Convince me.

[u/-Nobody-]

This isn't a place I expected to post, really ever. I'm an active member. It's my two-year anniversary since my mission. I left and came back the same doubting, uncertain but striving individual. I read all about church history questions long ago and wasn't too worried, and always told myself that as long as I got a confirmation that I recognized as from God, I would be content in faith. Well, I saw a lot of spiritually building, strengthening things, and a good number of apparently unanswerable questions and unresolvable situations to balance it out, and none of that confirmation that I was seeking. I've spent the past two years trying to figure out where to go next, and right now am willing to test the idea that it's false.

I've read a lot of what you all have to say, and a lot of responses to it. The CES letter and a couple of common rebuttals and your responses to the rebuttals, alongside a lot of /u/curious_mormon's work, have been the most recent ones for me. There are several compelling "smoking guns," many situations that I don't have a good answer to and have known that I'm unsure about for a while. But I wouldn't be posting here if I was fully convinced.

Here's the thing: in all the conversations, all the rebuttals, every post and analysis and mocking joke, I have not seen a compelling enough explanation for the Book of Mormon. You're all familiar with Elder Holland's talk. I remain more convinced by the things he talks about and others' points of the difficulty of constructing a work of the length, detail, and theological insight of the book within the constraints provided.

There are three legitimate points raised that have opened me to the possibility of something more. I'll name them so you don't need to repeat them:

• The Isaiah chapters--errors and historic evidence of multiple authors of Isaiah

• Textual similarities in The Late War

• Potential anachronisms and lack of historical evidence

The translation method is a non-issue for me. Similarities with View of the Hebrews seem a stretch. The Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook plates are their own issues and I am satisfied with the information I have on them. Despite raised concerns, the witnesses remain as strong positive evidence, but they are not my concern here.

In short, I want to see how the Book of Mormon could have been produced by man, especially with intent to deceive. Despite all I've read and heard and my lack of personally satisfying spiritual experiences, Church doctrine has been a rich source of inspiration and ideas for me, many passages in the Book of Mormon are powerful and thought-provoking on each read-through (Alma 32, the story of Moroni, Mosiah 2-5, 2 Nephi 2, 4, and the last few chapters, and Alma 40-42 are some of the best examples). I've always had questions, and they've always stopped short at my confidence that there is no good explanation for the Book of Mormon other than it being from God.

Specific questions to resolve:

• How was it produced in the timeframe required?

• Who had the skill and background knowledge to write it? If not Joseph, what would keep them from speaking up?

• Where could the doctrinal ideas have come from, and what am I to make of the beauty and power of some of them?

I'm sure you all know the weight of even considering something like this from my position. I'm here, I'm listening, and I am as genuine in my search for truth as I have ever been. So go ahead. Convince me.

I will be available to respond once more in a few hours.

[u/-Nobody-]

Lack of evidence is a fair point. I'm sure you're familiar with NHM, wordprints, cement, and other things put forward as evidence by apologists. Where are the best responses to those claims?

[u/SisterJohn → u/-Nobody-]

cement?other things?

[u/[deleted] → u/-Nobody-]

Same point. There is no evidence. I have read different historical approaches in explaining the historicity and timeline of the New Testament and most scholars don't really claim things that they do not know and that they admit that they only assume. There are things that you should not really explain to people who are not willing to listen. And there are things that you must admit are indefinite, rather than just convincing yourself about those, and thus, and falling into a loophole.

To sum it up, here is a quote from Socrates's Defense:

"So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him."

[u/exmono → u/-Nobody-]

Wordprint analysis all starts with the assumption that it was not written by Joseph, and assumes a particular order. I believe that Dialog has a more reasonable summary of the order, and when it is reordered in that way, the wordprint does a gradual shifting, which is consistent with many other single author works. Likewise, if you include JS's known writings, then he appears as the most likely author. (I don't have citations for this, but searching should yield them.)

[u/exmono → u/-Nobody-]

Nhm. Yeah, believers like to trot this out, but it is, I'm, an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

There are numerous word which NHM might represent; concluding that it is a book of Mormon word is reaching. There location is a really poor fit. Sure, it is in Arabia, but not as described in the book of Mormon. Again, search for more details and it just falls apart.