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

[_MCB]

Marg, The mere fact that you can't locate the closest parallel passage in the text disqualifies you from further debate.
Dale, it is very difficult to track down the sources for the text. No-one really wanted to after the disappointment of the Oberlin manuscript. Maybe a superstitious fear that having made the effort, nothing would be found.

[_marg]

I guess I'll put you on ignore MCB..because I've yet to see you write anything worthwhile..except a few digs at people here and there, and compliments about Dan every now and again. I suspect because Dan is a writer and you fancy yourself as a writer, that you feel a connection..but that's simply speculation.

Getting you to say anything about where you stand on anything is virtually impossible...other than your profuse compliments about Dan of course. Just where is that discussion you mentioned you wanted to have with him..and that promise that you made about proving Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon which Beastie said she'd like to hear. If you are going to be critical of others, at least add something of your own. And your book I can't figure out either.

[Guest]

Marg,
I don't know how to say this in an appropriate way for the celestial. However, your behavior is TBM-ish. You have a pattern of disagreeing and arguing with everyone.

[_marg]

Marg,
I don't know how to say this in an appropriate way for the celestial. However, your behavior is somewhat Mormonish. You have a pattern of disagreeing and arguing with everyone.

Probably to you, anyone who argues against Dan, is arguing with everyone. Anytime you want to discuss with him, go right ahead...no one is stopping you. I don't know what you mean by Mormonish, but I'm pretty sure if I asked I wouldn't get a response because that's your behavior ..that is you give out insults but when asked for clarification or to back up, you go silent. I gather being Mormonish is supposed to be a bad thing...whatever it means because only MCB knows that.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Mormonish.
...

Maybe it's infectious...

I think it very possible that Spalding studied the ancient
British histories, of King Alfred, etc., and from there was
led on to read about Danes, Northmen, and the sort of
Scandinavians who appear in the Ossian poems.

Whether or not much of that sort of thing ever made its
way into the Book of Mormon, I know not. Kerry Shirts
once came within a sentence of admitting a connection;
but then backed off, and speculated that the Nephite
record was an influence upon Icelandic sagas, etc.



But -- of course we know that the Book of Mormon is merely
the embellished chronicles of an 1820s Manchester family,
split by alcoholism, temperance, Universalism & Calvinism --
don't we?

UD

[_marg]

You have a pattern of disagreeing and arguing with everyone.

I don't recall doing much arguing with you so I guess I've left you out.

Persisting in defending the Spalding witnesses and attacking the Smith witnesses when the reliability of both sets is equally suspect is a defensive tactic, that makes the theory more complex , and therefore suspect in itself. It is sufficient to say, as Dan says, that the borrowing from the Bible, and the marks of Joseph' authorship are sufficient to any reasonable person.

There is so much wrong in your above statement.

You say: "when the reliability of both sets is equally suspect". Not at all MCB..the 2 sets of witnesses should be evaluated separately...and the likelihood that they are equal in reliability is highly improbable. When one critically evaluates the witnesses...on many parameters the S/R witnesses appear credible, likely to be reliable though one shouldn't expect complete accuracy in recall, and the Book of Mormon witnesses with a vested interest and claiming extraordinary claims is a given that they should be treated with a high degree of skepticism that they are telling the truth.

You say ; "is a defensive tactic". Well it's called critically evaluating the evidence. I've never heard of that being called a defensive tactic.
You say: "that makes the theory more complex". Yes, MCB, critically evaluating evidence makes the thinking about a probability theory more complex than doing little examination and choosing the simplest explanation.

You say: " and therefore suspect in itself." Frankly your suggestion of speculating what influenced Spalding is about as complex a theory as one could get. You have to have extraordinarily good evidence to convince anyone what you think Spalding might have read that ended up in the Book of Mormon. So if complexity makes a theory suspect...perhaps you need to think about that for your theory.

You say: " It is sufficient to say, as Dan says, that the borrowing from the Bible, and the marks of Joseph' authorship are sufficient to any reasonable person"

I don't find that sufficient at all. I think the Church is right for the reasons I believe Nibley argued. It is highly improbable to the point of concluding it didn't happen, that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. The church has been the winner of the debate all the years since its inception, not the secular Smith-alone theorists.

My counter is that we are not dealing with reasonable people. Therefore I ask again, "What were the sources, other than Smith family dynamics and the Bible?"

Well by reasonable people you are talking about TBM's..so sure they aren't going to be convinced through reasoning about any secular theory. But the discussion I've been having which you are criticizing has been with Dan and at times with Glenn and Glenn I find tries to keep his faith out of it and apply reasoning. As far as your question goes..that's fine you ask it and argue something which answers it...if you can. But don't expect me, to argue for your theory.

The best defense is a good offense.

I'll keep that in mind the next time you post a derogatory comment to something I've posted when I wasn't even discussing with you.

This is the celestial forum, in which participants are supposed to try to focus on issues and then offer their reasoning. I see very little reasoning in your post I'm commenting on. If you think you've got the best approach and the best way to handle a discussion then get involved and post your argument or whatever it is you are interested in promoting as opposed to standing by the side-lines offering your critique on what should be said or what shouldn't according to MCB.

[_Roger]

Marg wrote:

So we are down to 2 theories...Smith alone versus S/R theory. The S/R data Dan, is not ad hoc justifications. Yes it's complex, and messy and difficult to appreciate..but that's real life. If you are looking for truth as opposed to a theory which will make do irrespective of truth, then real theories can get complex.

Very well said. I haven't kept up with the many posts on this thread, but I seem to remember Dan saying something to the effect that he doesn't believe we can know the truth about the Book of Mormon because all we have to deal with is conflicting evidence. That may not be a perfect paraphrase, but I think his point was pretty close to that.

But when you boil it down to only two possible choices, and one of those choices surely must be correct (and they both can't be right), then I think there is a pretty decent chance of determining which of the two options is closest to what actually happened. As Dale has stated on many occasions, it boils down to Smith-alone or Smith plus helpers.

Real life does indeed get complex--even in the face of what seems to be a simple explanation. I once saw a comedic video on how a piece of gum ended up somewhere--stuck on something, I guess, I can't fully remember, but the joke was that when the tape was played backwards you see that it went through all kinds of people (their mouths) and dirty locations before it ended up where it did. Of course it's just a silly video, but we all know the simplest explanation isn't always the correct one.

[_MCB]

Dale,
I certainly work by developing points of agreement, rather than dogging on points of disagreement. Many times here I have seen Dan nearly agreeing that there is something to S/R. He has never made to my knowledge a counter to the complexity argument.
K.S. cornered on match with Northern literature? That is royal!! That is their counter with Clavigero parallels, too. Two mutually incompatible counter-arguments. Definite lack of creativity there.
Yes, Marg does remind me of how I was seven years ago. Except she is obsessing on an argument that has been worked to the bone. I am glad I got my vaccination against the Mo-virus at a young age.
Can you imagine what would happen if Monmouth and Icelandic sagas and other literature were taught in high schools in Mormon-dominated areas?

[_GlennThigpen]

Marg wrote:

So we are down to 2 theories...Smith alone versus S/R theory. The S/R data Dan, is not ad hoc justifications. Yes it's complex, and messy and difficult to appreciate..but that's real life. If you are looking for truth as opposed to a theory which will make do irrespective of truth, then real theories can get complex.

Very well said. I haven't kept up with the many posts on this thread, but I seem to remember Dan saying something to the effect that he doesn't believe we can know the truth about the Book of Mormon because all we have to deal with is conflicting evidence. That may not be a perfect paraphrase, but I think his point was pretty close to that.

But when you boil it down to only two possible choices, and one of those choices surely must be correct (and they both can't be right), then I think there is a pretty decent chance of determining which of the two options is closest to what actually happened. As Dale has stated on many occasions, it boils down to Smith-alone or Smith plus helpers.

Real life does indeed get complex--even in the face of what seems to be a simple explanation. I once saw a comedic video on how a piece of gum ended up somewhere--stuck on something, I guess, I can't fully remember, but the joke was that when the tape was played backwards you see that it went through all kinds of people (their mouths) and dirty locations before it ended up where it did. Of course it's just a silly video, but we all know the simplest explanation isn't always the correct one.

Oh, there is at least one other theory that is making the rounds about Book of Mormon authorship. It is called automatic writing. It was something that was in vogue during the 1800's and is a simpler explanation than the S/R theory. It doesn't require any ad hoc theories to explain away conflicting evidence, lines up very well with the experiences and evidence, but does require a type of Smith alone theory as the conduit.

The S/R theory requires several ad hoc theories to explain away conflicting evidence. To quote Dan Vogel from anothe post in this thread:

Counter Evidence: MS Hurlbut recovered not same as Book of Mormon
Ad Hoc Hypothesis: Hurlbut recovered two MSS and sold one to Mormons

CE: How did Joseph Smith get Spalding MS?
AHH: Sidney Rigdon stole Spalding’s MS, rewrote it, and passed it to Joseph Smith

CE: SR didn’t hear of the Book of Mormon until Nov. 1830
AHH: SR’s post-Book of Mormon conversion was a sham

CE: How did he know P P Pratt would lead missionaries to his home?
AHH: Parley P. Pratt was in on the SR conversion sham

CE: SR and Joseph Smith said they didn’t meet until Dec. 1830
AHH: That was a lie

CE: Multiple witnesses say there was no MS used in translation
AHH: They are either gullible or liars

CE: Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon with head in hat
AHH: The hat had a false top and Joseph Smith read MS in lap

CE: Spalding witnesses said MS about Indians being lost tribes
AHH: They didn’t really mean lost tribes as understood by their contemporaries, but to one tribe with blood line same as one of the tribes that got lost

CE: The Book of Mormon isn't about the ten tribes, it rejects it
AHH: Those passages were added

…ad infanitum

Aaron Wright's reaction when he was presented with the actual manuscript that Solomon actually wrote is a classic ad hoc invention. A completely unsupported report by a man already dead.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Automatic writing is certainly a legitimate theory. However, it still requres knowledge of source materials.
I once had such an experience during one troubled period in my life. I never re- read what I wrote. What i do remember was that it was a pretty good synthesis of what I knew at the time. Joseph Smith did not have the background to dictate what he did unless he had knowledge of the source materials that I am talking about. He could have believed that he was dictating from Godly inspiration. Particularly if he had internalized others' perceptions tht he was stupid.