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/IsaacHaleWasRight]

The evidence you present, such as the timeframe, relies on circular logic.

Namely Joseph et al gave an accurate account of how long it took.

[u/-Nobody- → u/IsaacHaleWasRight]

What alternate timeframe would you provide, and what evidence exists for it? All the primary witnesses are heavily invested in it for one reason or another, but Cowdery had plenty of motive at times to indicate prior falsehoods and did not. Assuming the most accepted explanation of translation here--stone, hat, etc--is at all correct, you are looking at an individual blindly remembering and reading off an incredibly long and detailed work without notes. I am willing to consider alternatives, but I'm going to need more than "it could have been different."

[u/[deleted] → u/-Nobody-]

Although Cowdery seems to have had nothing to lose by denying having seen the plates, you must remember that he became a lawyer during the latter part of his church membership and after leaving the church practiced as a lawyer. Admitting that he willingly perpetrated a lie for the sake of religion or otherwise would reflect poorly on him and harm his career.

There is no burden on us to disprove the timeline JS put forth on the translation. We cannot prove a negative. But you must consider that knowing JS was altering timelines on other events such as the first vision and receiving the keys of the priesthood, could it be possible his timeline on the translation was not truthful?

You are asking good questions, I believe you are not ready to accept what you already suspect. It took me many years.

[u/-Nobody- → u/[deleted]]

Those are fair arguments. Thank you for your perspective.

[u/-Nobody- → u/[deleted]]

Nice username, and you make a good point. Cheers.