Posted by:
ificouldhietokolob
(
)
Date: August 10, 2015 03:17PM
In the other "30 evidences of the Book of Mormon" thread, I pointed out that the "30 evidences" are irrelevant, because using them is an argument from personal incredulity --a fallacy. But what the heck, I had time this morning, so I decided to address the "30 evidences" (even though there are actually 33 of them).
1.Be between twenty-three and twenty-four years of age.
What does the age of the author have to do with the authenticity of the book? Nothing, actually. Young people are just as capable of making things up as older people.
2.The author cannot be a college graduate. In fact, can have only three years of formal schooling.
Are those without "formal schooling" any less capable of making up stories than those with "formal schooling?" No.
3.Whatever is written must be on the basis of what is known and not what is learned through research.
Does the claimant have evidence to conclusively show that Smith never did any "research?" No. In fact, how does the claimant think Smith came to know what he DID know (about, for example, the bible) -- by osmosis?
4.You must write a history of an ancient distant country, such as Tibet, covering a period from 2200 B.C. to 421 A.D.
Well, first, the BOM isn't a history of an "ancient distant country." It's claimed to be a history of the country in which Joseph Smith lived. It does contain some claims about "ancient distant countries," but the vast bulk of it is claimed to have happened in the region where Smith lived.
5.The book must written with 102 chapters, twenty-five of them about wars, ten about history, twenty-one about prophecy, thirty-two about doctrines, five about missionaries, and nine about the mission of Christ.
First, when written, the book had no "chapters." The division of it into chapters (and verses) came long after it was written. At any rate, is any book not exactly structured like the BoM's later chapter divisions "false?" No.
6.The book must include the history of two distinct and separate nations, along with histories of different contemporary nations or groups of people.
Again, is any book that isn't exactly structured like the BoM "false?" No. And that should be "claimed history," not "history."
7.This writing must describe the religious, economic, social, and political cultures and institutions of these two nations.
OK. Whatever.
8.You must weave into your history the religion of Jesus Christ and the pattern for Christian living.
By copying wholsesale from the bible, a book that already claims to give the "religion of Jesus Christ" and the pattern for Christian living, like the BoM does? Sure, no problem -- but that doesn't indicate "truth," it only indicates the author is capable of copying from other sources.
9.This record covering a period of over twenty-six hundred years, must be finished in approximately eighty days.
The "eighty days" doesn't even match what Smith claimed. So this one is false on its face. At any rate, Smith *claimed* to have had the plates for YEARS, and *claimed* to have produced most of it in a short time. Claims are not, however, evidence. They're claims for which evidence is required before acceptance.
10.When finished, no changes in the text are allowed. The first edition must stand forever (this does not include grammatical errors, etc).
First, why exclude "grammatical errors, etc.?" According to LDS sources, Smith would read English text off the seer stone in a hat, have a scribe copy it down and read it back, and the English text would only go away when what was written by the scribe was "correct." So "grammatical errors, etc." shouldn't be in the manuscripts to begin with, unless "god" doesn't know how to spell or write. Yet it's difficult to find a single sentence in the manuscripts that *don't* contain grammar or spelling errors.
Anyway, this one claims "no changes in the text are allowed." So a single change invalidates it.
In 1981, the church published new editions of the BoM where they had changed "white and delightsome" (2 Nephi 30:6) to "pure and delightsome." There's a single change, invalidating the claimed evidence.
It doesn't matter if the change was "essentially synonymous" (as the Maxwell Institute claims). It was a change in the text, invalidating this "evidence." There have actually been dozens more, mostly involving descriptions of "the gods" (Smith was essentially an orthodox trinitarian when it was written, and only deveoped his non-trinitarian ideas later; the original BoM is orthodox trinitarian, and verses showing that were changed later to conform to his new theology).
11.After pauses for sleep and food, if you are dictating to a stenographer, you must never ask to have the last paragraph or last sentence read back. You must start right where you previously stopped.
Once again, that is a *claim* that is made. Claims are not evidence. Claims need evidence to show them correct -- and other than the claim, there is no evidence to show this one correct. You can't use a claim to prove itself.
12.This history or record must be long, approximately 777 pages with over 500 words per page.
Yes, because long things are true, and short things aren't. Oh, wait, that's not the case. Never mind then.
13. One hundred eighty proper nouns will be added to the English language (William Shakespeare added thirty).
The vast majority of those "added nouns" are one or two letter changes to existing people and place names. I can add two hundred nouns to English today, in an hour or two, by doing the same thing.
14.A statement must be declared that your "smooth narrative" is not fiction, but true—yes, a sacred history.
A claim of truth does not indicate truth.
15.In fact, your narrative must fulfill the Bible prophecies; even in the exact manner in which it shall come forth, to whom given, and its purpose and accomplishments.
There are no "biblical prophecies" about the Book of Mormon "coming forth." Not one. This one is invalid on its face.
16.This book must be published to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, declaring it to be the Word of God.
It doesn't matter how many people you send a claim to, a claim doesn't indicate truth.
17.Include with the record itself this marvelous promise: "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."
What's so "marvelous" (a subjective term) about the "promise?" Why is including it a sign of "truth?" Hint: it's not.
18.Hundreds of thousands must bear record to the world for the next 178 years that they know the record to be true. Because they put the promise to the test, the truth is manifested to them by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Appeal to popularity fallacy. That lots of people believe something doesn't mean what they believe is "true" -- it only means lots of people believe something.
19.Thousands of great men, intellectual giants, and scholars, must subscribe discipleship to the record of its movement, even to the point of laying down their lives.
Appeal to popularity AND authority. Same problem as above. Doesn't indicate "truth."
20.There can be no flaw, whatever, in the entire book (except in grammar, or other errors of man in transcribing, etc.).
Again, why exclude grammar (see above)? Anyway, the claim is demonstrably false. There are numerous "flaws" in the book. Even self-contradictory ones. The claim is "no flaw, whatever" -- so even one disproves the claim. Here's one:
Were there laws against disbelief?
No, everyone was free to believe or disbelieve.
Now there was a strict law among the people of the church that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves. Alma 1:21
If a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him. Alma 30:9
Yes, it was illegal to express disbelief.
What he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death. Alma 1:15
Now when the high priest and the chief judge saw the hardness of his [Korihor's] heart, yea, when they saw that he would revile even against God, they would not make any reply to his words; but they caused that he should be bound; and they delivered him up into the hands of the officers, and sent him to the land of Zarahemla, that he might be brought before Alma, and the chief judge who was governor over all the land. Alma 30:29
There you go, one self-contradictory flaw, making the claim invalid.
21.The descriptions of the cultures in these civilizations, of which are written, are not yet known when you publish your manuscript.
They're still not known. Because there is no evidence the cultures or civilizations existed.
22.Absurd, impossible, or contradictory statements cannot be made.
Then this claim is invalid. See #20 above.
23.Even so, many of the facts, ideas, and statements given as true in your record must be entirely inconsistent with, even the direct opposite of, the prevailing belief of the world. Yet very little is even claimed to be known about these civilizations and their thousands of years of history.
First, "prevailing belief" isn't knowledge, so why does it matter? Second, there were things known about ancient civilizations in America, and the BoM certainly went against most of them. Third, one "prevailing belief" at the time was that American Indians were a "lost tribe of Israel," and the book goes along *exactly* with that prevailing belief.
24. The ablest scholars and experts are to be invited to examine the text with care. You must strive diligently to see that your book gets into the hands of all those most eager to prove it a forgery and who are most competent to expose any flaws in it.
Name one "ablest scholar and expert" who examined it and believes it?
The second part is a fallacy of shifting the burden of proof; you don't have to "prove it a forgery" or it's true, it's not true unless evidence shows it is. And numerous flaws have been exposed.
25.After 178 years of extensive analysis, no claim or fact in the book is disproved, but all are vindicated. Other theories and ideas as to its origin rise and fall, leaving your claims as the only possible ones.
False on its face. Steel, horses, chariots, wheat, barley, elephants -- all "disproved." None "vindicated." None of the rest of the claimed "history" is "vindicated" by any evidence. And again, trying to shift the burden of proof; it's not true unless you can prove it false, it's false unless you can prove it true, and it hasn't been proven true.
26.Thorough investigation, scientific evidence, and archaeological discoveries for the next 178 years must verify your claims and prove even the minutest details of your history to be perfectly true.
This one is just so ridiculous that I can't believe it was put in there. No evidence anywhere verifies the book's claims. None. Zero, zip, nada. All evidence we do have of ancient American cultures shows the BoM stories false.
27.Internal and external prophecies must be confirmed and fulfilled in the next 178 years.
None are "confirmed and fullfilled." Of course, the mark of a good "prophecy" is that it must be vague, give no actual dates, and "prophesy" something that happens without any divine intervention...then you can "interpret" almost anything to "fulfill" it.
28.Three honest, accredit able witnesses must testify to the whole world that an angel from heaven appeared to them and showed them the ancient records from which it is claimed that your record was translated.
Even if the witnesses were being absolutely honest (and there's no evidence they were), their statements do not and cannot establish the "truth" of the BoM. They did no metal testing, so they can't "testify" the plates were gold. They knew nothing of ancient languages, so they can't verify any writing on the plates was "Reformed Egyptian" or any ancient language or even a language at all. Since they couldn't read anything on the plates, they can't even confirm that the English BoM says what was on the plates. The "witness" statements have no value whatsoever in showing the BoM "true."
29.You must hear out of heaven the voice of the Redeemer declaring to you and those three witnesses that your record is true, and that it is their responsibility to bear testimony of it—and that they do.
*Claim* to hear such a voice. Claims are not evidence. See above.
30.Eight other witnesses must testify to the world that they saw the ancient records in broad daylight, and that they handled them and felt the engravings thereon.
See #28; even if true (and there's no reason to think it is), their "testimony" does not establish any truth claim about the BoM.
31.The first three and the second eight witnesses must bear their testimony, not for profit or gain, but under great personal sacrifice and severe persecution, even to their deaths.
That someone believes something does not indicate what they believe is "true." So this has no value whatsoever.
32.A friend must be willing to finance your book with the understanding that he or the author will never receive any monetary remuneration from it. This person must mortgage his farm to have it printed. You must sell the book at cost or less.
People give money to stupid things all the time, so irrelevant. And why leave out that Smith tried to raise money for himself and his believers by selling the copyright in Canada? Of course, it failed, even though it was a "revelation" to go do so -- because nobody was dumb enough to pay for it.
33.Finally, after suffering persecution and revilement for twenty-four years in the process of producing and defending this book, the author must give, willingly, of his own life for the testimony that the record is of God.
Dying for something only means you died for something -- it doesn't mean what you died for is "true." At any rate, Smith didn't willingly give his life, he fought for it and lost. He shot some of the attackers, and tried to escape. So the claim is false on its face.