If plates then God

[Physics Guy]

Yeah, it kind of sounds vaguely reasonable as a general statement about nothing in particular, but it just doesn't actually connect specifically to anything in the quoted statement from me.

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 question the validity of an all or nothing statement in this case. Not when there are multiple ways of viewing things from various reasonable perspectives.

What part of my text was an all-or-nothing statement? In what sense did I insist upon either all of something or else none of it? Huh?

It sounds, I'm afraid, as though MG just picked an adjective that can be applied to statements, "all-or-nothing". He picked that adjective because it sounds somehow extreme, and he wanted to suggest that my statement was too extreme to be reasonable. Out of all the ways of calling a statement extreme, though, it looks as though MG just picked "all-or-nothing" at random, because he couldn't identify exactly how or why my statement was too extreme.

My statement was indeed a strong assertion, in the logical sense that it asserted a lot. I'm denying the actual existence of a lot of conceivable things, namely all the conceivable reasons why one might possibly think that Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon himself. Stylistic features, grammatical features, cross-linguistic puns, archaeological accuracy: whatever possible arguments you might imagine to show that it would have been hard for Smith to make the Book up himself, I'm saying that Nope, when you look at them closely, none of these arguments holds any water at all. They're all complete garbage, all of them. That's what I'm saying.

It's not unfair to call that an extreme statement; "all-or-nothing" just doesn't communicate the particular way in which it's extreme. It's the wrong term.

The thing about extreme statements like mine, though, is that if they're wrong, then it must be easy to disprove them. I'm denying any credit at all to any possible arguments against Smith composing the Book of Mormon himself. So to disprove that, all you have to do is find one single argument that carries even a bit of weight, that raises even a bit of legitimate doubt that Smith could have done it himself.

It's not enough just to point away to long discussions that have been published somewhere else. The point of my statement was to call that bluff: I'm saying I've read those long discussions, and they're garbage. But if they're not, then all MG has to do is find one decent argument, out of all of them, and lay it out here concisely.

If he can, then I'm wrong, a one-shot kill. If he can't, then I'm right.

[MG 2.0]

Nothing at all about the Book of Mormon seems at all like anything that Joseph Smith could not have made.

Seems like an all or nothing statement to me. My contention is that it is not all or nothing. There is evidence that can be interpreted different ways by different people, even while doing so in ways that they see as being objective. But evidence is always subject to the ‘eye of the beholder’. Subjective to some extent.

You may look at word print studies in regards to the Book of Mormon author(s) with a different ‘eye’ than another person does. That doesn’t make you right or wrong. It just shows that you have your own unique perspective. Same with anthropic principle or goldilocks principle. Or Hebrew poetry (chiasmus) and other Hebraisms that some people find interesting as possible evidence of ancient authorship.

Some folks on different sides of the track are going to view these things, and others, differently.

Ultimately there will be right and wrong ways of interpreting the so called evidence which might demonstrate the Book of Mormon to be the work of God and not of man. I can’t prove anything to you through my eyes and my experience. Each person looks at these things with their own biases, life experience, and other backdrops as they make determinations one way or the other.

I’m not out to prove ANYTHING to you.

You are a very smart fellow and are able to determine what you believe to be true or false in connection with Book of Mormon authorship.

So be it. So let it be done.

I was simply pointing out that I believe it is unreasonable for you to take what I perceived to be an all or nothing position. There are so many things that are not cut and dried. You know that from your own research and academic pursuits in the scientific arena.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Nothing at all about the Book of Mormon seems at all like anything that Joseph Smith could not have made.

Seems like an all or nothing statement to me. My contention is that it is not all or nothing. There is evidence that can be interpreted different ways by different people, even while doing so in ways that they see as being objective. But evidence is always subject to the ‘eye of the beholder’. Subjective to some extent.

You may look at word print studies in regards to the Book of Mormon author(s) with a different ‘eye’ than another person does. That doesn’t make you right or wrong. It just shows that you have your own unique perspective. Same with anthropic principle or goldilocks principle. Or Hebrew poetry (chiasmus) and other Hebraisms that some people find interesting as possible evidence of ancient authorship.

Some folks on different sides of the track are going to view these things, and others, differently.

Ultimately there will be right and wrong ways of interpreting the so called evidence which might demonstrate the Book of Mormon to be the work of God and not of man. I can’t prove anything to you through my eyes and my experience. Each person looks at these things with their own biases, life experience, and other backdrops as they make determinations one way or the other.

I’m not out to prove ANYTHING to you.

You are a very smart fellow and are able to determine what you believe to be true or false in connection with Book of Mormon authorship.

So be it. So let it be done.

I was simply pointing out that I believe it is unreasonable for you to take what I perceived to be an all or nothing position. There are so many things that are not cut and dried. You know that from your own research and academic pursuits in the scientific arena.

Regards,
MG

It's not an all or nothing statement. Nowhere does PG claim that there are only two choices, both of them at the extreme ends of a spectrum. If you must disparage people's comments, you should at least be accurate.

[MG 2.0]

If you must disparage people's comments, you should at least be accurate.

I’m not disparaging PG’s comments. Just what a I see as being an unreasonable position to take in regards to Book of Mormon authorship. Thus, my response to him laying things out.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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

I don't think Joseph wrote the book on his own. He needed Oliver Cowdery to produce what we have. If he could have produced it on his own he would have before Cowdery arrived.

If you believe it was produced through divine involvement, why did it take Oliver Cowdery to show up for the book to be produced?

You seem to have some concerns about Oliver Cowdery’s participation/involvement in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I think it would be well to let him speak for himself as others speak of his trustworthiness and integrity.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/oliver-co ... of-Mormon/

His testimony…after years of being out of the church…only adds to the testimony of others who believed the Book of Mormon to be an actual translation given through the gift and power of God.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

I don't think Joseph wrote the book on his own. He needed Oliver Cowdery to produce what we have. If he could have produced it on his own he would have before Cowdery arrived.

If you believe it was produced through divine involvement, why did it take Oliver Cowdery to show up for the book to be produced?

You seem to have some concerns about Oliver Cowdery’s participation/involvement in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I think it would be well to let him speak for himself as others speak of his trustworthiness and integrity.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/oliver-co ... of-Mormon/

His testimony…after years of being out of the church…only adds to the testimony of others who believed the Book of Mormon to be an actual translation given through the gift and power of God.

Regards,
MG

It's not a concern so much as an observation without folks coloring with spin. Facts are, the Book of Mormon production process and timeline was radically affected by Cowdery arriving. If God, why? If not God, it seems pretty clear Cowdery was instrumental in its production given Smith would have produced it without him earlier if he could have done so.

[MG 2.0]

You seem to have some concerns about Oliver Cowdery’s participation/involvement in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I think it would be well to let him speak for himself as others speak of his trustworthiness and integrity.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/oliver-co ... of-Mormon/

His testimony…after years of being out of the church…only adds to the testimony of others who believed the Book of Mormon to be an actual translation given through the gift and power of God.

Regards,
MG

It's not a concern so much as an observation without folks coloring with spin. Facts are, the Book of Mormon production process and timeline was radically affected by Cowdery arriving. If God, why? If not God, it seems pretty clear Cowdery was instrumental in its production given Smith would have produced it without him earlier if he could have done so.

You’re coloring outside the lines and creating your own artistic expression/intention but in reality changing the picture into something it isn’t. All that matters (the picture) is that Cowdery was involved and later witnessed to the divine nature of the translation process.

It’s pretty simple. Trying to make it into something it’s not doesn’t change the facts in regards to what it is.

Oliver Cowdery is another witness to the plates, and God’s hand in things, that needs to be discredited by coloring outside the lines and creating something other than the actual picture.

The actual picture has received many five star reviews. The critic’s job is to find and/or manufacture enough 1 and 2 star reviews to skew the balance and distort the picture. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the result is too many people are are viewing the distorted picture rather than the original intent the artist intended.

Secular world cravings, influences, and false ideologies are very often overpowering the simple truths of the gospel and recognition of the creator of all things.

In my view, it was bound to happen. The casualties are unfortunately high.

What is the picture in this instance? The simple story that Joseph Smith told in regards to the plates, the angel, and the Book of Mormon being translated by the gift and power of God.

Regards,
MG

[Physics Guy]

Let's recall that my extreme statement was a response to another statement.

[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.

You can't have it both ways, MG. Either there is such a thing as strong evidence, which people ought to respect, whichever direction it points; or else nothing is cut and dried and everything is just different perspectives.

Pick an option.

What you can't do is claim strong evidence and then back off into total relativism when asked to demonstrate that the evidence actually is strong.

[MG 2.0]

Let's recall that my extreme statement was a response to another statement.

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.

Either there is such a thing as strong evidence, which people ought to respect, whichever direction it points…

I agree with that in the sense that evidence should be respected for what it is. Strong or weak or somewhere in between. But evidence is subject to change depending on further research/findings. We both know that. And I’m not a scientist.

Whether evidence is strong or weak or somewhere in between is in certain instances subject to bias, life experience, etc. Maybe not so much in certain scientific fields but more so in some of the disciplines that have more to do with the historical/archaeological/linguistic ‘soft’ sciences where the lens of history and what is known lends itself to distortion or incomplete ‘sure’ knowledge.

And then you throw in metaphysics and, well, we have some undefined areas that can be open to controversy and question. The restoration narrative falls somewhat neatly into that area that is prone to various ‘evidences’ being interpreted on the basis of presuppositions and personal biases. Soft evidence rather than hard evidence. Subject to further understanding. Book of Mormon Studies has been an on going endeavor which has resulted in more hard evidence in some instances along with what might be looked at as potential or soft evidence.

Room is left for faith.

…or else nothing is cut and dried and everything is just different perspectives.

Again, I think that my be true in certain fields and disciplines but not in others. There are lots of controversial ideas out there that have some pretty bright people offering up their evidence for one thing or another.

They all ought to be respected for their work and findings while at the same time understanding/knowing that certain knowledge is going to rise to the top as being indisputable fact rather than conjecture.

What you can't do is claim strong evidence and then back off into total relativism when asked to demonstrate that the evidence actually is strong.

I don’t think it’s backing off into relativism. Isn’t it a bit more nuanced and/or complicated than throwing everything into one bucket?

Regards,
MG

[High Spy]

Knowledge acquired via The Spirit Trump's all.