Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!andrew
From: andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: case against the Book of Mormon
Message-ID: <40@orca.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Aug-83 16:01:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: orca.40
Posted: Tue Aug  9 16:01:09 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Aug-83 04:56:02 EDT
References: dadla-b.507
Lines: 61

OK, I'll jump in with both feet (those who know me would add, "in my
mouth").  I've been watching various Mormon debates for several years
now, and so present some discussion of dadla-b!russ's most recent
questions.

	"1. What was the motive for the hoax that you claim?  You claim
	that Joseph was helped by others.  Who?  And why didn't they
	expose the hoax after they left the church?"

If indeed it was a hoax, it was a most *profitable* hoax.  Those who
joined in propagating the hoax stood to gain by staying with it despite
any diminishment of belief.  Becoming an elder statemsman in a large
church can be a very pleasant experience, as many Scientologists can
attest.

	"2. How do you explain the Book of Mormon itself?  Why would 11
	other witnesses testify to its truthfulness and never deny that
	testimony even though some of them left the church?"

Those who stayed with the church might testify to its truthfulness even
in the absence of conviction, again to "propagate the hoax".  It is not
at all true that those who left the church did not deny their testimony.
I think the fact that major portions of the Book appear to have been
plagiarized from popular novels of that era speaks for itself.

	"3. How could Joseph have correctly described a journey south
	from Jerusalem with information that was not known to him at
	the time?  How could he tell about the travels along an ancient
	trade route that was unknown in 1830?"

This looks to me like a good case of selective proof, in which you pick
out one element of the Book which was later proved correct and hold it
up as example.  Those elements which did not pan out become
"metaphors".

	"4. Admittedly Joseph could dream up some name to put in the
	Book of Mormon, but why should they match Old World name
	patterns?  Names like Lehi and Alma have only recently been
	found to be valid names.

	5. Why should he include a style of writing that is not
	standard English but fits very well as Hebrew idioms as the
	origin of the Book of Mormon would require?"

Both the naming convention and the writing style can be explained as
inspired by the King James Bible.

	"6. And I haven't even come to the strongest proofs of the Book
	of Mormon yet.  Things like Chiasmus (a unique writing style),
	Stylemetry ( a computer author analysis technique), and many
	others; like yearly king festivals, patterns of battle, cave of
	Lehi, and other recent discoveries."

Stylistic investigation is not universally accepted.  (More bluntly,
many people believe it to be so much swamp water, right up there with
dousing and astrology.)  Dunno about the other items.

Flame away, it's cold in here!

  -- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!teklabs!tekecs!andrew)  [UUCP]
                       (andrew.tektronix@rand-relay)   [ARPA]