It seems as though this is an unsettled question along with others.
But the fact remains, however one chooses to skirt around it, that it would have been very unlikely for Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon on his own.
Marcus and I raised red flags on Hales' essay, which notably you didn't really address. Further research research would probably only uncover more cheating on Hales' part. So the alleged unlikelihood of Smith's authorship doesn't rise to the level of verified fact.
Meanwhile, there is still the elephant that is not in the room: the is not one bit of credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples ever existed. Without that, the weight of probability falls on the side of Joseph's authorship, no matter how unlikely you think he could have done it.
I would not expect that there would be incontrovertible evidence.
Meanwhile, there is still the elephant that is not in the room: the is not one bit of credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples ever existed. Without that, the weight of probability falls on the side of Joseph's authorship, no matter how unlikely you think he could have done it.
Meanwhile, there is still the elephant that is not in the room: the is not one bit of credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples ever existed. Without that, the weight of probability falls on the side of Joseph's authorship, no matter how unlikely you think he could have done it.
I would not expect that there would be incontrovertible evidence.
It’s not that there is no evidence that’s incontrovertible. It’s that there is no evidence.
There are areas in which there is less evidence than others. Believers would disagree with you in regards to the validity of evidence found along the spectrum of available evidence. We might determine that some things have a greater degree of evidentiary value than what you might concurrently view as being lessor or even non existent degree of value.
Meanwhile, there is still the elephant that is not in the room: the is not one bit of credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples ever existed. Without that, the weight of probability falls on the side of Joseph's authorship, no matter how unlikely you think he could have done it.
I would not expect that there would be incontrovertible evidence.
It’s not that there is no evidence that’s incontrovertible. It’s that there is no evidence.
Agreed. That's why efforts to (incorrectly) call things evidence of the Book of Mormon historicity are only published by LDS church based sources, and not even all of those. Academic, unbiased, and properly peer-reviewed venues have rules about what constitutes evidence, and Mormon apologetic efforts are notorious in their misuse of the term.
Apparently, to these stupid Mormon yokels, just saying stuff is evidence because courts allow that kind of thing, or something.
- Doc
Answer me this. Why is it a one way street? Believers are yokels and you’re not? Is there such a thing as an atheist yokel? A secular yokel? An ex Mormon yokel?
Apparently, to these stupid Mormon yokels, just saying stuff is evidence because courts allow that kind of thing, or something.
- Doc
Answer me this. Why is it a one way street? Believers are yokels and you’re not? Is there such a thing as an atheist yokel? A secular yokel? An ex Mormon yokel?
Would you be able to detect one if there was?
Would you be able to detect that within yourself?
Regards,
MG
You’re a stupid damned Mormon yokel because that’s literally what you are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Answer me this. Why is it a one way street? Believers are yokels and you’re not? Is there such a thing as an atheist yokel? A secular yokel? An ex Mormon yokel?
Would you be able to detect one if there was?
Would you be able to detect that within yourself?
Regards,
MG
You’re a stupid damned Mormon yokel because that’s literally what you are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Doc
You’re shrugging off and avoiding answering my questions.
I question whether or not you are actually capable of detecting if you are a yokel. It’s even possible that you are a damned yokel.
