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

[_GlennThigpen]

Those are indeed fatal problems and those aren't the only ones. As Dan mentioned, David Wright has clearly shown that the Isaiah variants are destructive responses to the italics of the 1611 KJVB. Whoever made the changes was under the false impression that the italics were corruptions of the original. But that idea is what was actually erroneous and, as Dan pointed out, the changes often resulted in a corruption of the underlying Hebrew. That is yet another fatal flaw for the Official story.

The discussion did not end with David Wright's article.

Here are a couple of articles concerning Wright's viewpoints.
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=553

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/2nephi12.shtml

It seems that some of Wright's conclusions may have been a little hasty.

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.

I hope so. But even if wp studies are found to be weak, that still would not disprove S/R. The kind of evidence Dale, Holly and others have raised, some of which we have been discussing here, remains with or without wp studies. The error patterns remain. The vocabulary patterns that Dale is working on remain. The wherefore/therefore shift remains. The parallels remain. And the testimonies of the S/R witnesses have not been impeached.

If the word print studies are borne out, and at this point, they have not been shown to be in error, the S/R theory is dead. MCB has been doing a lot of work with parallels and had found parallels in a host of other texts. That is something that I have predicted over and over. The more texts in which multiple parallels are found, the less signigicant are the parallels in the Book of Mormon and Solomon's manuscript.
Five of the witnesses impeached themselves.

To me the two theories that best explain the existence of the Book of Mormon are Smith-alone and S/R.

Automatic writing actually works better than either of those two.

Glenn

[_MCB]

No, Glenn, the primary textual parallels are with just three texts. The Heimskringla, Monmouth, and Clavigero. The others are too thin, cultural insights, or possibly related through secondary sources. I am not counting Maccabees and Judith, because Smith & Co. had access to them. And there are parallels with Monmouth and Clavigero on OMS, indicating that Spalding was familiar with them.
Returning to lurk mode.

[_GlennThigpen]

Dan has raised the issue of a lack of trust in wordprint studies, I assume in the case of the Book of Mormon primarily. Wordprints have been developed and tested against texts of known authorship for many years.
A person's worprints, using noncontextual words, has been shown to survive several strokes as in the case of Sir Walter Scott noted by A.Q. Morton in his 1978 Literary Detection.
According to Hilton et al in On Verifying Word Print Studies, BYU Studies, 1990, also showed that an author's wordprints can survive translation if done by the same translator and the translator is careful in his translation methods. The author whose works were translated was German. German noncontextual words have close affinities with those of the English language.
John Tvedtnes of the Maxwell Institute and BYU argues that wordprints should not be used in trying to determine authorship of Hebrew translation because some of the participles and other words used in the wordprint studies have no counterpart in the Hebrew and are added by the translator to make the text readable and make sense in English and thus would reflect the translators wordprints rather than that of the original Hebrew author.
That does make sense. But does it mean that wordprint analysis is useless when applied to the Book of Mormon?
I think not. Wordprint analysis can be used, I believe, to eliminate suggested English authors for the Book of Mormon.
The Larsen, Rencher, Layton study compared the styles of twenty-one Book of Mormon authors who produced at least 1000 words of text against each other. They were shown to have widely divergent styles as to concontextual word useage. Keeping the concerns of John Tvedtnes in mind, maybe we cannot assume that each of those books were written by a different author, but we know that there was only one person that dictated the Book of Mormon!
Morten noted that a person's noncontextual word patterns remain constant, even when trying to imitate another author. He cited the case of an unfinished novel by Jane Austen that another author tried to finish and pass off as Austen's work. Although the writer was very skilled and the conclusion was well written, her noncontextual wordprints showed through.
There have been concerns that the use of fifteen hundreds and sisteen hundreds English in the Book of Mormon might skew the results. The NSC method does not rely strictly on on nocontextual words and there have been concerns that it will be influenced by genre. Chris Smith did some work on the Urantia papers and he was listed as an author of a couple of the papers. However, he used the Delta method. I do not know if anyone has done anything of the like using the NSC method.
Further work can be done, such as testing the normal writings of Robert Henry Charles against his The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in which he imitated the style of the KJV. I think Dale has already proposed this.
However, such a test would be inconclusive, because Charles is doing a translation. What is needed is an author that wrote a lengthy article, novel, etc. imitating the KJV without doing a translation. That would be interesting.
Schaalje, et al, stated that they had made some adjustments in an attempt to eliminate possible skew using archaic words an phrases. I would like to see the NSC method applied to those different authors also.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

No, Glenn, the primary textual parallels are with just three texts. The Heimskringla, Monmouth, and Clavigero. The others are too thin, cultural insights, or possibly related through secondary sources. I am not counting Maccabees and Judith, because Smith & Co. had access to them. And there are parallels with Monmouth and Clavigero on OMS, indicating that Spalding was familiar with them.
Returning to lurk mode.

Thanks for the clarification.

Glenn

[_MCB]

What is more, I plan on mapping the parallels with those three texts to see if they occur more frequently in chapters commonly ascribed to Spalding. Now, really returning to lurk mode.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

However please tell me where I ever said the part you wrote, which I've underlined...because that is not the reason I said one must be skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses.

The only thing you and Marg said is that they were religious fanatics and for that reason can’t be trusted.

Of course this is a paraphrase. The most recent statement:

Ok so Dan if we very briefly go through a critical examination of the credibility of the sources one can see there is good reason to be highly skeptical of the witnesses.


i) Source/Person: all related except one(Harris) to each other. These individuals when it comes to Mormonism, and claims of angels, God and Smith's claims are not skeptical, inquisitive, independent, objective individuals. All tied to the enterprise Mormonism with participating functions available to them once it starts up. All at the beginning have potential rewards ..financial benefits, power, employment ..whether those materialize is irrelevant to the initial perceptions. All living in extremely hard times in need of work/livelihood (except Harris who is the financial backer) with few opportunities available at the time for uneducated or for those with no assets given by family such as a farm.

You have used this argument more than once. I can’t find it fast, but you said they couldn’t be trusted because they had visions of angels.

I intend to respond to you by tomorrow Dan regarding this ad hoc issue. You are so far out to lunch in your reasoning, it's hard to believe that you are being honest when you argue.

This is an example of the insulting language I have been seeing from you. Remember my discussion about your tendency to over-commit yourself. This is also an example of that. Once you make such an unwise statement like that, it’s hard to back down.

[_marg]

Dan,

It's taken me a little longer than I anticipated to respond to this ad hoc issue, for one reason I came across a book you've been using and I spent a bit of time reviewing it yesterday. I'm also a little bit drugged at this point, because I've taken tylenol 3 and it apparently can cause drowsiness. So I hope to respond today, but it's possible I might need an extension until tomorrow.

Ok so Dan if we very briefly go through a critical examination of the credibility of the sources one can see there is good reason to be highly skeptical of the witnesses.

i) Source/Person: all related except one(Harris) to each other. These individuals when it comes to Mormonism, and claims of angels, God and Smith's claims are not skeptical, inquisitive, independent, objective individuals. All tied to the enterprise Mormonism with participating functions available to them once it starts up. All at the beginning have potential rewards ..financial benefits, power, employment ..whether those materialize is irrelevant to the initial perceptions. All living in extremely hard times in need of work/livelihood (except Harris who is the financial backer) with few opportunities available at the time for uneducated or for those with no assets given by family such as a farm.

You have used this argument more than once. I can’t find it fast, but you said they couldn’t be trusted because they had visions of angels.

This is my position Dan, I don't think that religious individuals are poor critical thinkers, however the sorts of claims being made need to be considered in evaluating the individuals who make them. In this case the 3 witnesses in the Book of Mormon testifying to seeing angels & God..reflects on their likely credibility...so that includes Cowdery, D. Whitmer & Harris. As far as other Book of Mormon witnesses..as well as the 3 mentioned, none of them appear to be skeptical, inquisitive, and they are not independent, objective witnesses.

So I did not say that religious individuals can't be trusted or that it's the Book of Mormon witnesses' religious beliefs as to why one should be skeptical of their claims. Rather one needs to consider the sorts of sort of claims being made as a factor in evaluating those who make the claims. Because the Book of Mormon witnesses make extraordinary claims some more so than others, and as well the witnesses (except one or 2 hostile ones) are non objective, non skeptical witnesses..that leads one to conclude one must be highly skeptical of their claims. The sorts of claims being made need to be considered in determining if the evidence commensurates with the claims to warrant acceptance. Therefore for the sorts of extraordinary claims the Book of Mormon witnesses make...and the fact that they are not reliable witnesses(for various reasons such as lack of independence) ...leads one to conclude that they as evidence do not commensurate with the sorts of claims made. Those witnesses as evidence on their own do not meet a sufficient burden of proof to warrant acceptance of their claims.

I intend to respond to you by tomorrow Dan regarding this ad hoc issue. You are so far out to lunch in your reasoning, it's hard to believe that you are being honest when you argue.

This is an example of the insulting language I have been seeing from you. Remember my discussion about your tendency to over-commit yourself. This is also an example of that. Once you make such an unwise statement like that, it’s hard to back down.

Dan I've been reading lots of insults from you for a while now. You've appointed yourself the logic expert, but that's not good enough. With high frequency you make specific accusations that I don't understand logic, debate and various fallacies. Frankly it's really the reverse, it's you who has a poor understanding of good reasoning and you misunderstand and misapply fallacies. However, I haven't been insulting you nearly to the degree you have been insulting me.

So you misrepresented my reasoning on why one should be skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses, .and yes I did insult you because I've had enough of your insults and what looks to me like dishonesty when you are misrepresent what I've said. So you stop insulting me, and I'll stop insulting you.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

It's taken me a little longer than I anticipated to respond to this ad hoc issue, for one reason I came across a book you've been using and I spent a bit of time reviewing it yesterday. I'm also a little bit drugged at this point, because I've taken tylenol 3 and it apparently can cause drowsiness. So I hope to respond today, but it's possible I might need an extension until tomorrow.

That’s OK. I’m in no hurry.

This is my position Dan, I don't think that religious individuals are poor critical thinkers, however the sorts of claims being made need to be considered in evaluating the individuals who make them. In this case the 3 witnesses in the Book of Mormon testifying to seeing angels & God..reflects on their likely credibility...so that includes Cowdery, D. Whitmer & Harris. As far as other Book of Mormon witnesses..as well as the 3 mentioned, none of them appear to be skeptical, inquisitive, and they are not independent, objective witnesses.

What criteria and sources are you using to conclude these witnesses are not “skeptical, inquisitive, and they are not independent, objective witnesses”? What would they have to do to qualify them as “skeptical, inquisitive, and they are not independent, objective witnesses”? Now for the big question—assuming they were not “skeptical, inquisitive, … independent, objective witnesses”, how would that effect their statements about seeing Joseph Smith with head in hat dictating the Book of Mormon? Ah, that made them vulnerable to Joseph Smith’s trick hat, right? Wrong. That’s your groundless and baseless ad hoc theory—not to mention you have no evidence that these witnesses weren’t any of these things. Cowdery asked to try translating with the stone, and Harris tested Joseph Smith by switching the stone. You underestimate Joseph Smith’s ability to convince people of his gift. Some very intelligent people were fooled by him.

So I did not say that religious individuals can't be trusted or that it's the Book of Mormon witnesses' religious beliefs as to why one should be skeptical of their claims.

You just said—“ In this case the 3 witnesses in the Book of Mormon testifying to seeing angels & God..reflects on their likely credibility.” How exactly does having visions reflect on credibility in telling the truth? We are not talking about their testimony about visions and miracles, but their personal observations under ordinary conditions. Otherwise normal people have visions, speak in tongues, etc. You can’t be suggesting they hallucinated Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon with head in hat, so you must be accusing them of lying. Having visions doesn’t make one a liar.

Rather one needs to consider the sorts of sort of claims being made as a factor in evaluating those who make the claims. Because the Book of Mormon witnesses make extraordinary claims some more so than others, and as well the witnesses (except one or 2 hostile ones) are non objective, non skeptical witnesses..that leads one to conclude one must be highly skeptical of their claims. The sorts of claims being made need to be considered in determining if the evidence commensurates with the claims to warrant acceptance. Therefore for the sorts of extraordinary claims the Book of Mormon witnesses make...and the fact that they are not reliable witnesses(for various reasons such as lack of independence) ...leads one to conclude that they as evidence do not commensurate with the sorts of claims made. Those witnesses as evidence on their own do not meet a sufficient burden of proof to warrant acceptance of their claims.

You are bunching all the witnesses together based on their beliefs—there is no other criteria being used here. The witnesses aren’t making “extraordinary claims” in this instance. They were not testifying to miracles or visions, which does warrant skepticism, but to ordinary observations. Of course, bias is a legitimate concern, but that doesn’t warrant a conclusion that they were liars or unable to make sound observations. The only reason you question them on such a basic observation is because they stand in the way of your ad hoc trick-hat theory. There are good reasons to accept their descriptions of Joseph Smith’s translation method. There is independent evidence for their basic honesty and trustworthiness. There are multiple witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly. Your theory that the hat and stone were brought out when hostile witnesses came to visit is ad hoc. While your criticisms of them focus on the time of their observations, you haven’t considered the dates of their statements. Most statements were given long after Joseph Smith was dead, and independent of one another. You are attempting to argue two things simultaneously—they aren’t trustworthy and they were fooled by the hat trick. Which is it? Either way, you don’t have warrant to dismiss all these witnesses categorically.

Dan I've been reading lots of insults from you for a while now. You've appointed yourself the logic expert, but that's not good enough. With high frequency you make specific accusations that I don't understand logic, debate and various fallacies. Frankly it's really the reverse, it's you who has a poor understanding of good reasoning and you misunderstand and misapply fallacies. However, I haven't been insulting you nearly to the degree you have been insulting me.

Wrong. All I have done is name the fallacies. You, on the other hand, manage to make it personal—mostly because you rely on a highly personal notion of what is logical—which is why you take it personally when logical fallacies are pointed out to you. You have tried to quibble your way out of some of these instances, all to no effect. However, even now you are making it personal. Even assuming your opinion of things is right, why do you get so insulted when someone points out logical fallacies? That’s what’s done in debate.

So you misrepresented my reasoning on why one should be skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses, .and yes I did insult you because I've had enough of your insults and what looks to me like dishonesty when you are misrepresent what I've said. So you stop insulting me, and I'll stop insulting you.

That’s going to be hard to do since you interpret lessons in logic as an insult. Why do you interpret a paraphrase of your and Roger’s position, whether right or wrong, as dishonesty? Why not simply correct it without getting personal? Ironically, you confirm in this post that what I said was basically correct.

[_marg]

Occam's Razor Discussion

Dan,

Below are quotes showing the evolution of our discussion on Occam’s Razor. (I'm blue, you are reddish brown)
Not once did you address my reasoning why in historical cases in which one is attempting to determine what actually happened, and there are competing theories with different conclusions which can not possibly co-exist, and the theories could not possibly explain the data equally well, in such cases … Occam’s Razor isn’t applicable, not even as a rule of thumb. Instead you told me my wording is confusing and that I’m “confusing “phenomenon” with “conclusion”” and you said that “Different “conclusions” is the wrong word. We’re talking about different explanations of the same phenomenon.”

So I respond that we are talking about different conclusions..and you tell me “You are confusing the discussion by replacing theory with conclusion.”

My response to you Dan is, I am not confusing the word "theory" with "conclusion". The Smith alone theory and the Spalding Rigdon theory have different conclusions. They both are theories to explain the same phenomenon, but with different conclusions. That means they do not have equal explanatory power. Only one scenario is possible, not both. It is only possible that Smith was the sole writer or that Smith had others help him.

Please note this as well from wiki:

"As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology.[14]
The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice."

During our discussion not once did you address the reasoning I gave but shifted focus off the reasoning and instead went on a tangent accusing me of misusing words... which I had not done. Given this, what is the likelihood that if I explain to you why your use of ad hoc fallacy is incorrect..that rather than address the reasoning you will instead will go off on a tangent and shift focus with an attempt to discredit me, despite you having no justified warrants to do so?

Essentially Dan for similar reasons to why Occam’s razor wasn’t applicable as a decision tool in choosing between the Smith alone and S/R theory, so too, “ad hoc fallacy” is not applicable in your attempts to discredit the S/R theory. I’ll have to explain later..but I doubt you’ll have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge the reasoning I’ll give..instead you’ll likely ignore it and focus on attempts to discredit me..dishonestly.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Previous discussions (May 1 - 6)

#1Marg to Dan on Sun May 01

You have an assumption that you understand Occam's Razor and therefore can use it effectively and appropriately in support of the Smith alone theory over the S/R theory. Unfortunately you do not understand Occam's Razor. Where Occams' Razor is applicable is where there are 2 or more explanatory theories and they reach the same conclusion. In such cases, obviously it's not necessary to use the explanatory theory with the greatest amount of data supporting the same conclusion if the simpler (less data) theory adequately warrants that conclusion.

The situation with the S/R and Smith alone theories is that they are explanations with different conclusions. They are competing theories but they are not equal explanatory theories for the same conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------

#2Marg to Mary on Tue May 03

I don't think Occam's Razor is really applicable as a decision criterion in choosing between what different scenarios of what might have happened in a real particular event in the past. It might be applicable as a means of choosing between scientific theories which are geared to be used in the future and so in choosing between equally effective theories with equal explanatory power ..then the least complex one makes for a good decision criteria in choosing. Scientific theories are verifable, so all else being equal as long as explanatory power is equal, one theory is as good as another as far as usefulness. But whether or not Occam's razor is really useful at all, I don't know, as it's only a general decision guideline which I think more often than not is misunderstood and misused. How often really are there theories with equal explanatory power, equally interchangeable? I don't know, because I'm not highly informed with regards to competing scientific theories with equal explanatory power.
---------------------------------------------------------------
#3Marg on Tue May 03

Deciding between different historical theories which are based on actual events, doesn't lend itself to Occam's razor. Something actually happened and determining what actually happened is not a function of using as a decision criterion,the least amount of data or whatever is the simplest explanation.
>>>
In science...theories are not about absolute "truth" or about what actually happened or what was true, like history tries to determine. Science theories are about best fit explanations for phenomena. As long as the theories are testable and verifiable, whatever theory adequately explains a phenomenon, with the least complexity..makes sense to use. It's not a function of truth, it's a function of what theory offers explanatory power that can be used.
------------------------------------------------------------------
# 4 (response to #1) Dan to Marg on May 3:

You wording is confused and misleading. Occam’s Razor deals with competing theories that attempt to explain the same phenomenon—here the phenomenon is the Book of Mormon. It’s not “less data” vs. more data; it’s about competing theories attempting to explain all the data, or at least most of it, with the least qualifications, elaborations, and ad hoc hypothesizing. I’m going to skip discussion of your examples, because they only show your unfamiliarity with the principles under discussion. Instead, I will supply the following discussion of Occam’s Razor and ad hoc hypothesizing
----------------------------------------------------------
# 5Marg on Wed May 04:

It is not surprising to me, but you are missing out a critical component of Occam’s razor and hence still don't understand it. I’ll quote wiki which you used “is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions, when the hypothesis are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.”

While you are correct that the phenomenon is the Book of Mormon, the competing theories Smith alone and S/R theory, do not have equal explanatory power, they are not “equal in other respects”. One could not simply interchange one theory for the other - each theory is not equally explanatory of the data. Both theories are competing but they can not given the contradictory nature of their conclusions, be both correct at the same time.
------------------------------------------------------------
# 6 (response to # 5)Dan on Wed May 4:

You’re the one who couldn’t accurately describe Occam’s Razor in the previous post, confusing phenomenon with “conclusion”. You hadn’t the foggiest idea what you were talking about, and still don’t. Now, you persist in trying to find a loophole that will prove you right in a different way.
-------------------------------------------------------------
#7Marg on Wed May 04:

First off…you have argued that Occam's razor should be used a a decision tool in favor of Smith alone theory over S/R because it is the simpler theory. You are incorrect in your application of Occam's Razor. Those are competing theories offering completely different conclusions.
--------------------------------------------------------------
# 8 Dan on Wed May 4:

Different “conclusions” is the wrong word. We’re talking about different explanations of the same phenomenon

----------------------------------------------------------
#9Marg on Wed May 04:

Occam's Razor can not logically be used as a decision tool to choose one theory over the other.

Occam's Razor may work in situations amenable to verification..because it can then be determined whether or not an explanation actually works. It's a useless determining factor for deciding true historical events..because the point of Occam's Razor is not to be used to determine "truth" the point of it is to use as a decision tool where all things being equal simplicity for choosing one over the other often makes sense.

And…

No we are talking about different conclusions..it's not the wrong word. Smith alone is a conclusion ..it's about a one man show. S/R theory is a conclusion...it is Smith with co conspirators..along with Spalding and perhaps other outside source material. What differentiates the theories are the different conclusions..warranted by the evidence and reasoning supporting those conclusions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
#10Dan on Thu May 05:

You are confusing the discussion by replacing theory with conclusion. S/R and Smith-alone are different theories attempting to explain the Book of Mormon. When you say “What differentiates the theories are the different conclusions,” you are merely repeating yourself--“What differentiates the THEORIES are the different THEORIES,” or “What differentiates the CONCLUSIONS are the different CONCLUSIONS,” as to who wrote the Book of Mormon. And the razor IS designed to assess different theories/conclusions that explain the same phenomenon—the Book of Mormon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#11Marg on Fri May 06,:

No Dan I’m not confusing anything. Here from wiki are the steps in reasoning employed in the scientific method:
Quote:
The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses.[citation needed] It consists of these steps:
1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
2. Making observations of the phenomenon
3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
5. Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment.

The word theory is not simply the same as conclusion. See the last step there Dan. One couldn’t simply say “Creating a theory with data gathered in the experiment.”

We simply differentiate the theories with different names..Smith alone ..versus S/R. The theory consist of the conclusion supported or warranted by the evidence and reasoning of the phenomenon observed ..the Book of Mormon. The theory entails all of that, the conclusion is a subset of the theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------
#12Dan on Fri May 06]

The scientific method begins with hypothesis > experiment > theory. The conclusion is a theory, which continues to be tested. Depending on who is describing the steps, the last step could be called “conclusion”, “finished hypothesis”, or “theory”. So you don’t day: --“What differentiates the THEORIES are the different THEORIES,” or “What differentiates the CONCLUSIONS are the different CONCLUSIONS.” Occam’s Razor is designed to favor one theory over another—not the same theory (which doesn’t make sinse)—but different theories or conclusions, if you like.

--------------------------

My response to you today in this post, which I also wrote above is: I am not confusing the word "theory" with "conclusion". The Smith alone theory and the Spalding Rigdon theory have different conclusions. They both are theories to explain the same phenomenon, but with different conclusions. That means they do not have equal explanatory power. Only one scenario is possible, not both. It is only possible that Smith was the sole writer or that Smith had others help compose it.( assuming Smith a contributor)

[_GlennThigpen]

In an earlier post Dan used the word "weak" to describe the use of Book of Mormon names as evidence against authorship of the Book of Mormon by any of the usual suapects, i.e. Sidney, Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, Joseph Smith, or Oliver Cowdery. It had been some time since I had actually reviewed the work that has been done on the Book of Mormon names, so I dcided to check how strong, or weak the case may actually be. Probably to no one's surprise, I still think that many of the Book of Mormon nmaes are still a stumbling block for any of those suggested authors. I will lay out why I believe this in a few paragraphs.

There are several Book of Mormon names not found in the Bible, but have been attested to in documents and inscribed on clay bullae found in Elephantine, Egypt and in Israel that date from the time of Lehi. The important fact about these names is that they are not found in the Bible, although some of them differ in only one or two letters such as Nahom/Nahum and Chemish/Chemosh. Yet there are others that pose greater difficulties.

I am not going to discuss all of the names and only a few of them at any length. That would be reinventing the wheel, as there have been qualified Hebrew scholars who have dopne the work for us. Of course, a critic may hasten to add that this work was done by LDS scholars, which is true. However, John Tvedtnes authored a paper (Hebrew names in the Book of Mormon) which he presented at the Thirteenth World Conference of Jewish Studies at Jerusalem in August of 2001. Doctor Tvedtnes said that his paper was well received and that a couple of the attendees actually suggested etymologies for some of the Book of Mormon names.

Also Doctor Tvedtnes made a report on LDS scholarship among non-lDS scholars that can be found at
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Scholarship_in_Mormonism_and_Mormonism_in_Scholarship.html

His paper on Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon can be found at http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/HebrewNames.pdf

Also, most of my information came from this article Book of Mormon Names Attested in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions which can be found at http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=1&id=210

What I found interesting is that I can find no reviews of the later LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon names. It might be out there, but doing a Google search for reviews of those two papers produced null results for any scholarly reviews although there were a host of results where they had been discussed on forums such as this one.

Right now, I am only going to focus on the S/R theory to keep the post manageable.
The Egyptian names are troublesome for the S/R theory because Chompollian was just completing his work on the Rosetta Stone in 1822. Those names could not plausibly have come from the mind of Solomon Spalding because he died in 1816. There is no evidence of which I am aware of any Egyptian texts being available to any of the other suggested authors, nor any evidence that any of those people had any training whatsoever in Egyptian.
Dr. William F. Albright, in an answer to a church critic (and a Methodist), said that he doubted that Joseph Smith could have learned Egyptian from any nineteenth century sources and also

"It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch [Paanchi] and Pahor(an) which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being 'Reformed Egyptian."

LDS scholars have identified other names that appear to be Egyptian also, but I will just point out those two examples. If anyone thinks this is weak, i.e. that Solomon, Rigdon, or Pratt could have easily have come up with those names, please provide the evidence.

I will leave it at that. I have provided good links and a starting point if someone knows enough or can find someone else who knows enough to provide an explanation of how Spalding, Rigdon, or Pratt could have guessed those Egyptian names which have been found to be authentic, as well as all of the Hebrew names not found in the Bible but which have been attested to in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions.

Glenn