Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Benjamin McGuire]

MCB writes:

Chris, the second half of the Book of Mormon is rich with allusions to other literature. The first half is a paltry patch-up job. WHY??? How do you account for this?

Would you explain how you came to this conclusion? I find that the first half of the Book of Mormon is rich with allusions to other literature (and have even published on this subject ....)

Ben M.

[_MCB]

Would you explain how you came to this conclusion? I find that the first half of the Book of Mormon is rich with allusions to other literature (and have even published on this subject ....)

The body of literature you are looking at is different from the one you are looking at. Very simple.

As the real audience moves further and further from the intended audience, the meaning intended by the author becomes less and less accessible to the audience. This is especially true when dealing with issues like allusion - where, no matter how blatant the allusion might be, if the audience is completely unfamiliar with the source of the allusion, then they will never understand it (they become incapable of accessing any meaning intended through a literary allusion).

Thank you.

[_harmony]

Harmony writes:

And this is a line of bull. Believers do NOT see God as acting in a limited way... on the contrary, believers see the hand of God in every word. I've lived with a BIC DUP true believer for 40 years, and that is NOT what he or any of his relatives believes.

Well, then you and I move in different circles Harmony. My own experience is different from your own.

Which does not devalue my experience at all. Different is not less.

And certainly, I as a believer, don't see the hand of God in every word. Nor do my family (well most of them, I do have a lot of brothers).

Which puts you outside the salt of the earth believer type that populates my ward.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying you think too much to fit in with my ward.

And living where I do (which is not anywhere near Utah), we tend to have a much broader range of views in the church on many of these issues.

I live at least a thousand miles from Utah, and there is no such thing as "broad range of views" in my ward. I live in a rural ward with a 95% activity rate in a bad quarter, and sometimes I think we want to me more "Utah" than Utah.

But on some level, that is all beside the point. Saying that God's hand is in every word is rather vague platitude that doesn't mean a whole lot - particularly when we are talking about specifics.

Vague platitudes is what SLCentral does best.

And the Book of Mormon itself doesn't give God this kind of credit (rather just the opposite). So, I think, given the chance to make my case, most members of the church would agree with me.

The only case most of the rank and file will hear is the case made from the GC pulpit and I doubt you'll ever have access, so this part of your statement doesn't mean much. We could get all tangled up with "most" and never make it to "agree", but I won't take you down that rabbit hole; I'll just say you can't prove this, you have no evidence of this, and your opinions are as valid as anyone else's (including mine).

I am not terribly interested in anecdotal evidence Harmony.

Then you don't listen to Pres Monson much, do you?

There is an entire dialogue in 1 and 2 Nephi where Nephi goes into a fair amount of detail about himself as an author and what he thinks that means - and there is nothing in there about God in the sense that you raise.

Which probably doesn't help a believer's argument.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Bruce's study basically shows that the real author is not in the mix.

If this conclusion is what non-LDS investigators begin to assent to,
then it should be a fairly simple task to wordprint-test most of the
early Mormons who were in a position to benefit from the book's
publication.

Perhaps in a year or so we will have a list of the 100 earliest
Mormons whose wordprints do NOT match up with any part
of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, JST, D&C, etc.

With such a list in hand, the leaders of the Mormon Church could
at least say that no person associated with early Mormonism had
any input into the "standard works" of that religion --- and that
all the pre-1830 writers in the world would have to be tested,
before non-LDS critics could profess that those scriptures had
been written by 19th century authors.

If all of this be true, Bruce has provided the Mormon leaders with
a most excellent statistical gift, unchallenged by Gentile scholars,
even though published in their peer-reviewed professional literature.

Quite an accomplishment, I'd say.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

The body of literature you are looking at is different from the one you are looking at. Very simple.

.

I assume that is not what you meant to say.

Glenn

[_MCB]

correction:
The body of literature you are looking at is different from the one I am looking at. Very simple.

I assume that is not what you meant to say.

LOL thanks. I am glad that when I misstated, on this occasion, you were charitable.

Cherry-picking and pre-conceived notions, and all that.

[_CaliforniaKid]

If this conclusion is what non-LDS investigators begin to assent to...

I think I've made clear that that conclusion is true only if the basic methodological assumption of the study is true (i.e., word frequencies are a viable method for attributing Book of Mormon authorship).

Because I do not accept that assumption, I also do not accept the conclusion.

Peace,

-Chris

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo writes:

To reflect 19th century (or 15th century) language use is one thing, to reflect 19th century ideas is quite another.

Now, this brings up a different aspect. You are absolutely right - although I think that this argument is not as simple as you think it is. To show that something is uniquely 19th century is quite problematic. It isn't enough to say that this idea can be found in the 19th century, you have to suggest that it is only found in the 19th century, and you also have to show that your own reading of the text reflects what its author intended. Reading the text and supplying your own suppositions as to its meaning doesn't work well in this kind of question.

Ben M.

Perhaps someone can catalog all the 19th century ideas in the Book of Mormon (someone more informed than me) for discussion.

[_MCB]

I'm too busy right now writing my catalog.

I just downloaded the Popol Vuh, and Title of the Lords of Totonicapan just came in the mail. Too busy having fun to participate in this debate.

[Bedlamite]

...I also do not accept the conclusion.
...

Either the sun goes round the earth -- or
the earth goes round the sun.

Looking at sunrises and sunsets, the answer
appears to be that the sun moves.

Looking at eclipses, the answer appears to be
that the earth and the moon move.

I'll leave the astrophysicists to provide the true answer,
once they have sorted out the facts and reach a consensus.

Same thing goes for wordprinting the Book of Mormon --- though perhaps
the astrophysicists will not be interested in providing the answer.

UD