Dan:
Ironically, Roger, it is your position that more closely mirrors Mormon apologetics. They play on the inability of critics to prove the Book of Mormon isn’t history and try to shift the burden by proposing plausible arguments to support their assumptions. This is exactly what you are doing with Cunningham’s claim.
Dan, you can't deny that you and Glenn are bosom buddies when it comes to the Book of Mormon witness testimony. For example, when you excuse David Whitmer's contradictions by blaming them on the reporters, Glenn is right there with you.
The difference here is that the weight of the evidence is solidly against the Book of Mormon as history (even though it can't be definitively proven) whereas the weight of Glenn's inference is tenuous at best. But, again, even if it were solid, it would still not prove Cunningham's statement was inaccurate. That's just the bottom line here. I can't help it. It's not a winning argument for Glenn.
I didn’t misuse the word “Know” when I said: we know the lost MS was written in third person. We know this. What is in dispute is if this abridgement ever quoted Nephi directly and used the phrase “I, Nephi”—not once or twice, but with “frequent repetition” the same as the replacement text does. This is a speculation on your part, and you hold on to it knowing that it can be neither proved nor disproved with “certainty”.
It's speculation either way! We don't know that the 116 pages were written in third person. We can infer that they likely were, but we simply don't know that.
With this stance you have negated everything you have said in this thread.
Oh brother.
In fact, no one can say they “KNOW” anything about anything and we have wasted our time. The only way out of this extreme skepticism and nihilism is to reject infallibilism and use probabilistic arguments. You probably haven’t heard the term infallibilism, so here is a quick Wiki definition:
Quote:
Infallibilism is, in epistemology, the position that knowledge is, by definition, a true belief which cannot be rationally doubted. Other beliefs may be rationally justified, but they do not rise to the level of knowledge unless absolutely certain. Infallibilism's opposite, fallibilism, is the position that a justified true belief may be considered knowledge, even if we can rationally doubt it. Falliblism is not to be confused with skepticism, which is the belief that knowledge is unattainable for rational human beings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfallibilismThere has never been a time in this thread that anyone knew anything with the degree that you are demanding now—and you are only demanding it now because it suits your purpose. You are trying to avoid Glenn’s argument rather than dealing with it. Although a probabilistic argument isn’t ironclad, you still need to admit that it exists and is problematic for Cunningham’s “memory”.
Sheesh. First, I typically don't use the word "know" unless I'm pretty sure I know something. Of course, I'm only human, so sometimes I might use it inappropriately. But I try not to and admit it when I do. I called you on your use here, because you can't possibly actually know what you claim to know--just like you claimed to know the extent of my knowledge which is an equal absurdity. My calling you on that does not equate to a slide toward nihilism! That is ridiculous.
Second, of course I recognize that Glenn's argument exists. It would be pretty silly to deny it's existence. What I have and do deny is that Glenn's argument presents a problem for Cunningham. It does not for reasons I've given several times now. It is only "problematic for Cunningham’s 'memory'” if Nephi and Lehi and Mormon, etc. were real people. We agree they were not.
Hence, you can't claim to know something about the Lehi text, rather you can surmise something about what it likely might contain, which is what I have been stating all along. It was your inappropriate use of the word "know" that started this in the first place, and it's important, because, as I stated: "If I ignore the implication you get away with a fallacious assertion" --but not just any fallacious assertion, one that, if allowed, could support your premise. That's why it is important to point out the fallacy.
Roger, it’s not fallacious to assert that Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record would necessarily be written in third person.
It's not fallacious to assert it as likely. It is fallacious to say we know that's the way it is.
What’s fallacious is that you counter that argument by restating Cunningham’s claim (which is circular) or inventing an I'mplausible scenario that rescues Cunningham’s blunder.
Implausible? I don't think so. It's true enough that you attempted to paint it in an implausible light, but you did not succeed. You simply think going from first to third and then back to first is implausible, but Joseph Smith
admits to rewriting the material! And according to Glenn the rewrite "had to be so different that the adversaries could not challenge them." (!) And that's not even the only solution. In short, Cunningham is not in need of rescue.
Here you attempt to muddy the water by asserting that:
“There are different degrees of certainty about knowing something.”
This is a semantic game reminiscent of LDS apologetics. Play with the connotation of "knowledge" all you want. The fact remains that you don't know whether the missing 116 pages contained a repetition of the phrase "I Nephi" or "I Lehi" or some combination thereof. And even if you did, it would not prove Cunningham's statement to be inaccurate. That's the bottom line.
As I have already discussed, it is your position that is closest to Mormon apologetics. My statement is simple logic. If your insistence on certain knowledge be allowed, there is no such thing as historiography.
Dan, you are overreacting. All I am doing is pointing out
the fact that you do not know what exactly was on a few missing pages. I'm not wiping out your profession in the process. I'm just calling you on your inappropriate use of one word. You are the one making a Federal case out of it. Heck, I've even acknowledged that you are free to infer all you want and such an inference might even be correct! This talk of a slippery slope to nihilism is really something else!
But at the same time you have to acknowledge that your inference might also be wrong. That's what uncertainty means.
Of course, we don’t know with certainty what the 116 pages contained, but present knowledge supports Glenn and not you.
Well that, of course, is debatable, but unless the reality is that Glenn's speculation is so infinitely superior to mine that mine is silly by comparison (which it isn't) then the point is moot. Like I said, I have a witness and Glenn does not. You are free of course to conclude that present knowledge supports Glenn and not me, and I am free to disagree.
You need to acknowledge that and stop your silly quibbling about the word “know”.
No I don't. I'm not backing down that you misused the word. It's up to you to acknowledge that or continue to look ridiculous trying to deny it.
You have not answered any of my arguments about Cunningham’s problematic claim about the “frequent repetition of ‘I Nephi’”:
1. Mormon’s abridgement of the Book of Lehi would have been predominately written in third person. This is supported by examining the remainder of Mormon’s abridgement (i.e., Mosiah-4 Nephi), as well as Nephi’s abridgement of Lehi’s record in 1 Nephi 1-8.
I have answered. You just don't like my answers.
Mormon was not a real person. Therefore there is no such thing as "Mormon's abridgement." If there is no such thing as ""Mormon's abridgement" we can't examine it.
2. Mormon’s abridgement of the Book of Lehi might have had the phrase “I, Lehi,” but not “I, Nephi.” This is supported by the fact that Nephi’s records did not exist at the time Lehi wrote. Nephi copied his father’s record into the large plates, and abridge it in the small plates.
See above and then add this: "Nephi's records" never existed. There was never a time when "Lehi wrote." Nephi never copied anything. Nephi had no father. Therefore "his father’s record" never existed. Neither did "large plates" or "small plates."
3. Mormon’s abridgement included Nephi’s record, but this would have been predominately in third person if we take Mormon’s later abridgement as an example. Even if Mormon quoted Nephi’s record directly and used the phrase “I, Nephi,” would probably not occur with “frequent repetition” as it does in the replacement text.
Mormon's abridgment never existed, therefore it could not have "included Nephi’s record" nor would it "have been predominately in third person."
I'm not simply being a pain here, Dan. It's important to point this out because, again, you are writing exactly like an LDS apologist would write. In fact, I can hear Glenn cheering you on!
You have to understand that we can't have a rational conversation if you are going to sound like an LDS apologist. I have to confront the LDS bias before I can even make a rational point. I THINK I might be able to follow your logic if you could find a way to divorce it from Mormonism, but so far you can't. And I'm not convinced it's even possible. I think you are leaning on your understanding of the alleged inner workings of the alleged Book of Mormon plates and then f
rom that basis you make your conclusions. But that premise is flawed from the very beginning! There was no Nephi. No Mormon. No plates. It all came from Joseph Smith (according to you!)
What does exist is a 19th century fiction that claims to be an ancient work. So the claims are fraudulent from the get-go! I'm not even convinced Mormon had to be an abridger in the first attempt. The concept of Mormon abridging something could have been developed to salvage the crisis resulting from the 116 page loss.
In any event, there is nothing here to suggest that Cunningham could not have been exposed to a Spalding manuscript that contained a repetition of the phase "I Nephi." If you were to discover
Manuscript Found and find that it doesn't contain the phrase "I Nephi" you would have something. As it is, you have nothing. By contrast, I have a fellow who knew Spalding and was exposed to his manuscript who says he remembers the phrase "I Nephi." Either he's lying, or he's telling the truth. And he's supported by other liars or truth tellers.
4. Cunningham’s claim requires that Spalding’s MS was changed from first person (Nephi) to third person (Lehi/Nephi) in the 116 pages, then back to first person (Nephi).
Not it doesn't. But that is certainly one possibility.
This is not only implausible but ad hoc escapism when used as defense against the problems previously discussed. The simpler explanation is that Cunningham’s memory was incorrectly altered by his reading of the Book of Mormon.
You're asking me to believe that he sincerely thought he had been exposed to "Lehi" and "Nephi" when there is nothing like that in Spalding's extant manuscript. And that the others did the same thing--all of them sincerely wrong. And that they remembered teasing Spalding with the name "Ole came to pass" when he never even used the phrase! Even though they all claim Lehi and Nephi were
the principle heroes, you want me to believe they were sincerely mistaken about that because we find those names in the Book of Mormon but not in Spalding's extant manuscript. Etc, etc. It's too much of a stretch. I can accept that they were lying, but not sincerely mistaken.
I don't accept the premise that the Book of Mormon is reliable in it's claims about itself. You shouldn't either. I don't accept that Mormon was a real person. If Mormon was not a real person, then someone, or even a group of someones would have been writing as though they were "Mormon." These same people could/would also have been writing as though they were both Lehi and Nephi. It does not follow, then, that whoever wrote for Mormon could not also have written content for Lehi or Nephi, etc. Therefore, the only time we are bound to take what the Book of Mormon says about itself at face value is if we are going to believe that these were real people. Supposedly you and I agree that they were not. Therefore, internal claims can, and should, be taken with a grain of salt. While they may give us clues as to who was actually behind all of the alleged authors and abridgers (all of which you attribute to the fertile imagination of Joseph Smith, by the way!) they cannot be used as a strict guideline of who produced what or who would have written "I Nephi" or "I Lehi." Again, this is so basic that it amazes me that I should even have to be pointing it out. But the way you write gives every indication that you believe these were real people. How you reconcile all that with the notion that it all came from the mind of Joseph Smith is beyond me.
Roger, this is a red herring. It doesn’t matter if the writers of the Book of Mormon are real characters. What matters is that when the Book of Mormon refers back to the lost 116 pages, you can take that as reliable.
It's not a red herring and it does matter that the writers of the Book of Mormon were not real characters! In the vernacular, it matters big time! This should be obvious! Real writers would write in a certain way. Fraudsters would only attempt to write in a way that sounds genuine. But they are not bound to follow any rules. They can quote whoever they want or write for whoever they want. They can quote Nephi as saying, "I Nephi" or they can simply start writing as though Nephi just picked up his pen as we see in Omni.
Joseph Smith didn’t attempt to reproduce Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record
The whole concept of "Mormon’s abridgment of Lehi’s record" could have come about in response to the missing pages, Dan. There might not even have been an "abridgment" before that time. Or if there was, it's quite possible that what was being abridged was Spalding's account or even Rigdon's abridgment of Spalding!
because he feared the possibility of being exposed through comparing the two MSS. This means what whenever he discussed the lost MS, he knew it would stand up to examination. He also feared that Harris and Emma might remember what they had written as well.
Hence, the perfect opportunity to start thinking in terms of abridgments! The very concept could be useful if the 116 pages were to resurface.
I write about the Book of Mormon as if it were real. I don’t believe it’s necessary to constantly qualify my analysis any more than if I were critiquing any work of fiction. I’m entering the fictional world of the Nephites in the same way I enter the fictional world of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. Only a polemicist worries about constant reminders of which side of the debate each person is on and demands clear identifications.
Your repeated attempts to characterize me as a "polemicist," as if being one is something akin to being Satan, are getting old. The fact is you sound very much like an LDS apologist most of the time, Dan. That's just the truth. And it is very confusing attempting to discuss Book of Mormon origins with someone who claims to be a skeptic but, unless he's called on his terminology, sounds pretty much like Glenn.
Should Glenn be “content” with your inference that Joseph Smith probably used a Bible?
Well that's an interesting question, isn't it! It's obvious that Glenn
doesn't want to be content with it! And why not? Because he knows those Book of Mormon witnesses you are fond of (intentionally) give every impression that every word came from God through the stone. He knows that none of them ever admit to a Bible! And I suspect that something inside of him rebels against such a notion! And that's why he himself is very reluctant to acknowledge that one was used! Sort of cuts into your Bible-would-not-have-raised-flags-for-dupes theory, doesn't it! ; )
But since you agree with me that one
was used, you tell me.... should Glenn be content?
Wrong! I want him to prove his claims. And he can't.
He can—just not with the certainty you are demanding.
Lol. So he can prove something... just not with certainty! How does that work, exactly?
You can’t even do that for your positive assertion that Spalding’s MS or the lost MS contained “frequent repetition of ‘I Nephi’”. This is a problem for Cunningham and you.
But I'm not the one claiming
I know what was written in the Book of Lehi. That's you and Glenn. However, I can support what I have been claiming all along.... that I have an eyewitness who was exposed to Spalding's manuscript who claims the phrase appeared there as it does in the Book of Mormon and you have done nothing to demonstrate that he could not be telling the truth.
Dan, point blank question for you: Is the Book of Mormon a fraud or not?
If it's a fraud, Dan, then who's rules do the fraudsters have to follow? Yours? Glenn's?
See my explanation above. For your arguments to make sense, you need to quote from the Book of Mormon properly.
Wow. That's interesting by what it does not say. Why can't you simply admit the Book of Mormon is a fraud?
The fact is one person (or a group of persons) could have written both third person and first person narrative in multiple books and the fact is, there never were any plates with ancient writing on them! Or at least that's what you're supposed to believe! And that same person or group of persons also played the role of an abridger. In fact the whole concept of multiple abiridgers fits better within the S/R framework than the S/A framework, because then, at least, we do have multiple authors producing content that is then possible for another content producer to "abridge." Under your framework, Joseph Smith is producing content and then "abridging" it or at least claiming to do so, on the fly! I'd love to hear your explanation of how he pulled that off.
Again, this argument about the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon is irrelevant. It’s a red herring.
Again, no it isn't. It's a real issue and it's relevant. Can we agree that the Book of Mormon is a fraud or not?
You can’t quote from a section of the Book of Mormon that isn’t intended as an abridgement to show what an abridgment is like.
This is silly. You're saying that Joseph Smith had to follow certain rules in creating a fraud. Even though I can definitively point to an example where multiple "authors" allegedly pick up their pen and start writing by saying "I ____" you're saying Joseph & Co. could not have used that same technique before the 116 page loss because the latter portion is (fraudulently) alleged to have been an abridgment while the replacement is first person narrative! And you base this in part on what the text says about itself --
after the loss! That's just silly! The text is
responding to the loss. It doesn't tell us what was actually going on before the loss. While it may give us clues, it is certainly not
reliable.
Why does it take multiple authors to write a fictional abridgement of a fictional source document? It’s as simple as switching from first to third person.
It doesn't, but under your framework, there are no source documents! Just Joseph Smith and the top of his head!
This same person or group of persons could have written as though he/they were Omni and as though he/they were Mormon, or Moroni or whoever! Given that, you can't claim that they are bound to follow anything! They can produce whatever they want to! Whatever serves their purpose.
This argument makes no sense, Roger. You quoted from the book of Omni, which is supposed to be an original record written by several authors in succession. This is Joseph Smith covering a lot of chronology quickly. The so-called “small” plates are running out of space. This tells us nothing about what the author believes an abridgement is like. For that, you need to focus on Mosiah-4 Nephi, or Nephi’s abridgement of his father’s record.
It tells us that Joseph Smith is free to do whatever he wants, make up whatever he needs to sell the idea that he's translating something ancient. If he wants to introduce a character named Nephi by having him start out "I Nephi" he can do it whether Mormon is abridging in the background or not. It's as simple as having Mormon say: "And it came to pass that Nephi wrote: I Nephi." Or it's as simple as taking a first person narrative into the third person and then back again, as you noted. Either way works.
This is so patently obvious that one legitimately wonders what kind of skeptic you are. You accept the incredible Book of Mormon witness testimony at face value while rejecting the credible Spalding witness testimony with no warrant.
I’m a skeptic too, but I believe in not wasting peoples’ time with bad arguments. I have demonstrated clearly that I have not accepted Mormon testimony at face value, but have shown that the witnesses have given reliable and independent testimony. On the other hand, you have demonstrated your uncritical acceptance of Spalding witnesses and refused to acknowledge possible bias and memory confabulation, lack of independence, and problematic aspects.
What bias should I accept for the S/R witnesses? How were they biased?
By contrast, all of the Book of Mormon witnesses were heavily biased. Heavily invested in the cause.
Memory confabulation is a possibility, but a very, very weak one. It is not nearly as likely as lying.
By contrast, virtually all of the Book of Mormon witnesses package their claims within a supernatural framework that they want us to accept and, indeed cannot be separated from their claims without doing violence to them
Lack of independence is not an accurate charge. There were independent witnesses.
By contrast, you wrote an essay about your star witnesses that bemoans the fact that three and eight people each signed one pre-written statement for each group (likely both written by Joseph Smith)! Talk about stories that agree too much!
And now you argue as though Mormon and Nephi were real writers writing on real plates. I don't know how to deal with that other than to think of you as an LDS apologist.
This is how I want you to deal with it: just because you reject the Book of Mormon as an ancient text doesn’t mean your explanation is the right one.
Nor does it mean yours is.
In fact, of the choices available to those holding naturalistic explanations, the Spalding theory is the one with least probability.
That's debatable. All possible explanations have improbable elements. One of yours is that all of this complex network of abridgers and writers supposedly came from the top of Joseph's head on the fly as he dictated it all. Another is that a Bible was obviously used while none of the witnesses you want to think of as sincere dupes ever acknowledged it. Another is that those same witnesses gave contradictory testimonies. Another is that they intentionally insert miraculous stories into their accounts so as to allow for no other possible explanation, demonstrating a willingness to lie in support of the cause.
As far as me being a Mormon apologist, that utter nonsense—which you would rather believe (along with all the other nonsense you believe) instead of questioning your own position. I think that’s rather revealing, don’t you?
Not at all. The simple truth is that at times you sound like Daniel Peterson until you are called on it.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.