Three Powerful Books

[_Themis]

Robert Smith is someone who claims science, science, science and reason, reason, reason, then tries to put square Mormon pegs into round logical holes. He also will obfuscate when it suits him.

I dunno. I’ve read his stuff over the years. Seems to be at least as on the ball as any critic I’ve read.

Regards,
MG

And I'm betting you can't articulate it like all the other stuff you have read.

[_Dr Exiled]

Robert Smith is someone who claims science, science, science and reason, reason, reason, then tries to put square Mormon pegs into round logical holes. He also will obfuscate when it suits him.

I dunno. I’ve read his stuff over the years. Seems to be at least as on the ball as any critic I’ve read.

Regards,
MG

Take a look at Robert's response to Honor's arguments against Early Modern English. Robert's go to is to drone on about the scientific method and how his opponent is somehow not respecting science, or reason etc. and then make the leap to tie science and reason to silly theories like Early Modern English. Obviously, anyone not forced to reach the church conclusion can see that Joseph was trying to sound biblical or ancient in order to sell his "long lost" biblical story about native American origins. The whole thing is nuts. But to Robert, anyone who doesn't see the cloud formations he sees must not be following reason or the scientific method.

It doesn't work that way. If I tell you that science and reason lead me to believe that you, MG, must be reptilian and an enemy to reason, does it make it so? Your supposed denials show that you obviously don't follow reason? Or is the better conclusion that you aren't reptilian and that I am appealing to science and reason as a way to dress up faulty arguments? In other words, actually use science and reason in analyzing the Early Modern English argument instead of merely repeating the data and projecting your own faulty analysis on the opponent.

[_mentalgymnast]

Robert's go to is to drone on about the scientific method and how his opponent is somehow not respecting science, or reason etc. and then make the leap to tie science and reason to silly theories like Early Modern English.

Early Modern English demands explanation. Science and linguistics seems a good way to get there. It seems like almost ever time the critics don’t agree with someone like Robert Smith they always attack the person as being somehow ‘not worthy’ of consideration. They’re always flawed in some way.

This Bob Crockett guy though, he’s obviously out of his league.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Robert's go to is to drone on about the scientific method and how his opponent is somehow not respecting science, or reason etc. and then make the leap to tie science and reason to silly theories like Early Modern English.

Early Modern English demands explanation.

No. What needs explained is the hypothesis proposed by Carmack. He claims there is Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon, and that what he sees is beyond the ability of Smith or anyone in his orbit to have produced in a manner consistent with the timeframe and resources around Smith.

Turns out one can find the same language patterns in other writings by Smith, Cowdery, and Orson Pratt when they are trying to speak in an authoritative manner. Just search for them on the Joseph Smith Letters webpage and you'll find examples.

So now there are at least two explanations for what Carmack claims is Early Modern English. One explanation is the English translation of the Book of Mormon was written by someone in the 1500 - 1600 CE whose translation Smith simply read to his scribes. Another is that Smith was trying to replicate the language and feel of the KJV of the Bible.

One of these is parsimonious.

Now, Symmachus has pointed out that at best what Carmack is claiming doesn't show the text in it's entirety reads like writing from that period but instead what he shows are bits of phrases and grammar he believes are evidence for an Early Modern English source. But you don't see folks like Robert Smith addressing this because they think finding an artifact of language in a text that was composed orally is grounds for going full Derp.

So, how probable is it that there was a writer in the 16th c. who composed the Book of Mormon? I'm tempted to go 0, but let's say it's a 10 instead because maybe. What do you give it?

I'd add, we are also getting much closer to a more appropriate application of Bayes to the Book of Mormon authorship question. If one were to compile a list of statements and associated probabilities together I'd bet Lemmie could show how they ought to be used to assess the probability of the Book of Mormon being a 19th c. text.

[_Lemmie]

Early Modern English demands explanation.

No. What needs explained is the hypothesis proposed by Carmack. He claims there is Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon, and that what he sees is beyond the ability of Smith or anyone in his orbit to have produced in a manner consistent with the timeframe and resources around Smith.

Turns out one can find the same language patterns in other writings by Smith, Cowdery, and Orson Pratt when they are trying to speak in an authoritative manner. Just search for them on the Joseph Smith Letters webpage and you'll find examples.

So now there are at least two explanations for what Carmack claims is Early Modern English. One explanation is the English translation of the Book of Mormon was written by someone in the 1500 - 1600 CE whose translation Smith simply read to his scribes. Another is that Smith was trying to replicate the language and feel of the KJV of the Bible.

One of these is parsimonious.

Now, Symmachus has pointed out that at best what Carmack is claiming doesn't show the text in it's entirety reads like writing from that period but instead what he shows are bits of phrases and grammar he believes are evidence for an Early Modern English source. But you don't see folks like Robert Smith addressing this because they think finding an artifact of language in a text that was composed orally is grounds for going full Derp.

So, how probable is it that there was a writer in the 16th c. who composed the Book of Mormon? I'm tempted to go 0, but let's say it's a 10 instead because maybe. What do you give it?

I'd add, we are also getting much closer to a more appropriate application of Bayes to the Book of Mormon authorship question. If one were to compile a list of statements and associated probabilities together I'd bet Lemmie could show how they ought to be used to assess the probability of the Book of Mormon being a 19th c. text.

And it wouldn’t be the naïve Bayes algorithm that assumes independence either!

But seriously, I just posted an example in the Early Modern English thread demonstrating the issue with looking at isolated words instead of systemic evidence, I’d be interested in your feedback.

[_Themis]

Robert's go to is to drone on about the scientific method and how his opponent is somehow not respecting science, or reason etc. and then make the leap to tie science and reason to silly theories like Early Modern English.

Early Modern English demands explanation.

It's been explained. We see examples of it all over the the place. We see examples of Joseph and others around him using it. It's not like these simple words were unknown, and people liked to used them to sound Biblical. I would be more surprised if we didn't see them.

Now the ghost from the 1500's makes no sense. It makes no sense to use Early Modern English or some guy from that time period who would obviously need converting in the spirit world. Why not use a guy the story claims wrote the gold plates, was a prophet of God, saw our day and would have centuries to learn and keep up with English and it's changes over time. One who also was playing an important role showing up to Joseph and teaching him. Supposedly he knew English quite well. Maybe he told God he didn't have the time to work on that part. Mormon was probably also too busy creating new worlds. I bet Nephi was spending all his time down in spirit prison trying to get his brothers to repent.

[_I have a question]

Robert's go to is to drone on about the scientific method and how his opponent is somehow not respecting science, or reason etc. and then make the leap to tie science and reason to silly theories like Early Modern English.

Early Modern English demands explanation. Science and linguistics seems a good way to get there. It seems like almost ever time the critics don’t agree with someone like Robert Smith they always attack the person as being somehow ‘not worthy’ of consideration.

This Bob Crockett guy though, he’s obviously out of his league.

Regards,
MG

This^ is a trolling post from the person(s) known here as "mentalgymnast".
"Early Modern English demands explanation." is designed to inflame, because it's obvious that the burden of proof remains with the person making the claim. There are no demands placed to explain Early Modern English on anyone but the person claiming it's there and asserting a theory on why it's there.
"Science and linguistics seems a good way to get there." MG knows it is more than demonstrable that he promotes faith first, so this is a baited hook drawing people to respond to him to point that out.
"It seems like almost ever time the critics don’t agree with someone like Robert Smith they always attack the person as being somehow ‘not worthy’ of consideration. They’re always flawed in some way. " Clearly this is a troll post from someone familiar with the Mopologetic hit-piece habit. Accusing critics of it like this is a deliberate attempt at waving a red flag in front of a bull.
And finally

"This Bob Crockett guy though, he’s obviously out of his league." A final attempt at being inflammatory to draw a response, this time from Yahoo Bot.

Trolling 101

[_honorentheos]

But seriously, I just posted an example in the Early Modern English thread demonstrating the issue with looking at isolated words instead of systemic evidence, I’d be interested in your feedback.

Great example! After I read it, I checked for standard uses which is the other issue with this theory. The examples they provide often aren't used systemically in the Book, but instead can alternate between modern and so-called Early Modern English. So I suggest adding the instance where Smith used "counsel with" in Mosiah to your point in order to show the lack of systemic use. I also think it's interesting that the difference here is between Alma and Mosiah. Alma was the first writings following the arrival of Cowdery, while Mosiah is likely produced by Smith working with Emma. The text difference corresponds with known changes in potential participating authors in the 19th c. which is a problem for their theory.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hrm. Lemmie basically put this one to bed.

Let’s take a look:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/Mormon ... =First+100

1) “ they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.” advice or teachings

2) “ When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.“ advice or teachings

3) “and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it.” teachings

4) “ Take counsel together, and it shall come to naught; speak the word, and it shall not stand; for God is with us.” teach each other

5) “ Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.” advise


6) “And the Lord of the vineyard said unto him: Counsel me not” don’t lecture me

7) “ And after three days, having counseled with his priests“ conferred with, talked things over

8) “And I command you to take it upon you to counsel with your elder brothers in your undertakings; for behold, thou art in thy youth, and ye stand in need to be nourished by your brothers. And give heed to their counsel.“ confer and advice

This just seems to me Joseph Smith or any of his other 19th century co-authors used the word fluidly. The behavior is mirrored in the Doctrine and Covenants:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/sea ... rue&page=1

So. Yeah. It’s a big fat zero on Honor’s scale.

- Doc

[_Themis]

I'm curious are all these examples of word use based on the original dictated manuscript(which I believe we don't have most of), or on the printer's manuscript(which is also edited), or later edited version of the Book of Mormon?