Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

205 Excellent

About OGHoosier

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Indiana or Utah
  • Interests
    Epistemology, religious experiences, restored scripture, the Bible, international affairs, Major League Baseball, and Mr. Pibb

Recent Profile Visitors

152 profile views
  1. If so, these are going to be some crazy years coming up. Then again, we're pretty sure they will be anyway.
  2. If you don't care about your credibility, how do you presume to get your views across?
  3. Perhaps so. I don't think EModE proves divine provenance but I think it substantially weakens the case for Smithian authorship. That's the long and the short of it.
  4. Where's the conflict? Linguistic analysis can speak to whether or not EModE is in the BoM but the reasons why have to be left to the theorists. Is there something wrong with this?
  5. Conclusions derived from mathematics are still observations, the knowledge is just derived via inferential means and is therefore a degree removed.
  6. Testing and observation can only demonstrate which potentialities are realized and available for observation, not the whole extent of the field of possibilities. Science does not have the tools to perform the maneuver you request.
  7. This is not substantiated by the data. One of the major elements of Carmack's research is comparison of the Book of Mormon with other works that seek to emulate KJV language. These authors were certainly exposed to the KJV and Shakespeare but the Book of Mormon is far more archaic in nature. Rudimentary understanding is not sufficient to account for the Book's higher archaism. Sophisticated stylometry has been done on the Book of Mormon. Cumulative results are inconclusive, though the most rigorous and recent study, to my knowledge, indicates the Book was written by multiple authors and JS is not a statistically valid candidate for complete authorship.
  8. This conviction is not shared. This seems to be the whole extent of the disagreement.
  9. That horse has been whipped raw, man.
  10. A number of reasons. A) Joseph Smith never wrote to us 21st-century Mormons who've come out of Primary and youth programs thinking that everything contained in Joseph's revelations must have come sui generis from the hand of God. He wrote and spoke to his contemporaries. On the contrary, the God that Joseph and his contemporaries worship is the same God who says: Bear in mind that these same people who Joseph was talking to were entirely unfazed by the relationship between Masonry and the temple. They just had different ideas about what prophetic authority meant and where truth could come from. You can't fault Joseph for failing to speak to our expectations of 150 years after his death when his circumstances were so different. To have Joseph "admit" to something means there has to be something he did which was wrong, which was certainly not clear in his environment. B) Despite the herculean work of the JSPP and Church and independent historians throughout the years, we still only have a partial documentary picture of Joseph Smith's life. Heck, such momentously significant documents as the Book of Abraham printer's manuscript are still AWOL, and may never be found. No documentary history can ever paint an exhaustive picture of a life, which is the kind of picture required for the assertion that Joseph didn't do something. We don't have evidence that he talked about Clarke in the JST; that's not the same as confidently asserting that he never did so, which would be unjustified. C) I forget if it's Mark Ashurst-McGee or Thomas Wayment who have said they're going to write this forthcoming paper on the accusations of "plagiarism" from Clarke, but I do know that Thomas Wayment is not pleased and considers it misinterpretation when people use his work to accuse Joseph of plagiarism on the JST. The dependence on Clarke is selective, as opposed to wholescale and gratuitous borrowing. Furthermore (and this can't be said enough), the JST was never finished, and thus we cannot know how Joseph Smith intended to present it.
  11. A) There's no such thing as "disinterested science." All science involves interpretation of data which can be and is skewed by a number of factors, including personal investment on the part of the scientist or the person applying the data to any specific interpretation. B) I dispute "moving further away all the time". Some developments are negative, some supportive. But it's not a unified progression in one direction.
  12. The occurrence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon is not constrained to KJV-adjacent passages but undergirds the whole text. Joseph could have specifically analyzed the KJV and any other Early Modern texts which he could have been exposed to in order to alter his word choice, but I'll be honest, I think that's stretching it. These changes we're talking about are for the most part minutiae. The thesis that Joseph cribbed Early Modern English on purpose is also weakened by the fact that it was a dictation, which necessitates word choice on the fly. Even theories of dictation like Davis's, if I recall correctly, require Joseph to do extemporaneous dictation on bullet points, since Joseph did not have eidetic memory. The case for specific premeditated EModE word choice is thus weakened. Furthermore, several prominent systemic features of EModE in the Book of Mormon belong to a class of linguistic tendencies which are subconscious - the writer typically does not choose them. Intentional EModE borrowing has a mighty hard time accounting for that. Also, FWIW, plagiarized is an inaccurate term since the JST was never finished and thus never published with the explanatory preface that accompanied every other one of Joseph Smith's scriptural productions. To say he plagiarized Clarke would be like taking uncredited prewriting notes for a master's thesis and calling them examples of plagiarism. Edit: Perhaps @champatsch could come lay down some law on this topic.
  13. It's plain to those with the spirit of prophecy and revelation. That doesn't mean it isn't packed with symbolism.
×
×
  • Create New...