If plates then God

[Gadianton]

I’m still chuckling at PG’s comment that all the research/evidence showing that it is highly unlikely Joseph Smith could have composed the Book of Mormon is “garbage” without giving ONE reason why. We’re just supposed to accept his word.

Your heap of links does nothing to advance the discussion. Take Honorentheos as an example. He joined the thread and recited things that stuck out for him from what he's read in the past from Dale's website. Your moderate-length post with all the links presented standard talking points like "what did he have to gain?" rather than any arguments.

Yours is a typical apologist ploy: "Somewhere buried within the rubbish of the Salt Lake City Landfill is a 10 million dollar diamond. I assure you it's there, but you're just too lazy to look for it."

Nobody is going to spend the weekend reading your garbage pile of links that you haven't read yourself. Why do I say that? I say that because If you had the knowledge contained in those links, you wouldn't be making arguments -- mostly meta arguments -- that any believer could make just by remembering talking points they've heard over the years rather than specific arguments.

To earn a modicum of respect, which I admit is going to be very difficult at this point, you could start by offering a specific argument from one of those essays that you've read that you find particularly compelling. At the very least, if you were to show that you'd put some effort into understanding the material you're arguing for, PG or others might put the time into a limited reading of the portion of the essay discussed.

[Physics Guy]

All the apologist arguments, about how impossible the Book of Mormon was, are garbage. There is no single reason why they are garbage, though there are some general patterns. It's like the arguments for the Earth being flat. They're all garbage, too, even though there are lots of different arguments among them. They're not all bad in the same ways, but they're all consistently bad.

There are lots of ways to make bad arguments, and determined defenders of a ridiculous position will probably try all of them eventually. The common feature of all of these arguments, though, is that at some point they rely on some simple but fatal fallacy or other.

MG complains that I haven't cited any particular reason why all the Mormon apologist arguments are garbage: nice try. What I'm saying is that every single one is crucially based on one trivial fallacy or another. I'm entitled to assert that without offering a proof, because I'm leaving an easy opening to prove me wrong. You can totally smash my claim by producing just one single Mormon argument that isn't garbage. Take your best shot. Make the easiest case—not to prove beyond doubt that Smith couldn't possibly have produced the Book of Mormon himself, but just to show any reason at all why this would have been harder for him than a decent day's work.

If you can do it, I'm wrong. I'll admit it. I lose plenty of arguments.

If you can't do it, I'm right.

[Fence Sitter]

I have not much of this thread. It just seems like the same tripe being put forth by MG we have seen for years. It's not worth the time to contest. Bottom line is: if this was a convincing argument, Mormonism would be growing. It's not. People who are aware of the claim that Joseph Smith couldn't have written the Book of Mormon are still leaving in droves, lifelong members as well as new converts. No one cares. I had some missionaries from the Jehovah's Witnesses visit my house the other day who were using the same type of "How do you explain" arguments. It was amazing how much they sounded just like MG and others. When they challenged me to read their literature, I told them I would if they would read just one book I recommended. They were unwilling to do so. No surprise there.

[High Spy]

I have not much of this thread. It just seems like the same tripe being put forth by MG we have seen for years. It's not worth the time to contest. Bottom line is: if this was a convincing argument, Mormonism would be growing. It's not. People who are aware of the claim that Joseph Smith couldn't have written the Book of Mormon are still leaving in droves, lifelong members as well as new converts. No one cares. I had some missionaries from the Jehovah's Witnesses visit my house the other day who were using the same type of "How do you explain" arguments. It was amazing how much they sounded just like MG and others. When they challenged me to read their literature, I told them I would if they would read just one book I recommended. They were unwilling to do so. No surprise there.

The Spirit has revealed many details to me about how Joseph Smith started the Church. The "angel" that brought the "gold plates" was Parley P. Pratt. The "angel" that "took the gold plates away" was Parley P. Pratt. The "angel" that "brought the gold plates back a year later" was Parley P. Pratt. Parley had a wagon route that he made every year. It went from around Palmyra to Sandusky, Ohio every year. The gold plates was a manuscript that Parley had on his wagon. The so called 116 pages was that manuscript.

Parley P. Pratt did not write the Book of Mormon but he did have it (the manuscript) in his possession more than once for an extended time and may have tinkered with the text.

Once the plates are discounted, it’s easy to see that the Book of Mormon lands are across the pond.

The deceptions continue to crumble.

[Gadianton]

I have not read any of this thread. It just the same tripe being put forth by MG we have seen for years. It's not worth the time to contest. Bottom line is: if this was a convincing argument, Mormonism would be growing. It's not. People who are aware of the claim that Joseph Smith couldn't have written the Book of Mormon are still leaving in droves, lifelong members as well as new converts. No one cares. I had some missionaries from the Jehovah's Witnesses visit my house the other day who were using the same type of "How do you explain" arguments. It was amazing how much they sounded just like MG and others. When they challenged me to read their literature, I told them I would if they would read just one book I recommended. They were unwilling to do so. No surprise there.

Actually, that's not entirely true. The thread starts of with a summary of Dan's summary of Bushman asserting "If Plates then God". It was disputed by
Stak (and then myself and others) that this is what Bushman is saying. The thread somewhat split into discussions about whether plates directly imply God, or the Church is true -- however you want to frame that, and then also the discussion more in line with Bushman's comments on whether real plates with real history are needed to promote faith in members. MG has spun the thread into numerous tangents and appears to have ended up arguing that Joseph couldn't have invented the Book of Mormon, therefore it must be of God.

This of course has nothing to do with the original point of the thread, and contradicts his earlier posting.

Take the ontological investment at work revealing the wonders of ancient plates of gold secured by a boy at the direction of an angel. In that context, "If plates then God" means that the revealed splendor of real plates under the direction of an angel when clearly demonstrated carries such weight that we're inclined to take him at his word as he continues to reveal God's will. This isn't unlike Jesus in his day working miracles, and then revealing deeper truths based on that initial credibility. If a guy who can raise the dead says God is "xyz", then you're more inclined to believe that guy, rather than whatever a priest says who is merely reciting what he was trained to recite, right?

But then, here we are making the exact opposite line of inference. If Joseph couldn't have written it, then God must have inspired it, and if God inspired it, it's hard (for many people) to believe that Joseph would have lied about Gold plates, therefore there were plates. In other words, "the plates" become an epistemic bad. An embarrassment that must be rationalized through a maze of indirect inference.

That doesn't mean they aren't important to the narrative, I believe real plates are central to the narrative. But in terms of evidence, they become a pill to swallow, not the demonstration of a miracle that encourages further belief in the alleged founder.

[huckelberry]

All the apologist arguments, about how impossible the Book of Mormon was, are garbage. There is no single reason why they are garbage, though there are some general patterns. It's like the arguments for the Earth being flat. They're all garbage, too, even though there are lots of different arguments among them. They're not all bad in the same ways, but they're all consistently bad.

There are lots of ways to make bad arguments, and determined defenders of a ridiculous position will probably try all of them eventually. The common feature of all of these arguments, though, is that at some point they rely on some simple but fatal fallacy or other.

MG complains that I haven't cited any particular reason why all the Mormon apologist arguments are garbage: nice try. What I'm saying is that every single one is crucially based on one trivial fallacy or another. I'm entitled to assert that without offering a proof, because I'm leaving an easy opening to prove me wrong. You can totally smash my claim by producing just one single Mormon argument that isn't garbage. Take your best shot. Make the easiest case—not to prove beyond doubt that Smith couldn't possibly have produced the Book of Mormon himself, but just to show any reason at all why this would have been harder for him than a decent day's work.

If you can do it, I'm wrong. I'll admit it. I lose plenty of arguments.

If you can't do it, I'm right.

considering the arguments I have heard why Joseph could not be author I remember the fallowing.
first and worst: Instruction to go home and see if you can do it. ( you cannot, you are not making the necessary investment with the time determination and talent required)
second; Joseph did not write well. Perhaps that is at least part why a scribe was a big help.
third: Joseph did not read the Bible all the way through. This observation is only a distraction. It is possible to be very familiar with parts of the Bible a person prefers and miss some other parts completely.
fourth:Joseph did not have the training. But training at college would not help nor would be necessary. Could even be an impediment.
fifth:There are Biblical poetic form appearing in the Book of Mormon. Well Book of Mormon makes extensive use of the Bible .Author may have noticed the form and found it useful.

There is one argument which I see as having a bit of weight. There were word studies seeing changes in language fitting changes in different ancient authors presented in the book. It has been some time since any further information about this has come to my attention. There has been different studies not all seeing the same thing. I remember Uncle Dale presenting study which showed variation but not fitting ancient authors very well. I suspect language could vary depending upon sources used for paraphrase as well as other contributing influences.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t disagree with that. What I do find interesting is the amount of time a nonbeliever will spend talking about it.

Regards,
MG

As a former believer, I grappled with the question and viewed it as a million dollar one for a meaningful period of time. I don't think about it much at all anymore. But without reservation, I would have much preferred the evidence support the Book of Mormon being ancient than being the obvious 19th century invention. Having ones worldview ripped out by the roots and having to grow a new one isn't enjoyable. A lot of my life had been invested in what turned out to be a spiritual ponzi scheme, with receipts holding no value outside the scheme. I get why it seems better to chose to believe. I do. I think it is a choice with consequences in other places such as ones thought processes and integrity being bent by the choice. But I get it.

Our Stake was divided today because of growth bursting at the seams. As my wife and I sat and listened to the speakers and the visiting GA’s I had it reaffirmed to me that ‘it’s all about Jesus’. The plates, the Book of Mormon, the restoration…that’s all peripheral to Jesus. It’s easy to lose sight of that at times. It is the Book of Mormon that pulls believers back on course when the world and its secular philosophies start to encroach on the spiritual nature of things.

I honestly believe that those that leave the church or become its critics are, in many cases, those that never had a testimony of Jesus Christ. Why? Because that seems to be one of the first things to go.

I think it was Morley who earlier asked of what use is the Book of Mormon…there’s nothing there to get too worked up about. Well, that’s untrue. It’s all about Jesus. It testifies of Him. It is a second witness of his status of God. It’s a solid witness that God works in the affairs of men in our day as in times of old.

What’s the alternative according to secular humanists/agnostics/atheists?

Death and extinction.

The recent responses are what one would expect from those that have reason to disconfirm the reality of Jesus as Son of God. This is a divide that seems unbridgeable in my experience. Only those that have a desire to come to Christ have eyes to see and ears to hear.

This thread has included enough conversation for those who have entered in out of a sense of curiosity to get a better understanding of the alternative views in regards to “If plates, then God”.

Again, I appreciate ALL the input. It clarifies the different views that believers and non believers have. I respect the views that nonbelievers have. I went through the ‘dark night of the soul’ for a long time.

Regards,
MG

[tagriffy]

There is one argument which I see as having a bit of weight. There were word studies seeing changes in language fitting changes in different ancient authors presented in the book. It has been some time since any further information about this has come to my attention. There has been different studies not all seeing the same thing. I remember Uncle Dale presenting study which showed variation but not fitting ancient authors very well. I suspect language could vary depending upon sources used for paraphrase as well as other contributing influences.

This should interest you then. If the author is correct, then splitting the Book of Mormon into just three "voices" can account for a number of wordprint studies, pro and con. Getting the effect of different wordprints isn't all that difficult after all.

[honorentheos]

What’s the alternative according to secular humanists/agnostics/atheists?

Integrity.

[MG 2.0]

What’s the alternative according to secular humanists/agnostics/atheists?

Integrity.

I think a person can be a disciple of Jesus Christ and obey His commandments and rely on His atonement with a full sense of integrity.

I think that what you and other secular folks lack is the ability to give hope and meaning in regards not only to this life but the hereafter.

As I said in my last post, all you can offer people is death and extinction.

That only goes so far in the minds of most people and then it falls flat.

Secularists do not hold/command the market on integrity. You need to offer more.

Regards,
MG