I’m sure you will respect mine and other believers that find it reasonable and sensible to ‘keep the faith’.

Regards,
MG

Vogel has historian credibility, Rasmussen who? Thank you for showing me I have precious little to worry about much of your testimonial argument.

[Gadianton]

Again, I suppose my writing lacks clarity. The Brian Hales essay gives a plethora of evidence that Joseph would have been unable to write the Book of Mormon on his own. I suggested that folks might want to read his essay.

Which has nothing to do with the necessity of plates, the benefits of plates, or inferences made from plates.

If Joseph couldn’t have written it that leaves very few alternatives. Many of them debunked. This allows for the strong possibility that a visionary experience was involved which resulted in plates coming forth that were translated. The visionary experience being Moroni who as a matter of fact told Joseph about the plates, etc.

Another example of a round-about way to argue the plates as an accidental fact of the restoration. Bushman's point is that plates were necessary for the restoration. In the last several pages you've transitioned to the argument that there had to be plates because either Joseph, an angel, or God said there were plates. That doesn't explain why plates were needed, or the benefit of plates, why the restoration couldn't have happened without plates, or why a restoration with plates is more effective than one without plates. If anything, you're arguing against Bushman, because you're locking the story into one that must have plates otherwise God is a liar. You're telling us why we're saddled with the plates independent of any benefits of them.

Earlier I mentioned to you that comparing the Book of Mormon and the BofMoses seems to be a false analogy/comparison to me and then suggested you were going the circular reasoning route to get there.

Yes, you did, but you don't know what "circular reasoning" is, and you're just saying that because I accused you of circular reasoning.

Your reasoning why the Book of Mormon and BoMo can't be compared was circular. Recall, the discussion surrounding Bushman's quote is the necessity of having real plates vs. say, Joseph just having the narrative appear in his mind and writing it down. The fact that the Book Of Moses required no extant media but is scripture just like the Book of Mormon is evidence that restoring ancient scripture doesn't in principle require extant physical media.

Your counter to that was the two can't be compared because with the Book of Mormon, there was media, with the BoMo, there was no media.