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

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Dan writes: "It’s obvious that Cunningham was responding to what he read in the Book of Mormon, not an actual memory." On the contrary, what is obvious is that Dan & Glenn's biases are coloring their logic.

The argument is an inductive one based on what is known about the lost MS, which doesn’t support Cunningham’s memory. His memory demands that Spalding’s original narrative contain frequent repetitions of “I, Nephi”, that Rigdon and/or Smith changed it to third person, and then coincidentally restored it to first person after the loss of the 116 pages. Not only this, but also R/S changed it from Nephi in first person to Lehi in third person, then back to Nephi in first person. None of this has any evidence whatsoever, while Glenn and I are supported by the Book of Mormon itself. It is clear, as with the claim about the “lost tribes” that Cunningham’s memory is being incorrectly refreshed by the content of the Book of Mormon.

What's interesting is that their conclusions negate each other.

Not so.

It's certainly NOT obvious that Cunningham had no actual memory of "I Nephi" and, try as they might, Dan and Glenn's arguments do not even come close to establishing that.

If by “establishing” you mean prove by direct evidence, then you are fallaciously attempting to limit the kinds of evidence that can have logical force in assessing Cunningham’s claims.

There is more than one solution to this and either way is equally plausible.

This is exactly where you are wrong. Glenn’s position has far more plausibility/probability than your unfounded speculation outlined above.

1. It is so patently obvious that Spalding's narrative could have been written in first person with regard to Nephi (and based on eyewitness testimony likely was) while the "Book of Lehi" may have been changed to third (as Glenn speculates) due to Mormon's purported abridgment and then the 116 page replacement converted back to first person.

To refer to eyewitness testimony as proof that Spalding could have written in first person (“I Nephi”) is to beg the question. This is what is at issue here. As I have already mentioned, Rigdon and/or Smith would not only have to change first person to third person, but Nephi to Lehi. Lehi’s record could not have quoted Nephi’s record for the “I, Nephi” since it had not been made yet. Nephi’s record would have been abridged by Mormon following his abridgement of Lehi’s record. But even then, it would not be likely to encounter frequent repetitions of “I, Nephi,” if at all, in an abridgement. If you studied what the Book of Mormon considers an abridgement, this point should be quite clear.

2. On the other hand, as Dan points out, Joseph Smith's idea of an "abridgment" does not have to equate to a third person account! (Which is Glenn's argument!) Dan cites 1 Nephi 1-8 as his proof text, which begins with the phrase "I Nephi" (!) Given that example, there is no reason to assume (as Glenn does) that the original, with specific regard to Nephi, had to have been written in the third person.

Apparently, you missed my statement that in the replacement text, Nephi took the place of Mormon. This means in the lost text, it would have read “I, Mormon.”

In fact, Lehi could have easily quoted Nephi as saying, "I Nephi" and then continued with his abridgment of Nephi's account in first person or a combination thereof. Notice, that does not mean I am arguing that's the way it happened, I am just saying that this is certainly one plausible explanation.

Apparently, you also missed my discussion of the chronology of Nephi’s making his records. The fact that Nephi copied Lehi’s record onto his large plates (1 Ne. 19:1), and abridged in his small plates, means that Nephi’s records didn’t exist for Lehi to quote from. There would therefore be no “I, Nephi,” in the opening chapters of Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record. The chance for “I, Nephi” occurring wouldn’t come until Mormon abridged Nephi’s record, but even if this occurred, it would have been rare (given what we know of Mormon’s style of abridging) and would not justify Cunningham’s “memory”. However, the present text of the Book of Mormon does support Cunningham’s claim.

Plausible arguments are meaningless. FARMS has many plausible arguments for the Book of Mormon’s historicity. However, they are only plausible to those who operate within the same paradigm. When you take a stance of believing something until it’s proven wrong, you immunize yourself against any negative evidence, especially if you indulge in circular defenses like imaginative plausibility. You should recognize that Glenn’s argument isn’t just plausible, but probable.

There is no conflict either way. The only problem here is Glenn's assumption that an abridgment can't be written in first person so that the repetition of the phrase "I Nephi" becomes questionable. There is no basis for that assumption.

There is a basis for Glenn’s assumption—there is none for yours! Your problem is that you don’t know the Book of Mormon well enough to understand Glenn’s argument.

[_Roger]

This is exactly where you are wrong. Glenn’s position has far more plausibility/probability than your unfounded speculation outlined above.

Although I am used to it by now, it is these kinds of statements that call your credibility into question. Glenn's position is the speculative one, without any testimonial basis. He can't provide an eyewitness who claims to have read the Book of Lehi and noted that it was written in the third person with regard to Nephi. He is, rather, inferring that based on an interpretation of what he thinks it might have looked like. And, remarkably, you went a step further, rhetorically asking:

Roger, who says we can’t know something by inference?

I assume this type of logic must come from your LDS background. You can't know something that is historically in dispute by inference. You can strongly suspect something, but you can't possibly know it. Here, you seem to subtlely acknowledge that:

Glenn’s inference that the 116 pages were written in Mormon’s third person abridgement is not speculation or conjecture, but a very probable inference based on evidence.

Of course, that's a reasonable statement, as opposed to claiming that you know it was written in third person (with regard to Nephi) when you can't possibly know that. I presented a plausible scenario in which it may not have been written in third person.

So Glenn's argument is IN FACT speculative and it attempts to directly challenge the claims of a credible eyewitness who was indeed exposed to a Spalding manuscript on the subjective basis of inference for which he concedes exceptions and must acknowledge that plausible scenarios exist in which his speculation doesn't hold.

By contrast, I have an eyewitness who was indeed exposed to Spalding's original manuscript who tells us point blank that he remembers the repetition of "I Nephi." Both you and Glenn are suggesting that my witness is either suffering from faulty memories or lying, because we can plainly see from the Oberlin Manuscript that Nephi is not even a character in that story. Yet, you have no basis to claim my witness is either lying or remembering poorly other than your belief that Spalding's Roman Story is all there ever was.

You write:

None of this has any evidence whatsoever, while Glenn and I are supported by the Book of Mormon itself.

Nonsense! As you readily admit, the Book of Mormon supports Cunningham!

It is clear, as with the claim about the “lost tribes” that Cunningham’s memory is being incorrectly refreshed by the content of the Book of Mormon.

This has got to be the ultimate in bias-induced-blindness. Rather than simply admitting the obvious: that the Book of Mormon supports Cunningham's testimony--whether accurate or not--you simply assume it cannot be accurate and proceed from that assumption to the conclusion that he must be suffering from faulty memories or lying. But those are not the only options. It is quite possible he is telling the truth and that Spalding's manuscript did indeed contain a repetition of the phrase: "I Nephi."

Like I said, I've become accustomed to it by now, but the fallacy is still striking. It comes down to the same problem we've already exposed on this thread... your eagerness to blindly and unquestioningly accept the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses at face value (except in cases where they leave you no option but to reject what they are saying, in which case, in the spirit of LDS apologists, you simply make excuses or blame it on ignorant reporters) as contrasted with an overly critical attitude to what the S/R witnesses are telling you.

I don't think we're ever going to resolve that difference between us, but for you to claim Glenn's logic makes sense based only on the implications of your willingness to accept his witnesses over mine, simply carries no weight.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Although I am used to it by now, it is these kinds of statements that call your credibility into question. Glenn's position is the speculative one, without any testimonial basis. He can't provide an eyewitness who claims to have read the Book of Lehi and noted that it was written in the third person with regard to Nephi. He is, rather, inferring that based on an interpretation of what he thinks it might have looked like.

Again, you have got this reversed. Glenn is making a reasonable inference based on evidence—you are not! Glenn doesn’t need testimonial evidence, because he has textual—which is better. It doesn’t rely on memory—like yours.

And, remarkably, you went a step further, rhetorically asking:

“Roger, who says we can’t know something by inference?”

I assume this type of logic must come from your LDS background. You can't know something that is historically in dispute by inference. You can strongly suspect something, but you can't possibly know it.

Roger, you have been using this type of logic yourself—only badly. It has nothing to do with my Mormon background. What you are talking about is the difference between deductive and inductive logic. Think of it like taking a random sampling and making inferences about the general population. The following is from Wiki:

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates inductive arguments. It is commonly construed as a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. In this sense it is often contrasted with deductive reasoning.

However, philosophically the definition is much more nuanced than simple progression from particular / individual instances to wider generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from generalizations to individual instances.

The following is an example of probabilistic reasoning, which is a type of weak induction:

1.90% of humans are right-handed.
2.Joe is a human
Therefore, Joe is probably right-handed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

When I say we can know something by inference or induction, I don’t mean with certainty. I mean such reasoning can produce something that we can reasonably hold as true—keeping in mind that all knowledge is provisional and subject to change with further evidence and improved methodology. Until then, the best evidence and arguments prevail. Glenn’s argument about the lost MS is the best and probable one.

Glenn’s inference that the 116 pages were written in Mormon’s third person abridgement is not speculation or conjecture, but a very probable inference based on evidence.

Of course, that's a reasonable statement, as opposed to claiming that you know it was written in third person (with regard to Nephi) when you can't possibly know that. I presented a plausible scenario in which it may not have been written in third person.

As I said, plausible is meaningless. Historical fiction has plausibility. Historians must construct probable scenarios—not just plausible ones to protect against negative evidence.

So Glenn's argument is IN FACT speculative and it attempts to directly challenge the claims of a credible eyewitness who was indeed exposed to a Spalding manuscript on the subjective basis of inference for which he concedes exceptions and must acknowledge that plausible scenarios exist in which his speculation doesn't hold.

You are just repeating your position—not answering my argument, which was:

To refer to eyewitness testimony as proof that Spalding could have written in first person (“I Nephi”) is to beg the question. This is what is at issue here. As I have already mentioned, Rigdon and/or Smith would not only have to change first person to third person, but Nephi to Lehi. Lehi’s record could not have quoted Nephi’s record for the “I, Nephi” since it had not been made yet. Nephi’s record would have been abridged by Mormon following his abridgement of Lehi’s record. But even then, it would not be likely to encounter frequent repetitions of “I, Nephi,” if at all, in an abridgement. If you studied what the Book of Mormon considers an abridgement, this point should be quite clear.

You are cherry picking my response. The above argues that your scenario isn’t plausible. You are only saying what you think is necessary to explain away the negative evidence—which is speculation. Glenn is making logical inferences based on evidence—which is what scholars do all the time.

By contrast, I have an eyewitness who was indeed exposed to Spalding's original manuscript who tells us point blank that he remembers the repetition of "I Nephi." Both you and Glenn are suggesting that my witness is either suffering from faulty memories or lying, because we can plainly see from the Oberlin Manuscript that Nephi is not even a character in that story. Yet, you have no basis to claim my witness is either lying or remembering poorly other than your belief that Spalding's Roman Story is all there ever was.

The best way to impeach a witness is to show how his testimony doesn’t match the physical evidence. The Oberlin MS has nothing to do with it. Cunningham’s memory of the frequent repetition of “I, Nephi” does not fit what is known about the 116-page MS.

None of this has any evidence whatsoever, while Glenn and I are supported by the Book of Mormon itself.

Nonsense! As you readily admit, the Book of Mormon supports Cunningham!

Huh!?! Your speculation that the lost 116 pages had frequent repetition of “I, Nephi” has no support. Glenn and I are supported by the Book of Mormon, which you didn’t bother to respond to. Here it is again:

Apparently, you missed my statement that in the replacement text, Nephi took the place of Mormon. This means in the lost text, it would have read “I, Mormon.” …

Apparently, you also missed my discussion of the chronology of Nephi’s making his records. The fact that Nephi copied Lehi’s record onto his large plates (1 Ne. 19:1), and abridged in his small plates, means that Nephi’s records didn’t exist for Lehi to quote from. There would therefore be no “I, Nephi,” in the opening chapters of Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record. The chance for “I, Nephi” occurring wouldn’t come until Mormon abridged Nephi’s record, but even if this occurred, it would have been rare (given what we know of Mormon’s style of abridging) and would not justify Cunningham’s “memory”. However, the present text of the Book of Mormon does support Cunningham’s claim.

You need to stop cherry picking what you want to respond. You are only pretending like you are responding while merely repeating your mistakes.

It is clear, as with the claim about the “lost tribes” that Cunningham’s memory is being incorrectly refreshed by the content of the Book of Mormon.

This has got to be the ultimate in bias-induced-blindness. Rather than simply admitting the obvious: that the Book of Mormon supports Cunningham's testimony--whether accurate or not--you simply assume it cannot be accurate and proceed from that assumption to the conclusion that he must be suffering from faulty memories or lying. But those are not the only options. It is quite possible he is telling the truth and that Spalding's manuscript did indeed contain a repetition of the phrase: "I Nephi."

Are you not following the argument? Cunningham’s “memory” came after reading the Book of Mormon and is supported by the current content, which is rewrite on a third-person abridgment. Glenn and I are questioning Cunningham’s “memory”, because it doesn’t match with what is known about the lost MS. What we know about the lost MS comes from the Book of Mormon itself. This reconstruction wasn’t created as a counter to the Spalding theory, but was developed using literary and text critical methods similar to those used for Q in New Testament studies. It has been discussed in publications for many years

Like I said, I've become accustomed to it by now, but the fallacy is still striking. It comes down to the same problem we've already exposed on this thread... your eagerness to blindly and unquestioningly accept the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses at face value (except in cases where they leave you no option but to reject what they are saying, in which case, in the spirit of LDS apologists, you simply make excuses or blame it on ignorant reporters) as contrasted with an overly critical attitude to what the S/R witnesses are telling you.

This paragraph has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. Besides, it’s an ad hominal misinterpretation of what I have been doing.

I don't think we're ever going to resolve that difference between us, but for you to claim Glenn's logic makes sense based only on the implications of your willingness to accept his witnesses over mine, simply carries no weight.

Eyewitness testimony about the translation is solid, which forces me to be more skeptical about the Spalding witnesses. It relies on an amazing feat of memory by multiple witnesses. They are extremely vulnerable due to the nature of the memory, the possibility of contamination from speaking to one another, and from reading the Book of Mormon. Evidence of this contamination comes from their mention of “lost tribes”, which probably came from what they thought the Book of Mormon was about, and Cunningham’s “I, Nephi”, which probably came from what he had read—it is extremely doubtful that it came from Spalding’s MS, which was changed to third person (Lehi) and then back to first person (Nephi).

[_Roger]

Dan:

Based on our previous conversations it's no surprise that you persist on this. Regardless, you are simply wrong and I can only attribute it to the fact that for whatever reason you simply want to trust the Book of Mormon witnesses. You seem to be devoted to them.

I don't have time to break this down and respond to every point, but the following will do:

Are you not following the argument? Cunningham’s “memory” came after reading the Book of Mormon and is supported by the current content, which is rewrite on a third-person abridgment. Glenn and I are questioning Cunningham’s “memory”, because it doesn’t match with what is known about the lost MS.

Wrong. It doesn't match what you think the lost MS looks like. In so many words you concede that here:

When I say we can know something by inference or induction, I don’t mean with certainty.

...and Wiki agrees:

the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

You have a habit of writing in such a way as to imply total certainty, for which I find myself repeatedly calling you on it. You call it shorthand. I call it sloppiness. If I ignore the implication you get away with a fallacious assertion. The fact is, despite all the bloviating, you do not KNOW whether the Book of Lehi was written in third person with regard to Nephi. You can infer it, but that does not ensure it.

Now, having established that, it is also important to keep in mind that even if your inference is correct it still has no impact for reasons I've already given.

Yet here you go again asserting that you "know" when you don't:

What we know about the lost MS comes from the Book of Mormon itself. This reconstruction wasn’t created as a counter to the Spalding theory, but was developed using literary and text critical methods similar to those used for Q in New Testament studies. It has been discussed in publications for many years

So what we see here is a fallacious appeal to authority in an attempt to override the weakness of the argument. As I already pointed out, you cannot know whether the Book of Lehi was written in third person with regard to Nephi (much less Manuscript Found!) so, in an apparent effort to shift focus away from that, you make the argument that smart people agree that the Book of Lehi must have been written in third person with regard to Nephi. So what? The bottom line, is that even smart people don't know because no one has actually seen the Book of Lehi other than Martin Harris, Emma Smith and Joseph Smith, all of whom suggest that the extant rewrite is quite different.

But the larger point, which still dominates all of this speculation is the fact that Joseph Smith & Co. not only had opportunity to completely rewrite the material for the "Book of Lehi" they frankly admit that they did exactly that! You attempt to repackage Joseph's admitted rewrite as though it represents some sort of stretch of logic on my part! Audacious, certainly, but forceful, no.

[_GlennThigpen]

What we know about the lost MS comes from the Book of Mormon itself. This reconstruction wasn’t created as a counter to the Spalding theory, but was developed using literary and text critical methods similar to those used for Q in New Testament studies. It has been discussed in publications for many years

So what we see here is a fallacious appeal to authority in an attempt to override the weakness of the argument. As I already pointed out, you cannot know whether the Book of Lehi was written in third person with regard to Nephi (much less Manuscript Found!) so, in an apparent effort to shift focus away from that, you make the argument that smart people agree that the Book of Lehi must have been written in third person with regard to Nephi. So what? The bottom line, is that even smart people don't know because no one has actually seen the Book of Lehi other than Martin Harris, Emma Smith and Joseph Smith, all of whom suggest that the extant rewrite is quite different.

Correction. Dan is not appealing to authority. He is merely pointing out the methods that have been developed and are used in textual analysis and to form logical theories about missing texts. He did not cite any authority or "smart person." That is your interjection. It is hardly fallacious to provide information and support for the method that is used to arrive at a particular conclusion.
That is something you have not done, i.e. provide an analysis based upon tools and method commonly used in textual analysis to bolster your tenets. Affirmation by assertion is not logic or evidence.
As you noted, several people who did see the 116 lost pages suggested that the rewrite is quite different from the original text. That was done so by design, according to the official story, to prevent those who had stolen the 116 pages from coming forth to challenge Joseph and his translation powers. It had to be so different that the adversaries could not challenge them. So, if your theory is correct, we would see "I, Lehi" rather than "I, Nephi". After all, it was called the Book of Lehi, was it not?

But the larger point, which still dominates all of this speculation is the fact that Joseph Smith & Co. not only had opportunity to completely rewrite the material for the "Book of Lehi" they frankly admit that they did exactly that! You attempt to repackage Joseph's admitted rewrite as though it represents some sort of stretch of logic on my part! Audacious, certainly, but forceful, no.

You are arguing against something that is not in dispute. In fact, the very different rewrite is the base from which I started from.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Based on our previous conversations it's no surprise that you persist on this. Regardless, you are simply wrong and I can only attribute it to the fact that for whatever reason you simply want to trust the Book of Mormon witnesses. You seem to be devoted to them.

My non-belief should make you pause before you write the above absurdity. But this seems to apply to you more than me. You simply trust Cunningham’s memory, even when there is evidence that questions it.

I don't have time to break this down and respond to every point, but the following will do: …

Perhaps you need to.

Are you not following the argument? Cunningham’s “memory” came after reading the Book of Mormon and is supported by the current content, which is rewrite on a third-person abridgment. Glenn and I are questioning Cunningham’s “memory”, because it doesn’t match with what is known about the lost MS.

Wrong. It doesn't match what you think the lost MS looks like. In so many words you concede that here:

“When I say we can know something by inference or induction, I don’t mean with certainty.”

Roger, you definitely aren’t following the argument. We don’t have to know for certain, especially since your definition entails verifying with either an eyewitness statement (because that’s what you think Cunningham represents) or the actual document (which is what is being reconstructed). In both cases, you are begging the question since they are at issue here. Textual analysis is more reliable than Cunningham’s memory. You obviously don’t know the Book of Mormon well enough to argue this point, so you keep avoiding it. Inductive probabilistic arguments are what we have been dealing with all through this tread. My position has always been the Mormon witnesses’ testimony carries more historical weight than the Spalding witnesses. You have not built probabilistic arguments defending your witnesses, but have relied on fallacious reasoning, ad hoc rationalizations, and unfounded and imaginative plausibility. Your problem is that you think a probabilistic argument can be overturned by ad hoc, imaginative, plausible reconstruction.

...and Wiki agrees:

“the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.”

Wiki agrees? It only agrees that probabilistic arguments aren’t ironclad, which we all already know, but it doesn’t agree that you have a right to supplant a sound inductive argument with unsupported and imaginative ad hoc reconstructions. There’s a difference you are not getting, Roger. One has more historical weight than another.

You have a habit of writing in such a way as to imply total certainty, for which I find myself repeatedly calling you on it. You call it shorthand. I call it sloppiness. If I ignore the implication you get away with a fallacious assertion. The fact is, despite all the bloviating, you do not KNOW whether the Book of Lehi was written in third person with regard to Nephi. You can infer it, but that does not ensure it.

This game of “KNOWING” something and “knowing” something can be a slippery slope into extreme skepticism, postmodern relativism, and nihilism. There are different degrees of certainty about knowing something. Glenn has made a probabilistic argument about the content of the lost MS based on what the Book of Mormon says about it. Your response has been that he can’t prove the lost MS didn’t have frequent repetition of “I, Nephi”—thus, you are not content with Glenn’s discussion of what was in it, you want him to prove what wasn’t in it.

Now, having established that, it is also important to keep in mind that even if your inference is correct it still has no impact for reasons I've already given.

The only thing you established was that a probabilistic argument isn’t ironclad—which is obvious too everyone. You still need to deal with this type of argument.

Yet here you go again asserting that you "know" when you don't:

“What we know about the lost MS comes from the Book of Mormon itself. This reconstruction wasn’t created as a counter to the Spalding theory, but was developed using literary and text critical methods similar to those used for Q in New Testament studies. It has been discussed in publications for many years”

There’s nothing wrong with this statement. You are quibbling for the lack of a substantive response.

So what we see here is a fallacious appeal to authority in an attempt to override the weakness of the argument. As I already pointed out, you cannot know whether the Book of Lehi was written in third person with regard to Nephi (much less Manuscript Found!) so, in an apparent effort to shift focus away from that, you make the argument that smart people agree that the Book of Lehi must have been written in third person with regard to Nephi. So what? The bottom line, is that even smart people don't know because no one has actually seen the Book of Lehi other than Martin Harris, Emma Smith and Joseph Smith, all of whom suggest that the extant rewrite is quite different.

Roger, when are you going to realize that you don’t know what you are talking about? It’s only a appeal to authority when you don’t understand (or want to take the time to understand) the principles used to reconstruct lost texts. I have twice quoted pertinent texts dealing with the lost book of Lehi without adequate response from you. All you have done is emphasized what we don’t know for certain and ignored what we do.

But the larger point, which still dominates all of this speculation is the fact that Joseph Smith & Co. not only had opportunity to completely rewrite the material for the "Book of Lehi" they frankly admit that they did exactly that! You attempt to repackage Joseph's admitted rewrite as though it represents some sort of stretch of logic on my part! Audacious, certainly, but forceful, no.

Ironically, you try to characterize a probabilistic argument as speculation, and then proceed to give us an unfounded ad hoc reconstruction. I already showed that this reconstruction is implausible. I’ll repeat this as well:

His memory demands that Spalding’s original narrative contain frequent repetitions of “I, Nephi”, that Rigdon and/or Smith changed it to third person, and then coincidentally restored it to first person after the loss of the 116 pages. Not only this, but also R/S changed it from Nephi in first person to Lehi in third person, then back to Nephi in first person. None of this has any evidence whatsoever, while Glenn and I are supported by the Book of Mormon itself. It is clear, as with the claim about the “lost tribes” that Cunningham’s memory is being incorrectly refreshed by the content of the Book of Mormon.

… it is extremely doubtful that it came from Spalding’s MS, which was changed to third person (Lehi) and then back to first person (Nephi).

Perhaps you can respond to it this time.

You also didn’t acknowledge the following argument was wrong:

2. On the other hand, as Dan points out, Joseph Smith's idea of an "abridgment" does not have to equate to a third person account! (Which is Glenn's argument!) Dan cites 1 Nephi 1-8 as his proof text, which begins with the phrase "I Nephi" (!) Given that example, there is no reason to assume (as Glenn does) that the original, with specific regard to Nephi, had to have been written in the third person.

Apparently, you missed my statement that in the replacement text, Nephi took the place of Mormon. This means in the lost text, it would have read “I, Mormon.”

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Correction. Dan is not appealing to authority.

Of course he is! He is attempting to make the case that smart people can infer something using "literary and text critical methods similar to those used for Q in New Testament studies" and come to your conclusion.

What we know about the lost MS comes from the Book of Mormon itself. This reconstruction wasn’t created as a counter to the Spalding theory, but was developed using literary and text critical methods similar to those used for Q in New Testament studies. It has been discussed in publications for many years.

That's a fallacious appeal to authority on more than one level because a) he implies that we know something when we don't and b) it's truth or nontruth is irrelevant anyway. The point is that smart people can infer all they want and the fact remains that their inference could be wrong because no one knows for certain exactly what was on those missing 116 pages and I've presented a realistic, plausible, alternative scenario in which your conclusion could be wrong. You can't argue against my alternative with any more force than I can say you are wrong with 100% certainty. Neither one of us knows what was on those missing pages. This is why your argument is so tenuous. You are arguing from inference with no testimony to back you up to come to a conclusion that Cunningham, an eyewitness, doesn't know what he's talking about.

But the fact remains that even if you're right, that would not prove Cunningham is wrong! Why not? Because Joseph & Co. admittedly changed the text! This is fourth grade obvious.

He is merely pointing out the methods that have been developed and are used in textual analysis and to form logical theories about missing texts. He did not cite any authority or "smart person." That is your interjection. It is hardly fallacious to provide information and support for the method that is used to arrive at a particular conclusion.

And you're free to arrive at any conclusion you want, but not to imply that textual analysis or the experts who produced their techniques would agree that we can know what was on those 116 pages. That is fallacious. As I said, you can certainly infer certain things, but when Dan categorically states that, from such an inference we can know something about what was on those missing pages, he is overstepping and I am simply calling him on it. He can't know what he claims to know any more than his claim to know the extent of my knowledge is valid. Both are simply ludicrous claims and rather than admitting he used sloppy terminology he makes excuses in an attempt to make it appear he was correct to say what he did.

As you noted, several people who did see the 116 lost pages suggested that the rewrite is quite different from the original text. That was done so by design, according to the official story,

I can agree with this much. And these are key points.

1. by admission of the author(s) the rewrite is quite different from the original
2. the difference was by design

to prevent those who had stolen the 116 pages from coming forth to challenge Joseph and his translation powers. It had to be so different that the adversaries could not challenge them.

This, however, is simply absurd on it's face. Only those with a predisposition to support Joseph Smith will accept this at face value. The excuse is as hollow as Casey Anthony's phony nanny. The whole notion is so ridiculous that even your attempt to salvage something from it can't be done without wild logic that adversely impacts the other point you are trying to make... "so different that the adversaries could not challenge them"? What exactly does that mean? We know that supposedly the stories featured roughly the same time frame, people and storyline with a whole bunch of religious stuff added in. In the missing pages, one would presume Lehi played a central role but we certainly can't know that with certainty since books like Alma and Helaman tell anecdotes about more than simply Alma and Helaman!

The fact is, as I stated earlier, the alleged evil men who allegedly wanted to destroy the work would not have thought to themselves.... gee, if we let ole' Joe retranslate this and he comes up with the same thing, then everyone will know he's a true prophet! So we are going to have to alter the words on this one so even though he is a true prophet, people will think he mistranslated!

This is an absurd premise.

In the first place, true skeptics of Joe Smith would have known he could not reproduce the same content and so they would have simply sat on it, waiting for him to come out with his second attempt and then demonstrated that it didn't match.

In the second place, if this evil-men excuse of Joseph's is true, then it is a given element of the premise that Joseph was indeed capable of rendering the exact same account twice. God could easily have given him the same words. But if Joseph had that capability his reaction to the loss is way overblown. "All is lost!" (?) How so? If Joseph has the ability then all is not lost. It's only when we realize that Joseph does not have the ability that his response makes sense.

In the third place as I stated earlier the altering the words excuse makes perfect sense if there were already embarrassing alterations on those missing pages. In that case, not only is all lost, it's even worse than that because Joseph knows that no matter how differently he rewrites the story, he's going to have to account for those alterations. Enter the evil-altering men solution.

In the fourth place, it is ridiculous to conclude that a God who could know hundreds of years in advance that this was going to happen--who even has his ancient prophets produce a second set of plates to solve this future dilemma--would have been ignorant of who these evil men were or where they were hiding the manuscript!

In the fifth place, the whole concept of rewriting the missing pages to salvage the overall work is ridiculous if Joseph was a true prophet. If Joseph is a true prophet, then simply predict that evil men will alter the words, reproduce the same words and leave it at that! There is no need for a completely different rewrite as you argue! If Joseph is correct and evil men attempt to alter the words, so what? He's already predicted they would do so and now he has the evidence to back him up! In fact you'd be using that today as evidence that your founding prophet was the real deal! But Joseph knew he had no way of reproducing those pages word for word, so he has to add in the re-write concept to the evil-men excuse in order to ensure he's got all his bases covered.

The whole thing is absurd.

So, if your theory is correct, we would see "I, Lehi" rather than "I, Nephi". After all, it was called the Book of Lehi, was it not?

Again, an argument from inference! Which serves to illustrate that neither you nor I know what was on those pages! Perhaps there were a few "I Lehi"'s! So what? As I mentioned, Lehi could also have quoted his son as saying "I Nephi." Or, like we see in Omni, one writer could have picked up where the other left off! Here's how Joseph Smith himself responds to your silly attempt to predetermine what he could and could not have written:

I, Omni....
I, Amaron...
Now I, Chemish....
Behold, I, Abinadom...
Behold, I am Amaleki....

All this from the same book called only Omni! It's as simple as that! But you and Dan think you can impose ridiculous rules on what could and could not have been written on those lost pages! It's absurd! And what's worse is that even if your groundless speculation is correct, so what? Spalding's manuscript could still have contained a repetition of the phrase "I Nephi"! That's what's so ironic here. Not only can you not prove your argument, even if you could, it would make no difference! I am more than happy to keep pointing this out.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

You clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to logic and the content of the Book of Mormon.

I, Omni....
I, Amaron...
Now I, Chemish....
Behold, I, Abinadom...
Behold, I am Amaleki....

All this from the same book called only Omni! It's as simple as that! But you and Dan think you can impose ridiculous rules on what could and could not have been written on those lost pages! It's absurd!

You are quoting from the small plates, which is not an abridgement but first person narratives. You need to quote from the large plates (Mosiah-4 Nephi). Need we have more evidence that you do not understand the Book of Mormon? If you are this unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, no wonder you aren’t following our discussion about the book of Lehi?

And what's worse is that even if your groundless speculation is correct, so what? Spalding's manuscript could still have contained a repetition of the phrase "I Nephi"! That's what's so ironic here. Not only can you not prove your argument, even if you could, it would make no difference! I am more than happy to keep pointing this out.

As I have pointed out, this makes no sense. You have not responded to my argument, but merely bypassed it to argue with Glenn.

Again, an argument from inference! Which serves to illustrate that neither you nor I know what was on those pages! Perhaps there were a few "I Lehi"'s! So what? As I mentioned, Lehi could also have quoted his son as saying "I Nephi." Or, like we see in Omni, one writer could have picked up where the other left off!

I have already shown that there was no record of Nephi to quote from.

Of course he is! He is attempting to make the case that smart people can infer something using "literary and text critical methods similar to those used for Q in New Testament studies" and come to your conclusion.

No, Roger, I’m appealing to the methodology. You have made no attempt to follow our reasons for reconstructing the lost MS.

That's a fallacious appeal to authority on more than one level because a) he implies that we know something when we don't and b) it's truth or nontruth is irrelevant anyway. The point is that smart people can infer all they want and the fact remains that their inference could be wrong because no one knows for certain exactly what was on those missing 116 pages and I've presented a realistic, plausible, alternative scenario in which your conclusion could be wrong. You can't argue against my alternative with any more force than I can say you are wrong with 100% certainty. Neither one of us knows what was on those missing pages. This is why your argument is so tenuous. You are arguing from inference with no testimony to back you up to come to a conclusion that Cunningham, an eyewitness, doesn't know what he's talking about.

But the fact remains that even if you're right, that would not prove Cunningham is wrong! Why not? Because Joseph & Co. admittedly changed the text! This is fourth grade obvious.

Roger, welcome to the world of scholarship. This is where we assess the strength and weaknesses between competing arguments. Glenn’s argument has a higher probability than yours. Simple as that.

And, yes, we can say what was on the lost MS, and what wasn’t. Brent Metcalfe, for example, argued that Lehi’s 600-year prophecy wasn’t in the lost MS because it wasn’t mentioned by subsequent prophets. Of course, the apologists would argue similar to you, but the fact remains the more likely scenario is that Joseph Smith added it when he replaced the lost beginning, creating a problem in the logic of the narrative. The same applies to Cunningham’s “I, Nephi.” It doesn’t fit what we know about the lost MS, and what we know comes from the reverences I have cited, which you have yet to respond to.

And you're free to arrive at any conclusion you want, but not to imply that textual analysis or the experts who produced their techniques would agree that we can know what was on those 116 pages. That is fallacious. As I said, you can certainly infer certain things, but when Dan categorically states that, from such an inference we can know something about what was on those missing pages, he is overstepping and I am simply calling him on it. He can't know what he claims to know any more than his claim to know the extent of my knowledge is valid. Both are simply ludicrous claims and rather than admitting he used sloppy terminology he makes excuses in an attempt to make it appear he was correct to say what he did.

There’s nothing to admit except that you are playing a game.

[_Roger]

Dan:

I really don't have a lot of time lately and, to be candid, I am not finding your arguments very compelling. Take this for example

This game of “KNOWING” something and “knowing” something can be a slippery slope into extreme skepticism, postmodern relativism, and nihilism.

What is this? LDS apologetics? I point out that you misused the word "know" and rather than simply acknowledge that you overstepped --which would have been a simple thing to do and we could have moved on--instead, you make an issue out of it by claiming that my pointing it out can somehow lead to nihilism! This is just nonsense. The fact is you used (and continue to use) the word "know" inappropriately and you can't seem to muster the humility to simply admit that and move on. Instead you choose to belabor the point with arguments that end up back at square one, which is, in your own words: "that probabilistic arguments aren’t ironclad." Hence, you can't claim to know something about the Lehi text, rather you can surmise something about what it likely might contain, which is what I have been stating all along. It was your inappropriate use of the word "know" that started this in the first place, and it's important, because, as I stated: "If I ignore the implication you get away with a fallacious assertion" --but not just any fallacious assertion, one that, if allowed, could support your premise. That's why it is important to point out the fallacy.

Here you attempt to muddy the water by asserting that:

There are different degrees of certainty about knowing something.

This is a semantic game reminiscent of LDS apologetics. Play with the connotation of "knowledge" all you want. The fact remains that you don't know whether the missing 116 pages contained a repetition of the phrase "I Nephi" or "I Lehi" or some combination thereof. And even if you did, it would not prove Cunningham's statement to be inaccurate. That's the bottom line.

Glenn has made a probabilistic argument about the content of the lost MS based on what the Book of Mormon says about it.
Your response has been that he can’t prove the lost MS didn’t have frequent repetition of “I, Nephi”—thus, you are not content with Glenn’s discussion of what was in it, you want him to prove what wasn’t in it.

Let's take this one at a time....

Glenn has made a probabilistic argument about the content of the lost MS based on what the Book of Mormon says about it.

I don't accept the premise that the Book of Mormon is reliable in it's claims about itself. You shouldn't either. I don't accept that Mormon was a real person. If Mormon was not a real person, then someone, or even a group of someones would have been writing as though they were "Mormon." These same people could/would also have been writing as though they were both Lehi and Nephi. It does not follow, then, that whoever wrote for Mormon could not also have written content for Lehi or Nephi, etc. Therefore, the only time we are bound to take what the Book of Mormon says about itself at face value is if we are going to believe that these were real people. Supposedly you and I agree that they were not. Therefore, internal claims can, and should, be taken with a grain of salt. While they may give us clues as to who was actually behind all of the alleged authors and abridgers (all of which you attribute to the fertile imagination of Joseph Smith, by the way!) they cannot be used as a strict guideline of who produced what or who would have written "I Nephi" or "I Lehi." Again, this is so basic that it amazes me that I should even have to be pointing it out. But the way you write gives every indication that you believe these were real people. How you reconcile all that with the notion that it all came from the mind of Joseph Smith is beyond me.

Your response has been that he can’t prove the lost MS didn’t have frequent repetition of “I, Nephi”—thus, you are not content with Glenn’s discussion of what was in it,

You are correct that I am "not content" with Glenn's logic for the simple reason that he cannot prove his claims. That's a pretty important reason not to be content.

you want him to prove what wasn’t in it.

Wrong! I want him to prove his claims. And he can't.

The fact of the matter is that not only can he not prove his claims, I have presented a plausible, alternate scenerio that he cannot disprove. Moreover, even if he could prove his claims, it still would not prove Cunningham's statement to be inaccurate.

So, after finishing the above, I notice that you have written more....

You clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to logic and the content of the Book of Mormon.

I, Omni....
I, Amaron...
Now I, Chemish....
Behold, I, Abinadom...
Behold, I am Amaleki....

All this from the same book called only Omni! It's as simple as that! But you and Dan think you can impose ridiculous rules on what could and could not have been written on those lost pages! It's absurd!

You are quoting from the small plates, which is not an abridgement but first person narratives. You need to quote from the large plates (Mosiah-4 Nephi). Need we have more evidence that you do not understand the Book of Mormon? If you are this unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, no wonder you aren’t following our discussion about the book of Lehi?

We absolutely have a fundamental difference of opinion here that keeps resurfacing in various forms time and time again. You repeatedly do this sort of thing to the point where one wonders exactly how much of the Book of Mormon do you think is true?

Dan, point blank question for you: Is the Book of Mormon a fraud or not?

If it's a fraud, Dan, then who's rules do the fraudsters have to follow? Yours? Glenn's?

The fact is one person (or a group of persons) could have written both third person and first person narrative in multiple books and the fact is, there never were any plates with ancient writing on them! Or at least that's what you're supposed to believe! And that same person or group of persons also played the role of an abridger. In fact the whole concept of multiple abiridgers fits better within the S/R framework than the S/A framework, because then, at least, we do have multiple authors producing content that is then possible for another content producer to "abridge." Under your framework, Joseph Smith is producing content and then "abridging" it or at least claiming to do so, on the fly! I'd love to hear your explanation of how he pulled that off.

The same person or group of persons could have written as though he/they were Omni and as though he/they were Mormon, or Moroni or whoever! Given that, you can't claim that they are bound to follow anything! They can produce whatever they want to! Whatever serves their purpose.

This is so patently obvious that one legitimately wonders what kind of skeptic you are. You accept the incredible Book of Mormon witness testimony at face value while rejecting the credible Spalding witness testimony with no warrant. And now you argue as though Mormon and Nephi were real writers writing on real plates. I don't know how to deal with that other than to think of you as an LDS apologist.

[_GlennThigpen]

Correction. Dan is not appealing to authority.

Glenn:
Of course he is! He is attempting to make the case that smart people can infer something using "literary and text critical methods similar to those used for Q in New Testament studies" and come to your conclusion.

Roger, that is not an appeal to authority. He has pointed out how critical methods have been applied to texts to arrive at a conclusions about the probability of another non-extant text or texts being the source of the texts being analyzed and provided an example for you to check out. Instead of "smart people", change it to "informed people."
Even if he had cited someone in the field of critical textual analysis, that would not have been an appeal to authority or fallacious unless the person he cited was not qualified in the field. It might help if you cite your source information on what a fallacious appeal to authority actually is. What you are asserting has no support in any of the articles I have read on fallacies.

I, Omni....
I, Amaron...
Now I, Chemish....
Behold, I, Abinadom...
Behold, I am Amaleki....

All this from the same book called only Omni! It's as simple as that! But you and Dan think you can impose ridiculous rules on what could and could not have been written on those lost pages! It's absurd! And what's worse is that even if your groundless speculation is correct, so what? Spalding's manuscript could still have contained a repetition of the phrase "I Nephi"! That's what's so ironic here. Not only can you not prove your argument, even if you could, it would make no difference! I am more than happy to keep pointing this out.

Roger, you really are not familiar with the Book of Mormon and its history. All of those that you quote are from the rewritten text. All of them. I hope that you have a life jacket because you really missed the boat on this one.

Glenn