What other religious leader of import was a savant? They would meet the clinical requirements?
Or was Joseph Smith one of a kind in this regard?
Regards,
MG
What other religious leader of import was a savant? They would meet the clinical requirements?
Wow. Talk about not being able to read the room. I cannot imagine how KR is comfortable putting his real name on this work. It can't possibly be something that would enhance his professional reputation.
Kyler Rasmussen on September 1, 2021 at 9:08 pm
Hi Billy!
“This episode is so flawed I don’t have the space here to respond fully, and it is so fundamentally unserious I feel little motivation to do so.”
Your exasperation is a pretty good indication for me that I’m doing something right....
This is a huge point. Here is KR's definition:Billy Shears on September 1, 2021 at 6:02 pm
This episode is so flawed I don’t have the space here to respond fully, and it is so fundamentally unserious I feel little motivation to do so.
A big issue to get out of the way is the consequent possibility of p = 1. Yes, I’m going to cry foul on this one. What this means, specifically, is that before Carmack and Skousen started this project, i.e. before the experiment was conducted, you declared that if the Book of Mormon is true, then there would be exactly as much Early Modern English as Skousen and Carmack found. You then ran the experiment and behold! Your hypothesis about Early Modern English was precisely confirmed!
This is the most dramatic example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy I could imagine. The truth is you drew these tiny targets around the holes in the side of the barn after the bullets hit the barn, not before. That is why they are hits.
Consider what this means. It means that if Joseph Smith did NOT write the Book of Mormon, it is an absolute certainty, with a probability of 1, that it is a type of Early Modern English text. No other options. It can't be a direct hebrew or Reformed Egyptian or mesoamerican translation, or anything else. It MUST be a "filtered and managed" text that is mostly Early Modern English, but written so that 19th century readers understand the Early Modern English. Without exception.CH = Consequent Probability of the Hypothesis (the likelihood of observing the evidence given a non-Joseph authored Book of Mormon, or p = 1)
I think he's been playing with the apologists for too long - anything is OK as long as you pwn the critics.
Joseph Smith plagerized the Book of Mormon or he was a Savant? Which is it? Or is it both? If so, explain how that may have worked/looked like. Do you agree with Dr. Moore that Joseph was a Savant?
You said:
I took the bolded words to be your opinion. If it is true that you’re simply restating his position…do you agree? Does plagiarism explain the Book of Mormon? And do you agree with Dr. Moore’s assessment that Joseph was a Savant and this has explanatory power to give rise to the production of the Book of Mormon through the artistry and creative genius of Joseph Smith?Maybe Rasmussen is punking us. Because the most reasonable, non-supernatural interpretation of this "consequent probability" is that Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon. The only way he didn't plagiarize is if a supernatural event occurred.
Without implying equality of degree...
The "whole product is a plagiarism" position is not a critical position held by anyone. It is a straw man position fronted by apologists to ease the pain as they paint themselves into a smaller corner. Recent (past 2 years) scholarship has made it impossible to hold onto the "tight" translation theory, while the "loose" translation model contradicts what Joseph and his scribes said happened.
Wrong. I was evaluating Rasmussen's probability, which I already explained, and which you continue to take out of context. Either you still misunderstand, or, a far more likely scenario:MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 03, 2021 4:02 pmYou said:
I took the bolded words to be your opinion.Maybe Rasmussen is punking us. Because the most reasonable, non-supernatural interpretation of this "consequent probability" is that Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon. The only way he didn't plagiarize is if a supernatural event occurred.
I'm going with that. See Dr. Moore's post.