If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

I’ll be gone the remainder of the day with family activities and have additional family coming in to our home for the next few days.

Time here will be limited.

Until later, thanks for the conversation.

Regards,
MG

[Physics Guy]

[T]here is strong evidence that Joseph Smith was highly unlikely to have been able to write the Book of Mormon on his own.

No, there absolutely is not: not at all, not in the slightest. That Smith wrote it on his own is the obviously most likely case.

It's hard to rule out that he took a bit of help from some others, but there is no reason at all, whatsoever, to think that he might have needed to do that. Nothing at all about the Book of Mormon seems at all like anything that Joseph Smith could not have made.

[Rivendale]

[T]here is strong evidence that Joseph Smith was highly unlikely to have been able to write the Book of Mormon on his own.

No, there absolutely is not: not at all, not in the slightest. That Smith wrote it on his own is the obviously most likely case.

It's hard to rule out that he took a bit of help from some others, but there is no reason at all, whatsoever, to think that he might have needed to do that. Nothing at all about the Book of Mormon seems at all like anything that Joseph Smith could not have made.

I agree. Even if there wasn't a tenable theory (there are several) on how he produced it, the leap from I don't know to angels is baffling.

[Res Ipsa]

s in God and believes an angel and translation by the power of God are not impossible things. The evidence is that they are not what happened with the Book of Mormon.

As Morley explained.

By the way it is clear that you MG think there is reason that Joseph could not do it. None of us are convinced of that idea. Why do you repeat it as if the very questionable idea was settled data?.

Because there is strong evidence that Joseph Smith was highly unlikely to have been able to write the Book of Mormon on his own. The question then remains, how did the Book of Mormon come into being? The answer to THIS question has huge implications.

That doesn’t seem to register with some folks. Intentionally methinks.

You can go back through the thread and read through, again, just some of the evidentiary material that leads one to question Joseph’s ability to write the Book of Mormon.

I’m not going to go back and rehash everything.

Regards,
MG

The way you describe the strength of the evidence and the strength of the conclusion you are asserting is highly confusing. If there is strong evidence that Smith could not have written Book of Mormon on his own (whatever "on his own") means, then that should support a conclusion that it is "highly unlikely" that he wrote the book without some kind of assistance. But, when you get to the bottom line, you make an incredibly weak claim: "leads one to question." Or, in other words, its possible. Again, that's trivially true once you assume your creator God. The weak nature of your conclusion makes any reference to evidence superfluous.

The question "how did the Book of Mormon come into being" is both a distraction from the actual, important question: Is the Book of Mormon what the text itself and it's "author and proprietor" claim that it is. It is also a sneaky attempt to shift the burden of proof to anyone who rejects your divine explanation of its origins. This is a recurring flaw in your reasoning. No one has the burden to explain exactly how they Book of Mormon other than those who claimed the book is what he it and Smith claimed it to be. The evidence is overwhelming that it is not.

The evidence shows that Smith went to extraordinary lengths to conceal exactly how the book came to be created. He was almost entirely in control of the relevant evidence. There are precious few contemporaneous accounts. Most of what we have is recollections from years or decades later. As founder, prophet, and martyr, Smith's story has been heavily mythologized. From our date and perspective, the myth and the man are inextricably intertwined. The many different theories people have offered about the mechanics of how the book was produced is a function of the fact that evidence anyone would need to reach a strong conclusion simply doesn't exist or is inaccessible.

No one has an obligation to explain anything that you explain using the supernatural. Your God functions as a get out of jail free card that you deploy whenever you are faced with evidence against what you have already concluded. You always retain the burden of proving that the Book of Mormon is what it and Smith claimed that it is. You don't get to just say "God" and then shift your burden onto someone else.

[Morley]

Bill Reel, RFM, Kerry Shirts, Dan Vogel, and a multitude others…are they any more qualified to do historical research than Brian Hales? Do they have any more innate skills and intellectual prowess than he does? Your reference to him as an anesthesiologist may be more of a compliment than the ad hominem you may have had in mind.

I have the greatest respect and admiration for Bill Reel, RFM, Kerry Shirts, and Dan Vogel, but you'll not find me linking to them to make my arguments. If I did, you'd be justified in berating me for, instead of making my own arguments, lazily providing a link to the website of some guy who makes podcasts.

My main problem with you doing this is that you aren't even willing to put your points into your own words. Often the site you link doesn't back up the discussion the way that you imagine it does. There've been times when you've had to finally admit that you hadn't even read the material you assigned to everyone else.

For argument’s sake, however, let’s say that Joseph did get some help putting the Book of Mormon together—whether said assistance was mortal or supernatural—but that the result was the same 19th America fabrication that we have now. It wouldn’t shake my world to find this out. The finished book is still the same weak sister it’s always been.

You bring up the possibility of supernatural assistance. I’m assuming you then would be open to the possibility of God and angels. If so, how do you then dove tail that possibility with a “fabrication” in the sense that it is purely a nineteenth century creation? On its face that doesn’t make sense. Again, it comes back to what I’ve repeatedly said…if Joseph Smith was not the one who wrote the Book of Mormon who did? You’re apparently open to the supernatural.

I'd be open to any possibility that makes sense--however, when I write, "For argument’s sake, let’s say…" it doesn't suggest that I'm expressing a deeply held personal belief. Certainly you understand that.

If I did believe that God could be involved, that wouldn't mean that I'd buy the whole restoration story. There are a hundred thousand things that could go wrong along the road from the golden book to the presidency of Russell M. Nelson.

Why would God have Joseph create a work of fiction that testifies of itself. Historically and otherwise?

Why wouldn't he? If God, an angel, or even a demon was involved at one point, it wouldn't mean that they were involved in everything. God didn't "have" Joseph do anything. Joseph had the free agency to do whatever he wanted. If child rapes and beheadings are allowed in order to ensure free agency, then so would be mistranslations of books. You, after all, believe that God allowed the Bible to be mistranslated. Why wouldn't he allow a piece of American frontier fiction like the Book of Mormon?

Now what are these implications you keep touting?

God, angels, and ultimate truth.

Stating that "God, angels, and ultimate truth" are implications is not the same as making a case that they are implied.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

“Farmer 200 years ago puts rocks in a hat, claims they glow revealing an ancient native american language. Mormons don't like to talk about that [they] want to focus on [a] 2000 year old guy who blood sacrifices himself to save people from sin, then they eat/drink him on Sunday. Guys, it's all insane.” - r/exmo

And then we have the same jackass claiming an angel… blah blah… gold plates. Now idiot Mormon yokels theorize how that idiot yokel story was real. QED this thread.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

10 - Joseph Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon on his own. He struggled at it with Martin Harris' helping which we don't actually have to compare with the Book of Mormon, failed at a restart after the 116 pages debacle, but suddenly became very productive once Oliver Cowdery showed up and the Whitmer family let them work at their farm. Descriptions of the performance of translation are just that - a show. Most narratives describe the processes displayed when the lost pages were penned so we have no idea what that even reads like. Outside of the chapters in Mosiah, what we have is from Cowdery and Smith spinning the story out without props or gimmicks.

Importance? Not at all if you aren't Mormon nor have Mormon family. It's very subjective which means it isn't that important overall.

[MG 2.0]

10 - Joseph Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon on his own. He struggled at it with Martin Harris' helping which we don't actually have to compare with the Book of Mormon, failed at a restart after the 116 pages debacle, but suddenly became very productive once Oliver Cowdery showed up and the Whitmer family let them work at their farm. Descriptions of the performance of translation are just that - a show. Most narratives describe the processes displayed when the lost pages were penned so we have no idea what that even reads like. Outside of the chapters in Mosiah, what we have is from Cowdery and Smith spinning the story out without props or gimmicks.

Importance? Not at all if you aren't Mormon nor have Mormon family. It's very subjective which means it isn't that important overall.

So we’re at a majority on this board in those that say Joseph pretty much wrote the Book of Mormon on his own, maybe with a little help.

I guess that shouldn’t come as any great surprise, but it’s good to get it out there.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

My main problem with you doing this is that you aren't even willing to put your points into your own words.

My main problem with you is that you fail at understanding what I’m saying in my own words.

But you’re not alone.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If I did believe that God could be involved, that wouldn't mean that I'd buy the whole restoration story. There are a hundred thousand things that could go wrong along the road from the golden book to the presidency of Russell M. Nelson.

That’s where we differ. I think that once God would have set things in motion He might be more than likely to see things through rather than leaving everything on the cutting room floor.

Regards,
MG