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

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The fact is, all of that is possible, if not probable. It certainly makes better sense than coming to the conclusion Nephites must have existed despite the lack of evidence. Does it make more sense than Smith coming up with all we find in the Book of Mormon off the top of his head, on the fly? I think so.

But recall, Roger, that we are here dealing with Latter Day Saints.
I know RLDS who will go to their death beds, proclaiming Joe Smith
a monogamist -- because they have a God-given testimony of that.

There is no arguing with such people, and it's best not to try.

However, were Fawn Brodie here today, could you convince
her that Smith had some pages torn from Isaiah, hid in his hat?

I suppose that Brodie would argue against such a hat trick --
because to even admit Isaiah pages into the mix would leave
open the possibility of Smith having placed other texts there.

I further suppose that Brodie's argument would have been:

"Seriously, Roger, you cannot believe that! How could have
President Smith hidden anything in his hat? Neither Cowdery,
Harris, nor the Whitmers mention any such thing. They say
nothing about Smith tearing pages from a Bible -- not even
from a discarded old pocket Bible with fine print."

"Roger, you have missed the fact that the witnesses all say
that President Smith placed his face in his hat so securely
and tightly, that no light entered into its crown. In such a
position, with no light at all, President Smith could not have
read and dictated from any pages taken from a Bible."

"And, Roger," think how ridiculous your theory is, when it
comes to practicalities. There is no way on earth that the
Oberlin Spalding manuscript could have fit into a hat, without
its being cut into pieces -- and we all know that it was not
cut apart. And, even more telling ---- there is not a single
name or event shared by the Book of Mormon and that text!"

"Yadda, yadda, yadda...."



Misinformation, misdirection, and endless Smith-adoration. He
and his witnesses are (like Caesar's wife) beyond suspicion.

UD

[_mikwut]

Hello Dale,

I hope your doing well and healthy.

Does it then follow that the "case is closed" on Book of Mormon
authorship, and that the volume's true origin has been told?

You do this a lot. Deflecting to the ethereal realm of Lloyd Christmas, "is there a chance? One in a million? YESSSS!!!".

I think it can reasonably be stated with confidence that the historical viability of the S/R theory as it is articulated by you and those who adore you and this idea, is inconceivably remote. The case is as closed as reasonably and historically possible, details regarding the exact way in which Joseph accomplished it, i.e. automatic writing, memorization etc.. are a different issue than the general S/R claim and your deflection away from the S/R theory to "the volume's true origin" where you hold friendly hands with everyone is deflection away from the S/R theory you endorse.

my best Dale, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...Deflecting to the ethereal realm
...

It may appear that I am "deflecting," but I am actually redirecting
the conversation towards points upon which I can speak with some
degree of experience (rather than arcane memory studies, etc.)

The "Conneaut witnesses" may have mis-remembered all sorts of
things. At the very least we can agree that their testimony was
published in 1834, and thereafter --- and that such testimony
had the effect of opening up a discussion of Mormon origins which
continues to this day.

Suppose that ALL of the accumulated testimony is unreliable;
would our reaching such an agreement be sufficient reason to
discontinue searching for the true origin of the book?

My RLDS superiors argued that line of reasoning to me on
numerous occasions -- and regularly tried to "deflect" my
research away from Mormon origins and Smith's polygamy.
I am used to that line of reasoning.

Which is why I introduced my "deflective" inquiry.

Should the non-Mormons quietly fold their tents and move off,
admitting that the search for true Mormon origins is useless?

I'll let others ponder how they wish to respond to the question.

But, while we are on the subject of mis-remembering, I want
to ask a related question -- about April 3, 1836:



Is it possible that Oliver Cowdery mis-remembered meeting
Jesus Christ face-to-face?

Or, is the logical choice more likely this:
He did not mis-remember the event, because:

1. It actually happened.
2. He was an unwitting dupe to a fraud.
3. He was a knowing co-conspirator to a fraud.

???

Cowdery is an important early witness to the appearance of
John the Baptist, and later to that of Peter, James and John.

He also testified to having witnessed an angelic visitation.

He also testified to having seen Nephite golden plates.

He also penned an 1829 revelation from God to him personally.

If Oliver mis-remembered these several events, then we might
credit his testimony to poor recollection, rather than his being
the dupe in an elaborate scheme concocted by Joe Smith.

Right?

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

Suppose that ALL of the accumulated testimony is unreliable;
would our reaching such an agreement be sufficient reason to
discontinue searching for the true origin of the book?

My RLDS superiors argued that line of reasoning to me on
numerous occasions -- and regularly tried to "deflect" my
research away from Mormon origins and Smith's polygamy.
I am used to that line of reasoning.

Which is why I introduced my "deflective" inquiry.

Should the non-Mormons quietly fold their tents and move off,
admitting that the search for true Mormon origins is useless?

UD

That is really for non LDS to decide. It is up to you to decide if that massive trove of documents you have amassed contains enough evidence for you to continue to pursue the S/R theory or to explore another avenue.
I am not going to continue to enjoin the debate based on my perception of the lost tribes problem. It seems to have gone circular. But I am interested in seeing how the discussion plays out between marge and mikwut. I personally doubt that marge will be swayed or concede on any points that mikwut may make, but I could be wrong. marge does seem to have some kind of investment in the S/R theory.

Glenn

[_Roger]

mikwut & Glenn:

Your response, mikwut is a good start. Glenn's is what I predicted. It remains to be seen how or if Dan or Ben will respond, but I suspect they will adopt Glenn's avoidance tactic on the basis that this 39 page thread is not big enough to contain a critical look at their cherished Book of Mormon theories... it is only big enough to allow endless rocks to be thrown at S/R. So I commend you, mikwut for having the fortitude to post as much as you did.

Much of its content came from the KJV with minor alterations.

We agree on that, but specifically, how did that transfer occur?

Much is autobiographical of J.S. (i.e the obvious example of his father's dream among many others).

Again, we agree. How did the autobiographical material get onto the page? Give me the mechanics.

The greater part came from the imagination of Joseph Smith who's life provides enough empirically verifiable evidence that he was capable, that he did it, and that he had motivations from his seeker heritage and family that make sense of why he did it.

So then, mikwut, did everything we find in the Book of Mormon come off the top of Joseph Smith's head as he dictated with his head in the hat?

The historical evidence makes this a much simpler and concrete and easier to construct belief. It actually has concrete components within its construction. What I do not believe and more germane to this thread is 1) the S/R theory is anything more than speculative historical construction (and trivia and that is common in history and is taught in many forms to undergraduate history students, myself included when I received my degree, Simon Schama's books are excellent for understanding this) and I have given it serious consideration.

That's all fair, reasonable and well and good. However....

1. isn't it possible, for rational people to come to a different conclusion? Or is your's the only possible rational alternative? And if another alternative point of view is possible, then does it follow that people who hold to and/or argue for that point of view are necessarily irrational fanatics, merely attempting to hold on to their theory at any cost?

2. isn't it true that regardless of whatever position one takes with regard to how the Book of Mormon came to be, a certain level of speculation is required?

2) I don't believe any of the tangled speculations that build on each other from the smallest degree and without a scintilla of real evidence should be accepted, relied on or defended to degree it receives.

And again, that's all well and good and you are certainly entitled to believe and disbelief whatever you want. The question, though, is does your answer to the question of how the Book of Mormon got here offer a more rational explanation? I can't make that assessment at this point since you have not explained the mechanics of how you think that happened.

[_GlennThigpen]

mikwut & Glenn:

Your response, mikwut is a good start. Glenn's is what I predicted. It remains to be seen how or if Dan or Ben will respond, but I suspect they will adopt Glenn's avoidance tactic on the basis that this 39 page thread is not big enough to contain a critical look at their cherished Book of Mormon theories... it is only big enough to allow endless rocks to be thrown at S/R. So I commend you, mikwut for having the fortitude to post as much as you did.

Roger, I will be glad to discuss with you the eight and eleven witnesses in another thread. I am not avoiding the issue whatsoever. As you are well aware, this thread is about the S/R theory. If you wish to start a thread throwing rocks at the Book of Mormon witnesses, I will be glad to participate. Hit us with your best shot. It's only fair after all, since your favorite witnesses seem to be a bit shell shocked from their bombardment.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Hit us with your best shot.
...

By now the reports given prior to Howe's 1834 book, those
in that book, and those that followed in later years are well
known to both Mormons and non-Mormons. I do not suppose
that continued arguments over Erastus Rudd, or Redick McKee,
etc., will bear much fruit.

Unless some additional "Conneaut witnesses" evidence can be
uncovered, I'd say that the entire topic is a dead issue. I do
not know of a single Mormon who has been converted away
from his/her testimony in this regard.

On the other hand, I could well believe that thousands of LDS
have been induced to leave the Church after continued exposure
to Fawn Brodie, the Tanners, etc. The "Smith-alone" arguments
appear to be far more potent against Mormonism than are the
old reports concerning Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, etc.

I therefore think that the "Best Shot" for the S-R advocates to
take would be defining the probable roles of Smith and Cowdery
in compiling the Book of Mormon text. Once their contributions
have been documented, I believe that there will be a wider
possibility of acceptance of THAT authorship explanation, than
for the S-R authorship claims.

Pursuing the Smith+Cowdery authorship explanation really should
not be too problematic for the S-R advocates, since we already
profess important roles for those two men in bringing forth the book.

Once the Smith+Cowdery contributions to the text have been
documented and widely accepted, I predict that the remaining
"blank spots" in the Nephite Record will be filled in by S-R advocates.

So -- in the meanwhile -- the "Best Shot" for the S-R folks would be
to document Cowdery's contributions to the compilation of the book,
and thus to reach some common ground with the Smith-alone crowd.

Is that possible? Or -- will the Smith-alone folks fight us tooth and
nail, to avoid any productive research of Cowdery's contributions?

I do not know yet -- but I fear that the resistance from the
Smith-alone advocates may be fierce and bitter.

Was Cowdery a dupe, a conspirator, or a blessed, truthful witness?

I believe that the future of productive research into Mormon origins
will hinge upon the answers developed in response to that query.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

One of the points I have made against the S/R theory is that Royal Skousen has identified words and phrases that have their origins in the 1500's and 1600's England and is not King James era English. One can find a short article on that at:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... inal-text/

If anyone is interested enough to read the article, maybe there could be some discussions on the implications that may have as to any Rigdon or Spalding authorship.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

One of the points I have made against the S/R theory is that Royal Skousen has identified words and phrases that have their origins in the 1500's and 1600's England and is not King James era English. One can find a short article on that at:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... inal-text/

If anyone is interested enough to read the article, maybe there could be some discussions on the implications that may have as to any Rigdon or Spalding authorship.

Glenn

We went over this already.

The KJV Bible itself preserves early English from a century before
its own time -- a century or more. It preserves some of the terms
from Wycliffe's Bible, etc.

In some cases the Book of Mormon precisely reproduces KJV passages,
or portions of various KJV passages, strung together. In those instances,
of course, the Book of Mormon uses KJV English.

The book also incorporates some language from Joseph Smith's own
early 19th century North America -- and, as you point out, it uses
some terms that pre-date the English used in the KJV.

In other words, the Book of Mormon presents the reader with mixtures
of various English dialects/vernaculars -- but not uniformly. There is a
pattern of distribution of various families of English terminology throughout
the narrative. Although the text bears a superficial resemblance, from
one page to another, that resemblance is actually an editorial vernier,
applied atop sections of diverse language, with the intent of making
the entire text more or less resemble KJV Isaiah, Malachi, Matthew, etc.

So ----- where did the pre-KJV English terms/vocabulary/grammar come
from? Probably not from the backwoods vernacular Joe Smith grew up
hearing after the family moved to Palmyra/Manchester. And probably
not from the early Quaker settlers of Farmington and Manchester either.

It certainly did not come from Nephites.

It is not the chosen language of God Almighty.

It most likely came from some old book(s).

Go find examples, matching Book of Mormon language in books from
the time of King Henry VIII, and a little before. Enough of those old
texts were reprinted through the years, that you can find lengthy
examples via Google Books.

Perhaps you can even locate one particular book in which the great
majority of those pre-KJV terms appear.

It is worth a try, at least.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

One of the points I have made against the S/R theory is that Royal Skousen has identified words and phrases that have their origins in the 1500's and 1600's England and is not King James era English. One can find a short article on that at:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... inal-text/

If anyone is interested enough to read the article, maybe there could be some discussions on the implications that may have as to any Rigdon or Spalding authorship.

Glenn

We went over this already.

The KJV Bible itself preserves early English from a century before
its own time -- a century or more. It preserves some of the terms
from Wycliffe's Bible, etc.

In some cases the Book of Mormon precisely reproduces KJV passages,
or portions of various KJV passages, strung together. In those instances,
of course, the Book of Mormon uses KJV English.

The book also incorporates some language from Joseph Smith's own
early 19th century North America -- and, as you point out, it uses
some terms that pre-date the English used in the KJV.

In other words, the Book of Mormon presents the reader with mixtures
of various English dialects/vernaculars -- but not uniformly. There is a
pattern of distribution of various families of English terminology throughout
the narrative. Although the text bears a superficial resemblance, from
one page to another, that resemblance is actually an editorial vernier,
applied atop sections of diverse language, with the intent of making
the entire text more or less resemble KJV Isaiah, Malachi, Matthew, etc.

So ----- where did the pre-KJV English terms/vocabulary/grammar come
from? Probably not from the backwoods vernacular Joe Smith grew up
hearing after the family moved to Palmyra/Manchester. And probably
not from the early Quaker settlers of Farmington and Manchester either.

It certainly did not come from Nephites.

Certainly agree with you there. They supposedly spoke a Hebrew dialect.

It is not the chosen language of God Almighty.

Don't know about that either way. I've never heard him speak. However, there may be some indicators in the Doctrine and Covenants if the revelations were word for word and not paraphrases by Joseph

It most likely came from some old book(s).

Go find examples, matching Book of Mormon language in books from
the time of King Henry VIII, and a little before. Enough of those old
texts were reprinted through the years, that you can find lengthy
examples via Google Books.

Perhaps you can even locate one particular book in which the great
majority of those pre-KJV terms appear.

It is worth a try, at least.

UD

Would be an interesting project, but will probably take more than one afternoon. Actually Skousen helpfully gives some examples in his article. How many more potential sources do we have to add to the Book of Mormon bibliography? Where is the library that Rigdon, Spalding, Smith, Cowdery, et al used to compile that document?

Glenn