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

[_GlennThigpen]

I won’t push too hard in this thread, but there is a tendency of apologists to exploit our inability to explain everything as a gap into which God can be inserted. That’s a non-sequitur. The debate should focus on Book of Mormon historicity. In absence of direct evidence linking the Book of Mormon to the real world—specifically ancient America—and the proliferation of ad hoc defenses (most notably the Limited Geography Theory and Limited Population Theory)—the most reasonable theory is the Smith-alone theory.

Dan, you made some good points in your response. There is too much to respond to in this thread. I am really trying to keep away from divine intervention as the alternative to any of the theories. My focus has been in trying to show that mainly the S/R theory too many gaps to be considered a tenable theory, for what little effect it had had. I have mostly tried to focus on that because it was the OP of this thread but other tangents have been introduced and I need to just stick to one thing at a time.

Automatic writing is another theory that has been proposed for the provenance of the Book of Mormon. It has some precedence in the case of Pearl Curran and Patience Worth. If comparing theories, it could be thrown into the mix also to give it a relative probability against all of the other theories.

But I try to avoid comparing theories as to best fit. Each one should stand or fall on its own merits. I liken comparing theories to the original Jocker's wordprint study where suggested authors for the Book of Mormon were ranked in relative probability to each other. Even though clear "winners" were produced, that was no guarantee that the "winner" was actually the author.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Too Busy to comment as much as I would like to, but I will take a couple minutes for this....

6. Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon. The S/R theorists have no clue about them. Dan Vogel has at least attempted to explain those variants, but the explanation is ad hoc. Some of the variants follow the Masoretic text, some follow the Septuagint. And some follow neither. John Tvedtnes has done some work in this area. Is available on the Maxwell Institute web site.

I believe David Wright showed that the Isaiah variants are in fact responses to the 1611 English text and often disruptive to the underlying Hebrew (see “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in American Apocrypha). A few coincidental hits that Mormon apologists exploit hardly make up for the majority of misses. Apologetic responses to those are usually ad hoc.

Finally, I agree with Dan. David Wright did a fantastic job of demonstrating that "the Isaiah variants are in fact responses to the 1611 English text and often disruptive to the underlying Hebrew."

Moreover, if Dan and David are correct about that, the Smith Divine theory is in serious trouble. (Not that there aren't other factors that are also equally damaging to it.) If the Book of Mormon Isaiah variants are truly erroneous responses to KJV italics that actually do damage to the underlying Hebrew (in most cases) then it would take some pretty amazing apologetics to salvage the notion that God was directing the whole process.

And the very (unsupported) notion that Smith set aside his stone and moved to the Bible is ad hoc reasoning in response to the overwhelming evidence for Biblical plagiarism in the first place.

Faced with overwhelming textual evidence, Smith Divine concedes that God must have allowed Joseph to copy the KJV to simultaneously....

1. save his eyes and
2. fix the KJV errors

...but if Wright is correct, and I think he is, whoever copied Isaiah did not fix errors (because they were not errors in the first place) and instead created errors. Pretty serious blunder.

[_Uncle Dale]

...I am really trying to keep away from divine intervention as the
alternative to any of the theories.
...

That is a commendable position, I believe. I hope you can extend it
to cover the Supernatural generally. Certainly you must be opposed to
anti-Mormons like Ed Decker, who advance the possibility of Satanic
powers assisting the spread of Mormonism.

Science (and scientific inquiry) need not ignore the Supernatural entirely,
but about as close as we might expect to come up against it, would be
a recognition that some events and explanations of events fall outside
the limits of scientific theories, and should not be used as arguments in
favor of one religious origins theory over another.

For that reason, I'm comfortable with Mormons speaking of the "traditional"
LDS explanations for latter day scripture, unusual events, pious views, etc.
If we can leave the details out of our discussions, I feel that we will have
a better chance of communicating here.

Can the traditional LDS explanations for the origin of Mormonism and its
unique scriptures be articulated in "non-divine intervention" language?
Perhaps so, if we ourselves merely make mention of early Mormons'
professions and beliefs as THEIR arguments for traditional explanations;
and not as OUR arguments.

I suppose it is a difficult path to walk, for dialogue here -- but perhaps it
is worth our effort to try and do just that.

Having said just that much, how do the religionists here mask their own
testimonies? That is a more difficult thing to do. If I were a staunch
RLDS fundamentalist, then nothing you (or any other participant) might
say, could ever impact my profession of Joseph Smith, Jr. being a true
monogamist, in word and deed. For me to admit even the possibility that
others' arguments against that testimony were worth my time and effort
to listen to, would be about the same as my leaving the Church.

THAT sort of fact cannot be well masked -- or so it seems to me and so
it has been my experience.

It seems to me that there are a great number of historical assertions that
have been advanced against the traditional LDS origins explanations, which
the observant and loyal Mormon simply cannot admit -- even if they are
accepted as verified by practically every non-Mormon in the world.

For example -- that Joseph Smith ever told a lie -- or that Emma Smith
was not what President Young said she was.

How loyal LDS can ever hope to get past such "roadblocks" to discussion,
stands beyond my comprehension. Once they have denied their Mormon
testimonies, then perhaps productive dialogue can begin. Short of that
important development, I think we can not expect to progress much here.

UD

[_Roger]

Might as well also address this while I'm here:

Dan, you made some good points in your response. There is too much to respond to in this thread. I am really trying to keep away from divine intervention as the alternative to any of the theories. My focus has been in trying to show that mainly the S/R theory too many gaps to be considered a tenable theory, for what little effect it had had. I have mostly tried to focus on that because it was the OP of this thread but other tangents have been introduced and I need to just stick to one thing at a time.

Divine intervention is what your theory rests on. Remove it and your theory evaporates.

Automatic writing is another theory that has been proposed for the provenance of the Book of Mormon. It has some precedence in the case of Pearl Curran and Patience Worth. If comparing theories, it could be thrown into the mix also to give it a relative probability against all of the other theories.

Sure, but what are we to conclude about automatic writing? Is it something that is merely possible in the natural world for a few gifted humans, or is there something supernatural behind it?

I view Arad Stowell's (1826) response to Smith's attempt to convince him he could read a book through his stone as evidence that Smith was honing his con-man abilities. If the Book of Mormon was produced through automatic writing, then his automatic writing "gift" must not have been fully developed in 1826. It think it is more likely that his conning ability was not fully perfected at that point.

But I try to avoid comparing theories as to best fit. Each one should stand or fall on its own merits. I liken comparing theories to the original Jocker's wordprint study where suggested authors for the Book of Mormon were ranked in relative probability to each other. Even though clear "winners" were produced, that was no guarantee that the "winner" was actually the author.

The Book of Mormon exists. One way or another it had to have been produced. The official explanation has serious problems. Fatal problems. That's why you want to "avoid comparing theories as to best fit." But that's the only way to determine how the Book of Mormon actually got here. Saying Joseph was visited by an angel, given a miraculous ability to translate an unknown language written on alleged plates that were subsequently and inexplicably removed by the same angel works in a system requiring only blind faith, but has no explanatory power in the real world. Without blind faith, Smith Divine comes out the loser, leaving us to discuss Smith-alone vs S/R. If you want to throw automatic writing into the mix and defend it, I suppose that could be an alternative, but I would want to know whether you intend to argue it from a naturalistic perspective or that God somehow used automatic writing. In either case, it would seem that the stone was merely a prop and used as part of a show.

[_Uncle Dale]

...it would seem that the stone was merely a prop and used as part of a show.

Perhaps that is true, Roger. But it is a prime tenet of Mormonism, that the
"ancient order of things" from biblical times was restored in the 7th and
final dispensation -- including the oracular powers of the urim & thummim.
I do not believe that doctrine can be removed from Mormonism. And thus,
Smith's stone is somehow tied to "the restoration."

I'll give you an RLDS example argument from my younger days --- That Joe
really did possess the biblical urim & thummim, and that at least some part
of the "stone" references in our history are really U&T references.

When pressed hard, with multiple quotations from various old sources, the
RLDS historian would finally admit (under his breath) that in his youth Joe
did possess such a stone -- and that perhaps it was given to him by God
as a sort of "instructional device," by which he could prepare himself for
an eventual reception of the bublical U&T.

How would a modern Community of Christ historian alter that old RLDS
doctrine? My guess is that he/she would begin by admitting Joe never
possessed the biblical U&T -- and that all such references were mistakes,
or even outright exaggerations of the "seer stone" itself.

But the CoC scholar would then go one step beyond the Mormon, and
point out the documented use of shiny objects as "concentration points"
for various and sundry oracles, all through human history. In other words,
it would not matter whether the stone itself possessed any magical
properties. And it would not matter if Joe and his followers believed in
such supernatural properties, or not.

What would matter, is that the stone was put to use, in order to
concentrate Joe's thoughts -- or perhaps even aid him in disassociating
entirely from mundane thoughts -- in order to enter a revelatory trance
state, from which oracles were issued.

I do not think that a Mormon could go that far -- in admitting the lack
of magical properties in Joe's stone, or the Book of Mormon stones, or
even the stones occasionally found mentioned in frontier LDS accounts.
If there are Mormons who can separate out the supernatural explanations
long enough to think of Smith's actions as fully naturalistic -- then I
suspect that particular Mormon is well down the slippery slope of apostasy.

UD

[_marg]

Dan & Glenn,
I know there are posts I should respond to. I've taken a break from the board to focus on getting exercise. It's important that I do rather than sitting, due to recent arthritis diagnosis. I haven't left completely, just taking some time.

[_GlennThigpen]

Automatic writing is another theory that has been proposed for the provenance of the Book of Mormon. It has some precedence in the case of Pearl Curran and Patience Worth. If comparing theories, it could be thrown into the mix also to give it a relative probability against all of the other theories.

Sure, but what are we to conclude about automatic writing? Is it something that is merely possible in the natural world for a few gifted humans, or is there something supernatural behind it?

I don't know. It is just another theory.

But I try to avoid comparing theories as to best fit. Each one should stand or fall on its own merits. I liken comparing theories to the original Jocker's wordprint study where suggested authors for the Book of Mormon were ranked in relative probability to each other. Even though clear "winners" were produced, that was no guarantee that the "winner" was actually the author.

The Book of Mormon exists. One way or another it had to have been produced. The official explanation has serious problems. Fatal problems. That's why you want to "avoid comparing theories as to best fit." But that's the only way to determine how the Book of Mormon actually got here. Saying Joseph was visited by an angel, given a miraculous ability to translate an unknown language written on alleged plates that were subsequently and inexplicably removed by the same angel works in a system requiring only blind faith, but has no explanatory power in the real world. Without blind faith, Smith Divine comes out the loser, leaving us to discuss Smith-alone vs S/R. If you want to throw automatic writing into the mix and defend it, I suppose that could be an alternative, but I would want to know whether you intend to argue it from a naturalistic perspective or that God somehow used automatic writing. In either case, it would seem that the stone was merely a prop and used as part of a show.

You are reading my mind now? The divine provenance theory has not been proven to have any fatal flaws, except of course, that no one has proven the existence of God. The divine provenance aspect is not really a theory. It is the story behind the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. If you do not accept the existence of God or that he did appear to Joseph, then you must, of course, find something else to explain how the Book of Mormon came to be.
I am not an advocate of the automatic writing theory. I just said that it is one of the theories on the provenance of the Book of Mormon. It is an observed phenomonon. I pointe to the case of Pearl Curran and Patience Worth as an example.
I believe in the existence of God the Father ans Jesus and that the Book of Mormon was produced by inspiration, but have no way to prove that they do exist nor that the Book of Mormon is an inspired translation. The S/R theory does not provide the answers. It has always been a theory long on speculation and short on evidence.
This thread started out about the Jockers wordprint study. Dan made some points in a previous post conveying his distrust of wordprint studies that I think should be explored. And maybe some of the authors of some of those studies, or someone with some expertise in those fields, might just weigh in on the subject.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Dan & Glenn,
I know there are posts I should respond to. I've taken a break from the board to focus on getting exercise. It's important that I do rather than sitting, due to recent arthritis diagnosis. I haven't left completely, just taking some time.

I do hope that your artritic conditions abate. They are not fun.

As for this thread, unles it gets back on the original track, I am not really interested in going any further. We would only be going in circles. I will read what you have to say in response to anything I have posted.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...If you do not accept the existence of God or that he did appear to Joseph, then you must, of course, find something else to explain how the Book of Mormon came to be.
...

I've heard this sort of thing asserted by Mormons all my life, and it has often
puzzled me. Coming out of a Reorganized heritage, I never thought of people
who rejected Joseph Smith's scriptural publications, historical accounts, etc.,
as not "accepting the existence of God." So it was difficult for me to wrap my
mind around the LDS professions in this regard.

It was only when I was experienced enough to trace backwards in our
history the Mormon assertions, that I realized they were shared by my
ancestors in the Church, way back in the 1830s -- or, at least by their
leaders. The early Mormon worldview appears to have rejected all other
manifestations of Christianity as having been so corrupt that the members
essentially did not "accept the existence of God." That is -- the first
Mormons evidently rejected the tenet that God creates existence itself,
and is not merely a glorified human being, trapped in a physical body.

Later, during my period of service as an associate missionary in Utah, I
came to realize how the LDS had preserved this very early "God-in-a-body"
view of Divine "existence," -- to the point that we RLDS were condemned by
them as being nothing more than "one of the sects" that did not accept
the "existence" of God.

At last I came to understand the LDS professions along these lines.

For them, it did (does?) not matter that a non-acceptor of the Mormon
historical accounts is a baptized Christian, or a Jewish rabbi -- or the Pope
in Rome himself. Since none of those people accept the Mormon God, it is
natural that they would subsequently reject the LDS origins claims -- out
of their corrupted religious (or atheistic) worldviews.

I say "natural," not because I view the situation in those terms -- but it is
"natural" that the Mormons would think along those lines. For them -- in their
worldview -- to reject Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is an action
practically identical with rejecting the "existence" of God.

But, not being a Mormon, I myself refuse to be confined to such dogma.

As I see our shared history, there have been numerous instances in which
honest and sincere Jesus-followers refused to accept the Mormon claims,
without truly rejecting God (whether "existing" or creating existence).

Some atheists may have really rejected Smith and his book, out-of-hand,
just because they were atheists. But I cannot accept the notion that
19th century authorship explanations all arose out of obdurate atheism.

No -- in the past people took a look at the book and at the Mormons, and
concluded that both phenomena arose out of a naturalistic context -- no
matter if God had been watching over the situation or not.

I reject the absurdity of having to think that all the "Conneaut witnesses"
rejected God, and therefore the 1830 book. John N. Miller (for one) was a
faithful Presbyterian, and an early parishioner of the same Rev. Patterson
who later took up residence in Pittsburgh and rejected Spalding's manuscript.
Abner Jackson became an ordained Methodist minister. Other early witnesses
were either silent about their faith, or are on the record as observant
Christians (including Matilda Spalding Davison and her daughter, who were
members of the Monson Congregationalist society in Massachusetts).

If Mormons continue to "pin the blame" for alternative theories regarding LDS
origins on the "atheists," then they really ought to specify just which
rejectors of God they are talking about -- Fawn M. Brodie? -- Dan Vogel? --
D.P. Hurlbut? -- Lucifer the Prince of Darkness?

A little clarity on this allegation would be welcome, I'm sure.

Uncle Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

...
A little clarity on this allegation would be welcome, I'm sure.
...

Let's imagine Apostle Parley P. Pratt, back in 1839, confronting a certain non-Mormon:

PPP: "So, Dr. McKinstry, you believe that modern human beings wrote the book?"
Dr. M: "Indeed I do, Mr. Pratt -- and my wife tells me her father wrote part of it."

PPP: "And, my good Dr., I presume you are a member of this local church -- and
that you subscribe to all of its creeds and confessions?"
Dr. M: "That is correct, sir."

PPP: "Thus, you and your creed says God is a Spirit?"
Dr. M: "I'm sure you've read the Westminster Confession and Calvin's writings."

PPP: "Then, Dr. McKinstry, your refusal to obey the restored Gospel and
repent of your iniquity explains your false accusations regarding our book!"
Dr. M: "How can that be, sir?"

PPP: "Simple -- you refuse to believe in the existence of God, as taught by
His latter day prophet, President Joseph Smith, Jr. -- and so you invent your
corrupt precepts and attempt to explain away the Book of Mormon!"
Dr. M: "But our Church accepts God!"

PPP: "It does not accept God and His Son existing in bodies of flesh and bone,
and so you are teaching utterly false doctrine. Your are thus condemned!"
Dr. M: "My wife's father wrote part of your holy book, Mr. Pratt!"

PPP: "Good day sir. I shake the dust of my shoes off against your atheism..."

(fade to black)

UD