Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

diogenes - have you read the wordprinting study done by non-Mormons that I linked to yet? It shows that Joseph Smith didn't author the Book of Mormon. And that's objective scientific evidence. Have you read the article? Why isn't anyone commenting on the scientific evidence I actually bring to the table? You all only comment on everything else. It's weird. Also, if something seems weird or different, you reject it? Don't you think that hearing that someone says your body and everything in the universe is made up of atoms, which are mostly empty space with a few electrons, protons, etc. which are made up of even smaller particles sounded weird before people to used to hearing it? Not being used to something isn't a good reason to reject it. I mean nobody had ever seen these "atoms" before either. In my opinion, the Book of Mormon is easier to read than the King James Bible, but perhaps that was what he was used to - I don't know. Does it really matter?
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn't matter to me, but I'm sure it is not for the same reasons it may not matter to you..

Atomic theory is well grounded in scientific experimentation.
Angels and the throne of God are not..
 
diogenes - OK, so if I put subjective evidence or anecdotal physical evidence out there, I get tons of conversation about how useless that is and how I need to produce objective scientific reproducible evidence - I get that - it makes sense.

Then I post a wordprinting study that is reproducible, physical, objective, and scientific and nobody wants to talk about it or consider it. You then ignore it completely even though it disproves the theory you just proposed about Joseph Smith authoring the Book of Mormon. That's strange to me.

You missed my point about atoms. Before atoms were common knowledge and scientifically proven, if someone came to you and told you about it, wouldn't it sound weird or even absurd since it doesn't match anything you've ever heard of before? Would you dismiss it and walk away from it because it sounded weird? You're trying to say that if something sounds different or weird from what you're used to or your world view then it doesn't deserve consideration. That doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
rcronk said:
diogenes - have you read the wordprinting study done by non-Mormons that I linked to yet? It shows that Joseph Smith didn't author the Book of Mormon. And that's objective scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

I haven't read that. Must have missed the link somewhere. However it hardly seems strange since even I know that he plagiarized all kinds of religious writings, in particular the Bible, and repeated the same phrases hundreds of times. We also know he had cohorts. No doubt they added some phrases of their own, just for clarification of course. We know from the same types of analysis that there were many authors of the bible. So?
 
rcronk said:
Don't you think that hearing that someone says your body and everything in the universe is made up of atoms, which are mostly empty space with a few electrons, protons, etc. which are made up of even smaller particles sounded weird before people to used to hearing it? Not being used to something isn't a good reason to reject it. I mean nobody had ever seen these "atoms" before either. In my opinion, the Book of Mormon is easier to read than the King James Bible, but perhaps that was what he was used to - I don't know. Does it really matter?
Click to expand...

The word atom comes from Greek. The concept was thought of (written of) hundreds of years before Jesus, probably much more. The concepts of what things are made of, when anything can obviously be reduced to smaller pieces than the eye can see is hardly strange. They postulated that there were indivisible smallest units. Atoms.

Now we know it still seems to be turtles a long way down, but there is nothing new about the idea, and most importantly, what we say we know, is provable and repeatable.
 
Here's the link again for your convenience: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_wordprint_studies

diogenes was asserting that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon and this study shows that assertion (and your cohort assertion) to be incorrect. When a few chapters of Isaiah is quoted, it is cited as being a quote from Isaiah right in the Book of Mormon. And saying "And it came to pass" several times doesn't mean anything either. I can't believe you guys are so rigorous on so many other things but not when it comes to studying a religion and making assertions about it.
 
Last edited:
The point is: if an idea is new and strange sounding, do we dismiss it based on its apparent weirdness or not? Does weird = not true?
 
Last edited:
rcronk said:
Here's the link again for your convenience: http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_wordprint_studies

diogenes was asserting that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon and this study shows that assertion (and your cohort assertion) to be incorrect. When a few chapters of Isaiah is quoted, it is cited as being a quote from Isaiah right in the Book of Mormon. And saying "And it came to pass" several times doesn't mean anything either. I can't believe you guys are so rigorous on so many other things but not when it comes to studying a religion and making assertions about it.
Click to expand...

You are sending us to yet another LDS approved (controlled) site. How about something with less bias, if you want to be scientific?

The "grand" conclusion in this word study is as follows:

Conclusion

As John Hilton put the matter, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Joseph, Oliver, or Solomon Spaulding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.[9] The Book of Mormon also contains work written by more than one author. Critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon's production must therefore identify multiple authors for the text, and then explain how Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own.


That says no more than I said above, just with more verbiage. We know how he "acquired" it, by reading and borrowed bits from here and there, and no doubt adding his own on occasion. The borrowed bits are well documented copies of the bible, and I think even the Koran. Some are word for word, coincidentally in English word for word. No doubt God wrote the tablets in an unknown script so that it would miraculously become translated into English word for word, as the original bible had become translated hundreds of years earlier from Greek/Hebrew (?) into English.



As to how he passed it off as his own. Surely we all know that?



Occam, where art thou?
 
rcronk said:
diogenes - OK, so if I put subjective evidence or anecdotal physical evidence out there, I get tons of conversation about how useless that is and how I need to produce objective scientific reproducible evidence - I get that - it makes sense.

Then I post a wordprinting study that is reproducible, physical, objective, and scientific and nobody wants to talk about it or consider it. You then ignore it completely even though it disproves the theory you just proposed about Joseph Smith authoring the Book of Mormon. That's strange to me.

You missed my point about atoms. Before atoms were common knowledge and scientifically proven, if someone came to you and told you about it, wouldn't it sound weird or even absurd since it doesn't match anything you've ever heard of before? Would you dismiss it and walk away from it because it sounded weird? You're trying to say that if something sounds different or weird from what you're used to or your world view then it doesn't deserve consideration. That doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Why would it matter who didn't write the book of Mormon--aren't we trying to scientifically show that the invisible creator of the universe did-- or some magical being who can't write things down for himself? I didn't read your description because it's irrelevant. It's like fighting over who is speaking in tongues via a holy spirit or who is speaking in tongues via Satan-- I find no evidence to conclude that either entity exists. Scientific evidence telling me that it couldn't be X-- is a long way from telling me it's "god (or other invisible, immeasurable, non-scientific being), zeus, Xenu, or little green men from outer space.) I don't care who wrote it. I care about much more basic things-- why would anyone think it is a way to KNOW anything?--especially unknowable, unprovable, invisible, anythings.

Also, I just can't believe you were ever an atheist. What sort of actual atheist would believe that Satan makes people speak in tongues? What sort of atheist believes you can get "truth" from invisible, immeasurable entities via invisible immeasurable untestable means--indistinguishable from the known ways people are deceived? (And Satan is NOT a KNOWN way people are deceived.) You are starting at the top of the evidence chain... rather than the bottom and you are arguing irrelevant things like who wrote (or plagiarized) the book of Mormon-- we would like to know a lot more things before that. Is there a god? Why would he operate in such a bizarre manner. Why was he so off in regards to genetic evidence? Why would he make a satan? Why would a satan make people "speak in tongues"? Why would a god who knew your capacities for belief, trust, and the stories you'd be stumbling across judge you on the very things he's supposed to be entirely in control of and know about. Why are revelations of all "prophets" so very "profitable" for the prophets in regards to gaining powers, favors, allegiance, etc.? Why would anyone need someone to trust them on faith while being "wary" of "false prophets" when they could have measurable facts for the job.
God would have the power to make convincing evidence if he existed--it seems cruel that he has not... just lots of subjective "proof" that relies on a heep load of speculation, beliefs, feelings, myths, and conjecture.

I would say that any story that involves floating gold plates that no longer exist to be examined is a tale not worth taking seriously. I think any magic sky fairy worthy of praise ought to be a little less cryptic. I think any father would be abusive to demand that his kids worship him and have blind faith in all he says--especially when they can't verify he said it AND he's invisible and immeasurable and indistinguishable from mythological dudes.

Stories of gold plates that defied physics and floated away like helium balloons might have worked for the people in the 1800s-- and in the uneducated and the trusting and the people indoctrinated since birth (especially those who are promised their own planet and multiple sex partners in the afterlife for believing)-- but I can't imagine it working on any educated person who has come to understand that faith has never been shown to be a means of actual knowledge-- though many people believe it is. It's just too silly-- too much like Scientology and Greek Myths and those who speak in tongues.

And the underlying premise that you have accepted whole heartedly is one you have not proven-- the notion that you can know actual objective truths via subjective experiences.

And god...
and Satan...
and gold plates...
and Kolob...
and the mark of cain...
and bodily resurrection...
and souls...
and a divine Jesus who was killed in some bizarre atonement premeditated murder.

and a holy spirit
and angels
and saints
and Indians descending from Jews
and horse before there were horses in the new world
and god giving you knowledge via some subjective mechanism that you thin is objective

etc.

Atoms have amassing evidence...atomic theory is useful, valid, replicable, growing-- god isn't. Faith isn't. Atoms exist whether you believe in them or not. God doesn't appear to. Atoms have measurable testable qualities. God doesn't. Atoms were discovered via slow and steady accumulation and testing of data--no divine source or guru played a part. All of science was discovered and added to and tested and examined and prodded by mortals... faith wasn't necessary... knowledge was useful and begat more knowledge and grew. Don't abuse scientific facts and discovery by pretending it has anything similar to do with faith... religionists like to tangle the two together, but scientists don't find the two similar at all.

Support the basic claims before trying to prove to us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin by using science and math to calculate imagined angel size and average pinhead size. You don't even understand what a statement of fact is much less what constitutes objective evidence for that claim. You have to prove god before you prove that he authored a text.

The fact that frosty the snowman would have melted on a train doesn't make the story true just because the story involves a snowman melting on a train. See? I keep thinking you get it. And I know you would if it was some other religion claiming some other method for proving themselves true-- but you are blind when it comes to your faith.
 
rcronk said:
diogenes - OK, so if I put subjective evidence or anecdotal physical evidence out there, I get tons of conversation about how useless that is and how I need to produce objective scientific reproducible evidence - I get that - it makes sense.
Then I post a wordprinting study that is reproducible, physical, objective, and scientific and nobody wants to talk about it or consider it. You then ignore it completely even though it disproves the theory you just proposed about Joseph Smith authoring the Book of Mormon. That's strange to me.
Click to expand...
O.K. Joseph Smith didn't write it . God is not my second choice. ( I'll check out your link to see if it proves anything. We seem to disagree about what proof is . )

You missed my point about atoms. Before atoms were common knowledge and scientifically proven, if someone came to you and told you about it, wouldn't it sound weird or even absurd since it doesn't match anything you've ever heard of before? Would you dismiss it and walk away from it because it sounded weird? You're trying to say that if something sounds different or weird from what you're used to or your world view then it doesn't deserve consideration. That doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
You are assuming much about what I have and haven't considered .

( hint: I was not born an atheist . )
 
Last edited:
His link is Mormon wiki site that makes this goofy conclusion (not made by the authors of the study btw):

Critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon's production must therefore identify multiple authors for the text, and then explain how Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own.

Actually critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon may do so without worry since there is no evidence of invisible entities or angels or scribes or plates that defy gravity and "disappear" or Kolob or Laminites or the notion that prayers can bring truth or that invisible beings infuse people who pray and read with "special knowingness" via burning bosoms. Critics would more cleverly conclude he plagiarized from multiple sources and added dashes of his own imagination.

But hey, if they want to believe that this study means that Joseph Smith was an honest dude or that his magical account is THE TRUTH... they are free. It takes the flimsiest of evidence to prop up delusions that make you feel special and there is no evidence that is enough to get a person to conclude that their "inner knowingness" and "burning bosom" can just be plain wrong. Everybody thinks they can't be fooled-- and the ones who are most certain are the easiest to fool it seems.

Everyone is a "truther" when it comes to their woo, eh? Who needs facts when you have faith?
 
Last edited:
What you have to understand rcronk is that for most people, whether religious or not, your kind of absolute certainty is very very scary.

Most of the worst atrocities in history have been committed by people who were absolutely certain they were doing the right thing, many of them by people who were absolutely certain they were doing what God wanted them to do. Have you ever seen Jacob Brownowski's seminal series The Ascent of Man? In one episode titled Knowledge or Certainty (note the 'or') he contrasted the gradual realisation of scientists that there was a limit to scientific knowledge, which culminated in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, with the parallel rise of Hitler and what he called the Principle of Monstrous Certainty. He ends the programme, as he must, at Auscwitz, where he stands by the pool and delivers one of the most moving extempore speeches in TV history:

Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods [...] In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".
Click to expand...

That is all you are being asked to do. Think it possible you may be mistaken. Accept that there are some questions to which we cannot know the answers in this life, about which we can only ever say "I believe", never "I know". We may or may not find out the answers when we die, but we cannot find them out before.

Doubt is healthy. Doubt is honest. Doubt is human. People who are absolutely certain they have the definitive answers to the unanswerable questions are creepy and scary and potentially dangerous.

Fortunately the teachings of the LDS aren't dangerous, just silly, but I do wonder what its True Believers might be capable of if their leader suddenly started receiving rather different revelations and instructions from God.
 
Last edited:
I'm baaack.....

Wow, too much for me to catch up on. I'll try and spot respond to things. I'm really busy right now so I might have to stay away for days at a time. That's ok, some are more articulate than me anyway.... some more than others. ;)
 
Scot Ferre said:
I disagree with your comparison - but nevertheless!!! I LOVE THAT SCENE!!! It's one of the funniest things in the movies! :D
Click to expand...
"I disagree" isn't an argument. Why do you disagree? How does the comparison fail?

I think the comparison very apt and it follows your logic. You will have to do better than that. It is a good scene though.
 
Scot Ferre said:
Because I actually care about people. Is that so hard to believe?
Click to expand...
It's hard to believe when you patronize. If I went around telling people that I was sorry they were stupid it would be hard to justify such a statement based on the fact that I cared for them.

When you say that you are sorry that "insert reason here"... then you are patronizing and presumptious.

I care about people and I think you are wasting your time with Mormonism. That said, I wouldn't be so presumptious as to tell you that I was sad for you.

Get it?
 
Scot Ferre said:
I can only assume that it means I'd be morally perfect in every good way.
Click to expand...
Would it mean that you could then kill people?

Remember, I have said that God knows every fact of every situation, and therefore qualified to do what is necessary, even killing people if needs be.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. Either murdering innocent children is immoral or it is not. Having knowledge can't excuse wholesale slaughter. What is the theory that there exists some nugget of wisdom that excuses killing innocent people?

You are arguing pro hoc. You first decide that (A) god is real and (b) god is just and therefore there must be a reason for god to kill people.

No, first decide what is immoral what isn't immoral then decide.

Who knows if babies were actually killed? Perhaps they were all over the age of eight? We have no way of knowing either way.
Click to expand...
It's hard for me to take this seriously. It sounds like the kind of argument Holocaust deniers make. What reason are we supposed to believe that there were no babies? Oh, wait, you first decide that god exists and is just then you have to find a way out.

It doesn't work.

Cynical, are you? I have subjective experiences that prove to me that he is otherwise of what you are thinking.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, subjective, I have subjective experiences that prove that the magicians in Vegas saw women in half every Friday.

BTW, you over use smilies or use them in ways that don't really contribute anything to your thoughts.
 
rcronk said:
At this point, I think we can all wait for RandFan to bring up the next item of interest, if he's still willing to continue.
Click to expand...
I'm more than willing to continue. I did bring up the next item of interest. It was on the 25th. I think you missed it. See post 10 of the thread.

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom