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

[_GlennThigpen]

Ben, I always enjoy your posts. You are a strong, rational thinker, unusual for LDS.

Quite a broad brush you are painting with there. CFR on "usual" weak, irrational LDS thinker.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
If you can show
...

More likely, all that I will be able to do will be to stir the curiosity
and energy of somebody else who is better prepared to explain how
the Book of Mormon text was put together and for what purpose.

I am not a trained historian, nor a degreed statistician, nor do I
have professional experience in scriptural text-critical analysis. My
wife does have a literature background and is occasionally able to
advise me on literary criticism -- but only in a very general manner.

I do expect the LDS scholars to hold my feet to the fire and to
demand that I offer up sufficient textual analysis to serve as a
support for my historical hypothesis. If I say that I believe that
Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery had a hand in composing the
Nephite record, then it is only fair that Mormons demand of me
a demonstration of WHICH PARTS of the book I say those people
wrote -- as well as WHEN, WHY and HOW.

So, I do not begrudge LDS rebuttals of my historical theories --
and I'll do what I can to provide suitable textual analysis.

Should the day ever arrive that my language map of the Book of Mormon is
ready for sharing with the public -- it will be with Mormons
interested in these very subjects that I will first be conversing.

In the meanwhile, let's see what the non-sectarian professionals
have to say about Matt's report, Bruce's report, and whatever comes
next in this continuing application of modern technology to the
study of Book of Mormon authorship and Mormon origins.

Uncle Dale

[_CaliforniaKid]

Quite a broad brush you are painting with there. CFR on "usual" weak, irrational LDS thinker.

That's easy: mormondialogue.org!








(Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't really believe that MCB's statement is true, at least any moreso than the general US population.)

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

… I truly wonder how you would summarize it as contrasted with what I wrote? Surely you're not suggesting that the Book of Mormon witnesses' testimony did not change over time? What am I missing?

I argued that the experience of the Eight Witnesses was more subjective than implied in printed Testimony of Eight Witnesses. My argument was more about how subtle and ambiguous wording in the Testimony allowed for different readings. I did not argue that the testimonies of the Eight changed. I don’t think there is enough information for that conclusion. I also argued that the Testimony of Three could be misread for similar reasons.

The short answer is because the simple, straightforward theory does not explain the data as well as the more complex one does. Of course Occam's razor tells us to choose the simplicity of Smith-alone over the complexity of S/R. But Occam's razor, like the pirate's code, is more of a guideline than a hard, fast rule.

The principal of parsimony favors the theory that answers most of the data with the least elaboration and assumptions. Of course an elaborate theory can explain everything, but most of the elaboration comes about to save the theory from demise, rather than to explain the data.

in my opinion, the greater conspiracy you suggest is overblown and often caricatured in order to more easily refute. In the first place, conspiracies do happen, even in contrast with what would otherwise be a simpler explanation. So to rule out conspiracy in the case of the Book of Mormon on that basis alone is naïve.

Conspiracies do happen, but one should have evidence for that assertion. Conspiracy should not be used to explain the lack of evidence or to explain away evidence.

In the second place, there are different types of conspiracies. I am not of the opinion that, if there was a Book of Mormon "conspiracy" it happened because a few fellows got together with the goal of starting a new church by the introduction of fraudulent scripture. I think the various conspirators were in it for various reasons but those reasons converged and each man's self interest kept it alive. And I don't believe any of them thought the new scripture they were introducing to the world was fraudulent.

So you have no motive for the conspiracy and nothing specifically to argue or defend? Not that it would matter since it would amount to circular reasoning and nothing that could be used as evidence.

And in the third place, what you are suggesting with regard to KJVB plagiarism is itself a conspiracy to not divulge that information.

No, not at all. There is nothing demanding that the witnesses mention the use of a Bible. This is an argument from silence, and the silence is perfectly understandable. Interviews of the witnesses, especially by outsiders, are only as good as the interviewer. There are many questions I wish they had asked, but they didn’t know what we would demand of these sources two hundred years later. They asked what was timely and meaningful to them, and that included the possible use of Spalding’s manuscript.

Why? Because it was closer to the events?

No. It’s because of the nature of the experience. It is not difficult to explain how the Conneaut witnesses sincerely thought they had head the Book of Mormon text read fifteen years earlier, but were nevertheless mistaken. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon witnesses are not so easily explained in the same manner—hence the conspiracy theories.

The theory was spawned by those who believed they had heard the same thing before. The Conneaut (and subsequent) witnesses were either flat out lying or they were telling the truth.

No. That’s a false dichotomy. I think constructive memory theory explains what the Spalding witnesses experienced.

With regard to how many assumptions are needed to maintain S/R, interestingly enough, at least one key assumption has recently found documentary support in the form of the mail-waiting notice. I suspect more of the same is out there. One way S/R could be refuted is by producing a pre-1830 timeline for Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery that does not allow time for them to have been at the same place at the same time. While the picture is not complete, what we find instead are multiple opportunities.

A letter waiting is not necessarily evidence that the person was there at that time.

But this is a remarkable concession. What you are suggesting is itself a conspiracy not to divulge key information that would otherwise conflict with the official testimonies you suggest are more reliable than those from Conneaut. Why do you thus conclude? Apparently on the basis that it was merely a trivial detail not worth mentioning! That's certainly generous, but hardly water-tight. If Cowdery, Smith and Whitmer could simply forget to mention that a King James Bible was used in Book of Mormon production then what is to prevent them from forgetting to mention other sources that may also have been used?

This paragraph is incoherent. You are using conspiracy in a way different than what is asserted by Spalding advocates. There was no conspiracy to keep this information from public discussion. I did not say that. Rather, I said that there was nothing to evoke that response from the witnesses. It was not forgotten or intentionally withheld. There is no way to know that. But they were asked about the possible use of Spalding’s MS, and the answer was that it was impossible since the translation was done in full view of those in the room.

[_GlennThigpen]

In the meanwhile, let's see what the non-sectarian professionals
have to say about Matt's report, Bruce's report, and whatever comes
next in this continuing application of modern technology to the
study of Book of Mormon authorship and Mormon origins.

Uncle Dale

What non-sectarian professionals are you speaking of?

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Quite a broad brush you are painting with there. CFR on "usual" weak, irrational LDS thinker.

That's easy: mormondialogue.org!








(Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't really believe that MCB's statement is true, at least any moreso than the general US population.)

Is there a bit of tunnel to your vision? Or just a bit of jest here?

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

In the meanwhile, let's see what the non-sectarian professionals
have to say about Matt's report, Bruce's report, and whatever comes
next in this continuing application of modern technology to the
study of Book of Mormon authorship and Mormon origins.

Uncle Dale

What non-sectarian professionals are you speaking of?

Glenn

I suppose, to begin with, the scientists who in the future
add either Bruce's paper or Matt's paper to their own reports'
bibliographies. That is an early sign of where support for a
new explanation or paradigm lies in the scholarly community.

But -- sooner or later -- some third party will some along and
get another, similar Book of Mormon study paper published in the same
periodic literature. May take a year or two. But Jockers' own
paper (including Joseph Smith's word-print and examination
of the BoC, etc.) is in the mill. When it comes up for its own
peer review, we'll see how influential Bruce's publication is
upon the judgment of the reviewing scholars.

Beyond the professional journals there is a more nebulous
realm of writers who occasionally offer up some information or
summary in regard to Latter Day Saint scripture and origins.
We might see something like that appear among the JWHA
crowd -- or, better yet, in a scholarly Gentile article/book.

UD

[_CaliforniaKid]

Is there a bit of tunnel to your vision? Or just a bit of jest here?

I guess you missed the fine print. ;)

[_GlennThigpen]

Is there a bit of tunnel to your vision? Or just a bit of jest here?

I guess you missed the fine print. ;)

Yep, it eluded me. You have to be easy on these old eyes. I have to use two pairs of glasses in my daily meanderings as it is. Too many exposures to unshielded welding arcs in an industry that didn't care.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

But -- sooner or later -- some third party will some along and
get another, similar Book of Mormon study paper published in the same
periodic literature. May take a year or two. But Jockers' own
paper (including Joseph Smith's word-print and examination
of the BoC, etc.) is in the mill. When it comes up for its own
peer review, we'll see how influential Bruce's publication is
upon the judgment of the reviewing scholars.

UD

I am interested to see just what the Jockers group will come out with in light of Bruce's paper and Matt's own comments here in this thread. Bruce's paper did go through the review process by reviewers selected by LLC, if I understand it correctly before being accepted for publication.

Glenn