So the last few posts and a number of other comments made during the thread seem to have a common thread (pun intended). That is, that the peripheral issues of Book of Mormon historicity, anachronisms, and such, Trump the precursor event(s) of how the words got onto the pages of the Book of Mormon.
I’m (no surprise, I guess) still of the opinion that it is highly unlikely that Joseph cobbled together this rather complex book…for reasons described throughout the thread. I think this is the primary thing we need to look at. We don’t have the plates and we didn’t see the angel but we do have a pretty good idea of the genius it would have taken for Joseph, at the time/place/age we find him during the translation, to have committed a fraud which was beyond his abilities.
I suppose we could have concluded this way back on the first few pages. As it is we’ve probably (may have?) set a new record for the number of replies in a thread to get here.
At least in recent memory....
You have a short memory. This isn't the first time by a long shot that you've incorrectly summarized the topics, incorrectly stated numerous facts to come up with your opinion, and incorrectly asserted what "we" know.
All in all, a pretty average amount, for you, of disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty on your part.
So the last few posts and a number of other comments made during the thread seem to have a common thread (pun intended). That is, that the peripheral issues of Book of Mormon historicity, anachronisms, and such, Trump the precursor event(s) of how the words got onto the pages of the Book of Mormon.
I’m (no surprise, I guess) still of the opinion that it is highly unlikely that Joseph cobbled together this rather complex book…for reasons described throughout the thread. I think this is the primary thing we need to look at. We don’t have the plates and we didn’t see the angel but we do have a pretty good idea of the genius it would have taken for Joseph, at the time/place/age we find him during the translation, to have committed a fraud which was beyond his abilities.
I suppose we could have concluded this way back on the first few pages. As it is we’ve probably (may have?) set a new record for the number of replies in a thread to get here.
At least in recent memory....
You have a short memory. This isn't the first time by a long shot that you've incorrectly summarized the topics, incorrectly stated numerous facts to come up with your opinion, and incorrectly asserted what "we" know.
All in all, a pretty average amount, for you, of disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty on your part.
We don’t have the plates and we didn’t see the angel but we do have a pretty good idea of the genius it would have taken for Joseph, at the time/place/age we find him during the translation, to have committed a fraud which was beyond his abilities.
He got everything about the ancient Americas wrong while inserting blatant 19th c. racism and American restorationist Christianity. It's obviously a fraud. I agree, it was beyond his ability to produce on his own, but that's a secondary point.
I think your pointing out how the partnership with the school teacher Oliver Cowdrey changed the pace of production puts the secondary point to bed. The Church acknowledging that the plates weren't used in the production process for the Book of Mormon makes them a secondary item. So the only primary item is the book itself, the only tangible and objective piece of evidence, which is as you say, an obvious fraud.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
We don’t have the plates and we didn’t see the angel but we do have a pretty good idea of the genius it would have taken for Joseph, at the time/place/age we find him during the translation, to have committed a fraud which was beyond his abilities.
He got everything about the ancient Americas wrong while inserting blatant 19th c. racism and American restorationist Christianity. It's obviously a fraud. I agree, it was beyond his ability to produce on his own, but that's a secondary point.
He also plagiarised the KJV of the Bible. That alone tells you it's not the genuine article. It's also why apologists had to invent the idea of a "Ghost Committee" who pre-translated the plates in the spirit world using KJV language (which still doesn't explain the copied errors and italics used), before God then projected that translation onto the treasure seeking rock Joseph already had and used (unsuccessfully) for treasure seeking. Why would God need a Ghost Committee to translate plates for Him?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The story would’ve been more compelling had Joseph Smith read Jason and the Argonauts. Needs a little more action.
- Doc
I dunno, those war chapters! Those Gadianton robbers!
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
He also plagiarised the KJV of the Bible. That alone tells you it's not the genuine article. It's also why apologists had to invent the idea of a "Ghost Committee" who pre-translated the plates in the spirit world using KJV language (which still doesn't explain the copied errors and italics used), before God then projected that translation onto the treasure seeking rock Joseph already had and used (unsuccessfully) for treasure seeking. Why would God need a Ghost Committee to translate plates for Him?
Yes, the fact that chunks of lightly reworked KJV Isaiah are stuffed in there is a pretty clear indication that the book is not ancient.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Isn't "beyond his abilities" begging the question?
It may be a bit more convoluted than that.
Here is a recent article published by Brian Hales (yes, I have read it) in which towards the end he says:
…the primary focus of this paper is to demonstrate the problem with secularist theories that portray Joseph Smith as intellectually capable of producing the Book of Mormon using his 1829 cognitive abilities.
There are many witnesses during Joseph’s time that verify that he did not have the ability to write the Book of Mormon during the 1929 time period.
I suggest that this essay be read and taken seriously. Brian is generally accepted as an honest and intelligent researcher of Mormon history and his words and research should not be taken with a grain of salt.
If Joseph didn’t write the Book of Mormon the question still remains…how did he do it?
It is at that juncture that we might look at the traditional narrative as being worthy of consideration.
But I’ve already said this a number of times in this thread…
He also plagiarised the KJV of the Bible. That alone tells you it's not the genuine article. It's also why apologists had to invent the idea of a "Ghost Committee" who pre-translated the plates in the spirit world using KJV language (which still doesn't explain the copied errors and italics used), before God then projected that translation onto the treasure seeking rock Joseph already had and used (unsuccessfully) for treasure seeking. Why would God need a Ghost Committee to translate plates for Him?
Yes, the fact that chunks of lightly reworked KJV Isaiah are stuffed in there is a pretty clear indication that the book is not ancient.
Royal Skousen, a professor of linguistics and religion at Brigham Young University, has written extensively about the Book of Mormon and its relationship to the Bible. In his book Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: A Linguistic and Historical Approach, Skousen argues that the Book of Mormon authors were familiar with the Book of Isaiah and that they intentionally quoted and paraphrased Isaiah's prophecies.
Skousen provides several pieces of evidence to support his claim. First, he notes that the Book of Mormon authors often use the same words and phrases as Isaiah. For example, the Book of Mormon uses the phrase "the Lamb of God" to refer to Jesus Christ, just as Isaiah does. Second, Skousen points out that the Book of Mormon authors often follow the same literary structure as Isaiah. For example, the Book of Mormon and Isaiah both use a chiastic structure, which is a type of literary pattern that involves repeating words and phrases in reverse order.
Skousen's work has been influential among Mormon scholars, and many now accept his view that the Book of Mormon authors were familiar with the Book of Isaiah and that they intentionally quoted and paraphrased Isaiah's prophecies.
In addition to his linguistic analysis, Skousen also provides a historical overview of the Book of Mormon's use of Isaiah. He argues that the Book of Mormon authors were likely familiar with the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament that was widely used in the ancient world. Skousen also suggests that the Book of Mormon authors may have been influenced by Jewish apocalyptic literature, which also made use of Isaiah's prophecies.
Why would God need a Ghost Committee to translate plates for Him?
The question that should be asked beforehand is how would Joseph Smith have been able to write the Book of Mormon in 1829 (see link in recent post). Your question then becomes somewhat peripheral if not irrelevant.
The default would then be “by the gift and power of God” which can range the gamut of possibilities.
