The "Joseph Smith" Challenge

[cksalmon]

If I might add a comment. I was a professional transcriber, twice. Once at BYU working for Extension Publications, and once again as a research assistant on a project for a professor at Portland State University. Those pf you who have not taken oral dictation really do not understand how time consuming the process is. I used a typewriter at BYU and a word processor at PSU. And I type fast. You simply cannot keep up with a speaker on any QWERTY keyboard. We used tape recorded materials and could stop the player when we needed to catch up. Which is often.

If you want a challenge, try keep up with a person reading a passage from the Book of Mormon as you sit at your computer.

Also, a person who is speaking, unless they are reading from a script, does not speak "cleanly." They um, they back up and repeat, they misspeak and go back and correct themselves. The description of the process is very clearly not a person making up something as they go along. Even memorized passages do not come out perfect when a person is speaking.

Critics laugh about the account of dictating from the seer stones in the hat. If, as they insist, Joseph was dictating in such a circumstance, he could not have been producing the dictation in any known human fashion.

Charityâ??

I'm not sure exactly what your point is here...?

Please clarify. I'm just not sure how this relates to the topic at hand.

Best to you.

CKS

[maklelan]

The most fundamental difficulty (Problem One, below) with this challenge, seems to me, is that to make any sense it first has to assume that JS functioned solely as the author (rather than as divinely-aided translator) of the BoM. But under that assumption (i.e., under the Modern-Authorship hypothesis) JS was composing a completely fictional work and attributing it to imaginary ancient authors. So the best he could do as a text-composer, and all that he could do, was attempt to depict and portray imagined events, not report or describe real, historical ones.

So one response to maklelan's bolded question is that it's actually confused, perhaps nonsensical, to talk about comparing (or ranking) fictional narrative works based on how "accurately" they report or describe sets of events, since none of the events actually happened.

So that makes the book the most freakish publication in the history of the world. It makes his book the only book to pretend to accurately protray an ancient civilization that was (at the time) understood only in the most rudimentary capcity, and then, over the course of over a hundred years, makes it a perfect match with everything that is subsequently unearthed by archeology and history. It's like the fiction wrote the history that would be uncovered in the future. You can whine about how the premise is fallacious all day long, but your claim makes the Book of Mormon the most incredible work of fiction ever concocted, hands down. I know you guys like to label Joseph Smith an uncanny genius and a moron all at the same time, but this kind of spotlight is a little ridiculous. The only logical conclusion is the Joseph Smith was not the author. We cannot conclude anything other than that the history was writen by those who lived it.

Problem One. Under the Modern-Authorship hypothesis, the BoM narratives are fictional accounts attributed by JS to imaginary ancient authors. So the narratives do not and cannot in principle report or describe the occurrence of any historical (empirically real) events. The narratives accordingly can't report or describe any ancient past events either accurately or inaccurately, correctly or incorrectly. (Similarly, they contain no experiential statements that are either true or false.) Therefore, there is no amazing or extraordinary compositional feat of JS for anyone to match or duplicate, because there is no basis for judging whether (or the extent to which) he performed one.

Problem Two. Under the MA hypothesis, JS was attempting to depict (not report) a set of past events in which the uninhabited Americas were originally colonized by three seafaring immigrant groups from the mid-East. The BoM narratives are therefore "set" and unfold somewhere in an imaginary ancient hemisphere, in a promised land that is inhabited exclusively by the three founding immigrant groups and their biological descendants. For first-generation LDS readers, the narratives exhibited considerable "verisimilitude" and were also judged to be a plausible account of the common origin and ancestry of modern-era Amerindians. But for current LDS readers who accept the limited Mesoamerican geography and population assumptions of the Sorenson model ("Limited Tehuantepec Colonization Model," or "LTC"), the setting, events and colonization scenario JS was attempting to depict are plainly counterfactual, and implausible.

Therefore, for such readers there can be no JS compositional feat for anyone to match or duplicate, because in addition to not being accurate or correct, at least the New World fictional narratives he composed lack even verisimilitude and plausibility.

I do recall mentioning that you love to challenge us, but whenever faced with a challenge your first tactic is to label the premise fallacious. Whoever spent the time trying to come up with this rhetoric wasted a lot of time. You guys can't do it, so you make up reasons why you shouldn't have to. I reject your problems based on my above statements. You are saying that Joseph Smith's book transcends research and scholarship by writing history before it is discovered. No one on the planet has ever done this before, so silly arguments or not, it is something beyond all of you. How you presume to judge it despite admitting that it is a superhuman production is beyond me.

But what about all those amazing "correspondences" between ancient Mesoamerica and the BoM narratives identified by Clark (as well as Sorenson, Gardner and others)? Per Problem One, considered under the MA hypothesis, those "correspondences" between the BoM narratives and the empirical world of ancient Mesoamerica are at best only instances of versimilitude, not evidence supporting historicity. Again, the narratives do not (and couldn't) report or describe any empirically real past events. They can only depict or portray imaginary events successfully enough to achieve versimilitude, or fail to do so.

When did we ever give you the idea that the challenge was not to do this very thing? Produce a book that (without fail) "achieve"s versimilitudes with future discoveries regarding the unknown history of the culture you write about.

Given the Problem Two issues, moreover, for Clark and others who accept the LTC model, under the MA hypothesis the narratives JS composed were counterfactual and cannot even function as plausible depictions of the Mesoamerican past.

Let me try to clarify a bit further. I think it's perfectly legitimate for Clark and other LTC-model advocates to argue that the BoM contains "amazing correspondences" with the physical and cultural world of ancient Mesoamerica. But that is a historicity argument that has to be made and supported under the Ancient Authorship hypothesis. The problem arises because Clark (and many others who invoke this formulation of the "JS Challenge") is not content to just make his case for historicity under the Ancient Authorship hypothesis. Instead, he rhetorically invokes the idea of JS as author ("How could JS possibly have guessed that ....") without recognizing what the assumption that JS authored the text actually entails.

No, he's saying that the MA premise is ridiculous. He's not considering it for a second.

With the benefit of hindsight, for example, we know that if JS authored the text he composed the New World narratives in accordance with what was known or knowable at the time regarding the settlement ("colonization") of the ancient Americas, the mysterious origin of the Native Americans, and the physical remains of America's ancient inhabitants.

I don't agree. He "composed" the narrative despite what was known or knowable. Up to this very day there are things that people say he was stupid for including in a history of Mesoamerica, but with every discovery made down there his history becomes more and more accurate. Like President Benson(?) said, "If my children don't find cement I expect my grandchildren will find cement." Guess what? They found cement. That was not knowable in Joseph Smith's time, just like dozens of other claims.

So if JS composed the BoM narratives, he would have done so using the assumptions of what DNA commentators refer to as the "Hemispheric (or Global) Colonization Model."

I don't agree. If he composed the book at all he would not have had to consider any models because he would have known which one he was working with. The fact that he considered different models and never made a definitive statement regarding them speaks for itself. If he were working under any model he would have supported that model as authoritative. As it is, he supported none of them fully.

Under the HC model, the Jaredites and Lehites-Mulekites were the original, founding ancestors of all the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the hemisphere. (As noted above, the set of beliefs and assumptions that comprise the HC-model have now been rejected by most all LDS folks who have thought about it.) So the HC-model narratives JS would have authored are fundamentally inconsistent with the narratives as they are now construed by LTC-model advocates.

So you're saying the uncanny genius of Joseph Smith could not recognize that his HC-model would fail to contain the text, while the model he had to have rejected perfectly contains it.

For instance, in the HC-model narratives there can be no indigenous "others" to meet and greet the Lehites and the Jaredites.

How do you figure?

Yet for LTC-model folks those indigenous inhabitants actually comprise a large fraction of the Nephite and Lehite groups from the very beginning. Indeed, in his 1992 JBMS "Others" article, Sorenson argues that their existence is required in order for the New World narratives to make sense. Hence my remarks above about the JS-authored narratives being "counterfactual," according to the LTC model.

So Joseph Smith made a tiny litle booboo that destroys everything, but if he did not make the error (which is just as distinct a possibility as your assumption that he operated under the HC-model) the narrative remains utterly unscathed by any and all attemtps to bring it down. Pretty fine line you walk, and your evidence is circumstantial, too.

OK, that's way more than needs to be said -- and maybe anyone wanted to read -- about this version of the hypothetical "JS Challenge." But I wanted to explain and illustrate how the underlying (defective) argument is also used to try to support numerous contemporary historicity arguments like those advanced by Clark, and by many others.

I appreciate your efforst, and I hope I understood everything as you meant me too, but I still think it's little more than evasive maneuvers.

[cksalmon]

So that makes the book the most freakish publication in the history of the world. It makes his book the only book to pretend to accurately protray an ancient civilization that was (at the time) understood only in the most rudimentary capcity, and then, over the course of over a hundred years, makes it a perfect match with everything that is subsequently unearthed by archeology and history. It's like the fiction wrote the history that would be uncovered in the future. You can whine about how the premise is fallacious all day long, but your claim makes the Book of Mormon the most incredible work of fiction ever concocted, hands down. I know you guys like to label Joseph Smith an uncanny genius and a moron all at the same time, but this kind of spotlight is a little ridiculous. The only logical conclusion is the Joseph Smith was not the author. We cannot conclude anything other than that the history was writen by those who lived it.

I do recall mentioning that you love to challenge us, but whenever faced with a challenge your first tactic is to label the premise fallacious. Whoever spent the time trying to come up with this rhetoric wasted a lot of time. You guys can't do it, so you make up reasons why you shouldn't have to. I reject your problems based on my above statements. You are saying that Joseph Smith's book transcends research and scholarship by writing history before it is discovered. No one on the planet has ever done this before, so silly arguments or not, it is something beyond all of you. How you presume to judge it despite admitting that it is a superhuman production is beyond me.

When did we ever give you the idea that the challenge was not to do this very thing? Produce a book that (without fail) "achieve"s versimilitudes with future discoveries regarding the unknown history of the culture you write about.

No, he's saying that the MA premise is ridiculous. He's not considering it for a second.

I don't agree. He "composed" the narrative despite what was known or knowable. Up to this very day there are things that people say he was stupid for including in a history of Mesoamerica, but with every discovery made down there his history becomes more and more accurate. Like President Benson(?) said, "If my children don't find cement I expect my grandchildren will find cement." Guess what? They found cement. That was not knowable in Joseph Smith's time, just like dozens of other claims.

I don't agree. If he composed the book at all he would not have had to consider any models because he would have known which one he was working with. The fact that he considered different models and never made a definitive statement regarding them speaks for itself. If he were working under any model he would have supported that model as authoritative. As it is, he supported none of them fully.

So you're saying the uncanny genius of Joseph Smith could not recognize that his HC-model would fail to contain the text, while the model he had to have rejected perfectly contains it.

How do you figure?

So Joseph Smith made a tiny litle booboo that destroys everything, but if he did not make the error (which is just as distinct a possibility as your assumption that he operated under the HC-model) the narrative remains utterly unscathed by any and all attemtps to bring it down. Pretty fine line you walk, and your evidence is circumstantial, too.

I appreciate your efforst, and I hope I understood everything as you meant me too, but I still think it's little more than evasive maneuvers.

I think the point is that if JS were composing a true history, revealed by God, then the challenge to write a comparable fictive history of the Amerindians is a pseudo challenge.

If we all agree that JS was writing a pseudo-history, to begin with, then the challenge is equally meaningless.

I don't believe you've understood the logical underpinnings of the challenge.

As stated, by JS, or Nibley, it's incoherent, logically.

It assumes that category mistakes are part and parcel of logically-sound argumentationâ??clearly, they are not.

Best.

CKS

PS. I'm not sure how to make it clearer than Addictio or The Dude (in other posts) has made it.

[cksalmon]

So that makes the book the most freakish publication in the history of the world. It makes his book the only book to pretend to accurately protray an ancient civilization that was (at the time) understood only in the most rudimentary capcity, and then, over the course of over a hundred years, makes it a perfect match with everything that is subsequently unearthed by archeology and history.

This is clearly an a priori assumption.

Is it really "a perfect match with everything that [has been] subsequently unearthed by archaeology and history?"

As far as I'm aware, not according to any non-LDS archaeologist or historian.

This is a significant bar to reach. I admit that, were your statement supported by objective historical/archaeological evidence, then the ancient authorship hypothesis would have significantly more buying power, so to speak.

Your assumption that it is must be correspondingly supported by objective observers.

I haven't seen that, thus far.

Why must it be "the most freakish publication in the history of the world?" Is JS's purportedly divinely-revealed text really that accurate? It would not seem so.

Are there some correspondences with mundane reality? Surely. But that's just a mark of all competent mundane fiction. But some correspondences with reality does not "the most freakish publication in the history of the world" make.

For your supposition to be true, you would need to show that the construction of JS's BoM is indeed impossible per the theory of modern authorship.

Simply saying that it is does not approach any sort of definitive historical proof that it, in fact, is.

Best to you.

CKS

[charity]

ck, because I meant it for the Oliver's Failed Translation Thread and don't know how it got here. Can you move a post?

[cksalmon]

ck, because I meant it for the Oliver's Failed Translation Thread and don't know how it got here. Can you move a post?

No, I have no idea how to do that, excepting Mod intervention.

Best to you!

CKS

[Hammer]

Has the Book of Mormon been found to be a history of ancient inhabitants of America by anyone outside of the faith? If not, it is akin to writing a book of fiction, with oodles of borrowed biblical scriptures that turns out to be a slow read for many. It becomes a challenge if the book were historical. Otherwise, head to the local library and you will find shelves and shelves of fictional books of every imagination that meet or exceed the challenge.

Total and complete nonsense. Have you read the Book of Mormon? If so, you couldn't say this or compare it to a novel. It reads as fact, and has doctrinal value. Doctrinal value that compares to what is in the Bible. It reads as scripture. It presents the stories in a very interesting way, and the way the prophets write the events, and weave into it the scriptures of THEIR day, it makes it totally believable.

You say, go to the library, and you will find something even better. Can you suggest even one book that will do this? I didn't think so. Sorry I had to be the one to knock the straw man down...

TChild: I have a challenge for Elder Brown. Since the church receives revelation from God, lets see it produce more scripture to be added to its canon. This would impress me.

Hammer: How do you add to the FULLNESS? Ha!

[russianwolfe]

Does anyone remember the Hilter's Diary fiasco that happened a few years ago? The Russians concocted a fake version of Hilter's Diaries and attempted to put it out for the world to examine. They actually got a German newspaper to create a big noise about it but in the end the scholars looked at it superficially and in just a couple of weeks, they were declared fakes.

Now for a little history: Near the end of WWII, Hitler decided to move his journals to a safe place. These contained his record of the meetings and decision he made during the war. They loaded them on a plane and it took off. Somewhere between the start and its destination the plane crashed and burned. When notified of this, Hitler despaired that history would never know why he did what he did.

Now look at the Book of Mormon. It has been around for almost 180 years. Every attempt to prove it a fake has failed. The problem with proving this book a fake is that most of the points made by the opposition are arguments from silence. But the silence is ending. As research in MesoAmerica continues, more and more evidence comes forth and none has contradicted what the Book of Mormon says. There are still many points that continue to exist but have not resolved themselves yet. For instance, horses. Horses are mentioned in the BoM and to date nothing convincing has been found to support this. To say that it proves the BoM false, is an argument from silence. So it remains in limbo. Another for instances is the comment by Moroni that the people left after the total destruction of the Nephites were very war like. For a long time it was thought that the people of MesoAmerica were peaceful. But that opinion is ended. As they learn to translate more and more of the glyphs they learn just how much war was a part of the life and culture of the MesoAmericans. And then there is barley. Or cement. But my point is that so far, nothing has been brought forward that contradicts the BoM. And as time go on, more evidence will come forth. I know which side I am rooting for. And just how the evidence will pan out. How about you?

Marvin

[charity]

hammer, you haven't been reading the Ensign. There is new revelation there every issue. You just aren't seeing it.

How do you add to the fulness? you mocked. I saw a picture of the Food Guide Pyramiid the other day. All the major food groups are there. But there wasn't a picture of every single food item that could be catalogues in such a way.

[maklelan]

maklelan

Sorry, my time is short as well.

I apologize. I realized you were probably just busy and felt pretty stupid about pushing you. Again, my apologies.

Care to give an example? Could you spell out exactly what all the "manners" are in which the anachronisms have been dealt.

That anachronisms occur in the BOM is indisputable. Take the mention of steel or horse or quoting a NT passage in the OT portion of the BOM. These are anachronism.

Cement was supposed ot be an anachronism, but it is no longer. Barley was an anachronism, but not anymore. Roads were an anachronism, but not anymore. Steel (which you mention) has been attested in the Old World much further back than Lehi, so if you mean steel in Jerusalem it is no longer an anachronism. Writing on plates was supposed to be an anachronism and a cultural misrepresentation, but no longer. The horse argument is debatable, but many non-Mormon scholars think that horses stayed in America (in small numbers) well into the first millenium AD. That is an argument from silence, which you know to be fallacious. The Huns were horse riding warriors, but not a single horse bone from their culture can be found. NT passages are not an anachronism. We believe the New Testament was God's composition passed through a human. That the ideas are the same shouldn't be a huge shock unless one rejects the idea that the Bible is inspired. If one does than their criteria automatically reject the Book of Mormon and it impresses no one to find these problems in your perception of the texts. If I don't believe in God then I'm not really smart for saying, "This book says Jesus raised a guy from the dead. I conclude that it is false. Respect my superior intellect." Like the President said, "If my children do not find cement then I expect my grandchildren will find cement." Cement was found, and the only anachronisms that remain are those that stand on arguments from silence. They too will fall.

Apologists handle these in various ways.

If we are all to be referred to as apologists, what shall we call you? Your main interest seems to be tearing down other people's personal faiths because you don't think they're smart enough to build them correctly. You judge everything by your own standard and try to force that standard upon others. If by apologist you mean someone hopelessly engaged in trying to hold up a crumbling wall then I reject your label - nothing has fallen, despite the work of thousands of aggressors. In fact, things are flourishing quite nicely. I just received an email last night from a Jehovah's Witness who was impressed by how I defended my faith when attacked by Evangelicals, so he read the Book of Mormon, prayed, and got an answer. He invited his wife and three members from their congregation to do the same, and they are all now LDS. I would say "I testify," but you will mock that, so I will "say" that anyone who honestly reads and prays about the truth of the Book of Mormon will receive an answer regarding its truthfulness, absolutely without fail. Some take longer than others, but I have been extending this challenge to people ever since I got baptized and I have never, ever been told that it didn't work. The light always comes. If by apologist you mean someone trying to defend their beliefs from aggression then I accept the label and expect you to apply it to all those who do so, including yourself.

Horse was Nephi's word for a tapir.

I don't subscribe to this argument, but it is perfectly valid. It only fails if you make the assumption that when an ancient Israelite says "horse" it must be only one specific species, despite the fact that Greeks called Hippos "horses" and many opther animals were labelled according to the closest known animal to a foreigner.

The BOM and NT perhaps both rely on a missing text.

That's silly.

Steel may yet be discovered in Mesoamerica.p

Surely you recognize that many things remain to be discovered in Mesoamerica. And you know that an argument from silence is not an argument at all. Is it the best you have for that one?

All these responses can be used for any forged document.

Very true, and an argument from silence can be produced for many things as well. The Huns rode on horses but no horse remains can be found from their time period! The Huns never existed!

No, I'm saying no Israelites have been discovered.

No modern Israelites? Well, that's silly. No ancient Israelites? Well, if we test modern Israeli DNA we will not discover any ancient Israelites either. They have changed so much that they cannot even be traced back to ancient Israelites.

No Israelite culture, no Hebrew writing, no nothing to demonstrate BOM peoples were there.

Arguments from silence. In addition, many thigns have been discovered. There are several Hebrew inscriptions that have been found that date to pre-Columbian times. Scientists are just baffled as to how to reconcile them with what they know about history. I have a suggestion.

I wasn't thinking of DNA. But in that regard, I'm only interested in what the genetic evidence does show. I'm not interested in what the evidence doesn't rule out.

So arguments from silence are not valid. Gotcha.

I doesn't rule out a lot of things. Even Southerton admits the evidences doesn't rule out the Nephites, that is, if you grant a limited geography and local colonization. But still, the burden of proof that the Nephites were there is on believers.

I'm not aware of anyone who is trying to prove they existed to you. I am aware of many people who are trying to show you that your trying to prove they didn't exist is silly. They're doing a good job, too.

All we have is NHM is the general area and time period one would expect from reading the BOM. However, by my reading I would be looking along the coast, which is what apologists first did. Personally, I would have been more impressed if NaHoM were found. As it is, the locals could have pronounced it completely different. As interesting as this apparent correlation is, we have little more information to test it with. Nephi didn't mention any inhabitants or customs or anything that would give it some semblance of substance. It's interesting, but hardly conclusive.

I think it is also interesting that it has one of the largest ancient burial grounds in Arabia. It is mentioned only as the place where they buried Ishmael. I agree that it is impossible for anything to be conclusive with the information that we have, but things get more and more "interesting" every day.

That would be a matter of faith. Even if the BOM were true history, it doesn't mean you evidence is good. Perhaps Lehi's company did bury Ishmael at a place near the west coast called (by them or others but now lost to us) Nahom, then headed nearly eastward and waved at the NiHMites as they passed.

It is a matter of faith, but I thought I'd drop it in there anyway.

Yes, it's discussed in my bio of JS. It's from Jedediah Morse's geography.

What page? I'll look into it.

I'm well aware of the apologetic responses.

Labelling the responses as "apologetic" does not make the arguments go away. I can conclude that you aither don't want to take the time right now to respond to the arguments, or you have never considered them.

It's possible with a little imagination to get out of any problem.

Like how to get around the fact that the witnesses never denied their testimonies? Your ideas on that are very creative. They are also very conjectured and very impossible to substantiate.

But why? There is a point at which excuses become tiresome. Nevertheless, the claim in this thread was that JS could not dictated such a perfect book. Things like this make such a simplistic claim wrong.

I've gotta be honest, I forget what I said here and I don't really want to go look it up, so whatever I said, OK.

At this point, it becomes a matter of faith.

Many of your conclusions are a matter of faith as well. Not faith in God, but faith in your powers of perception, logic, reasoning and psychoanalysis. Faith is not a vice. Everyone on this planet has a lot of faith in many things. You may label belief in God as faith and nothing else, but faith comes down to a matter of preference.

Any evidence I bring forth to show that JS could dictate similar texts is bound to be countered with: he was inspired then too.

If it is part of the canon then why would you expect otherwise, but if not, then I wouldn't stoop so low. I'm not that blind and desperate.

So, the problem is knowing when he was inspired and when he was dictating on his own. It can't be done. So, I see his letter from Liberty Jail as an example of JS talent for dictating beautiful text, whereas the believer will say he was inspired then too. And so it goes. So, while I might reject the BOM as history, I can't say that it's not "inspired".

If it is part of our canon then why are we accused of sidestepping when we claim he was inspired then, too? I have read many of his personal writings that are not inspired (and you have read many more), and his brilliance does not always come through. While it is obvious he developed a pretty competent prose, the Book of Mormon is a different animal altogether. Examine the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and examine the rest of his writings that contain it in some degree. A systemized approach will show they are two entirely different worlds of literary style. To say that he was conscious of these subtle shifts in style and prose and never made the slightest mistake in differentiating is a little forced. To do so in light of the fact that chiasmus was utterly unknown to him during the translation (or composition) of the Book of Mormon is ridiculous. And yet you make that assertion and persist in telling us we are woefully unprepared to engage your (plural) intellect and powers of objectivity and logic.

I will refrain from pestering you about a response. I know you're busy and sincerely appreciate your time. I will try hard not to be abrasive in the future.

[maklelan]

This is clearly an a priori assumption.

Perhaps, but I stand by it until it is shown to be false.

Is it really "a perfect match with everything that [has been] subsequently unearthed by archaeology and history?"

As far as I'm aware, not according to any non-LDS archaeologist or historian.

As I understand it, only Mormon and anti-Mormon scholars have even considered it. I am aware of several un-biased archeologists and historians who respect our conclusions, but I am unaware of any who have directly contested them. They're usually evangelicals.

This is a significant bar to reach. I admit that, were your statement supported by objective historical/archaeological evidence, then the ancient authorship hypothesis would have significantly more buying power, so to speak.

Your assumption that it is must be correspondingly supported by objective observers.

I haven't seen that, thus far.

Objectivity is a trait rarely manifested in forums like this. I think pretty much everyone has an agenda, but all of the un-biased scholars I have seen address this issue have unanimously agreed that it does merit serious consideration.

Why must it be "the most freakish publication in the history of the world?" Is JS's purportedly divinely-revealed text really that accurate? It would not seem so.

If you like I will start a thread wherein I list as many of the correlations as my time will allow, for your consideration. It will take some time, but if you wish, I will do so.

Are there some correspondences with mundane reality? Surely. But that's just a mark of all competent mundane fiction. But some correspondences with reality does not "the most freakish publication in the history of the world" make.

Then I will start this thread considering only extraordinary correlations.

For your supposition to be true, you would need to show that the construction of JS's BoM is indeed impossible per the theory of modern authorship.

That is what our challenge attempts to do. None of us feels up to the task, so we invite those who scoff at our assertion to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. Up till now we have been told that the premise is logically flawed, but not a one has insisted that it could be done.

Simply saying that it is does not approach any sort of definitive historical proof that it, in fact, is.

I invite anyone here to show my a priori assumption to be wrong (with empirical evidence, not rhetoric) (Did I spell rhetoric right?) (It doesn't look right)

Best to you.

CKS

You too. I appreciate your cordiality. I hope I do not come across as too sharp.

Why does my quote thing not work?!?!?!?!?!

[cksalmon]

Perhaps, but I stand by it until it is shown to be false.

As I understand it, only Mormon and anti-Mormon scholars have even considered it. I am aware of several un-biased archeologists and historians who respect our conclusions, but I am unaware of any who have directly contested them. They're usually evangelicals.

Objectivity is a trait rarely manifested in forums like this. I think pretty much everyone has an agenda, but all of the un-biased scholars I have seen address this issue have unanimously agreed that it does merit serious consideration.

If you like I will start a thread wherein I list as many of the correlations as my time will allow, for your consideration. It will take some time, but if you wish, I will do so.

Then I will start this thread considering only extraordinary correlations.

That is what our challenge attempts to do. None of us feels up to the task, so we invite those who scoff at our assertion to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. Up till now we have been told that the premise is logically flawed, but not a one has insisted that it could be done.

I invite anyone here to show my a priori assumption to be wrong (with empirical evidence, not rhetoric) (Did I spell rhetoric right?) (It doesn't look right)

You too. I appreciate your cordiality. I hope I do not come across as too sharp.

Why does my quote thing not work?!?!?!?!?!

First, I think your quotation function is working properly.

I, too, was concerned that I might have come across too sharply. But I didn't suspect anything of the sort from you. I really appreciate being able to have these discussions in a civil manner.

If you like I will start a thread wherein I list as many of the correlations as my time will allow, for your consideration. It will take some time, but if you wish, I will do so.

There might already be a thread we could resurrect, but I haven't yet found it via the search feature.

Perhaps you could start a thread wherein you list one correlation at a time, such that we can discuss individual correspondences at lengthâ??or at least 'til we both agree for a stalemate . Or, perhaps one thread per correspondence. I think something along those lines might be more useful both for us and other readers.

Best.

CKS

[maklelan]

Perhaps you could start a thread wherein you list one correlation at a time, such that we can discuss individual correspondences at lengthâ??or at least 'til we both agree for a stalemate . Or, perhaps one thread per correspondence. I think something along those lines might be more useful both for us and other readers.

Best.

CKS

I think that would be a good idea, but my concern is that individual correlations will not be convincing of anything at all. Perhaps we could decide whether a correlation is valid or invalid. By this I mean, could the correlation be real, or is it forced or too vague or can it be explained. What it proves should have nothing to do with the discussion, but once we settle, we intend to show that there is a huge pile of correlations for which there is no explanation. This is our thesis (or mine, at least).

[cksalmon]

I think that would be a good idea, but my concern is that individual correlations will not be convincing of anything at all. Perhaps we could decide whether a correlation is valid or invalid. By this I mean, could the correlation be real, or is it forced or too vague or can it be explained. What it proves should have nothing to do with the discussion, but once we settle, we intend to show that there is a huge pile of correlations for which there is no explanation. This is our thesis (or mine, at least).

I agree that the LDS case for BoM's divine status must be cumulative, if anything at all. Still, I think detailed discussion about individual prospective correspondences would be more useful than merely listing them. A compromise? List them all in your OP; we (and others) can discuss them one at a time, even heading each of our replies, e.g.,

(1) NHM (or whatever #1 happens to be).

When we're through discussing (1), we'd move on.

What do you think?

Best.

CKS

[maklelan]

Sounds good. I'll get on it tonight or tomorrow.

[Addictio]

maklelan:

In order to appreciate and respond to the Problem Two arguments, you have to understand that the two models, HC and LTC, are colonization models. They aren't just "BoM geography models," though of course the LTC model posits a limited Mesoamercan geography for the BoM narratives. Rather, the fundamental difference between them has to do with the biological and cultural identity of (1) all pre-Columbian inhabitants throughout the hemisphere and (2) the biological and cultural identity of the peoples and actors within the BoM text. The two models produce vastly different profiles for those two groups: everyone in the ancient American hemisphere and everyone in the text.

Also, when I refer to the "model" JS would have been using to compose the text, I'm referring to his assumptions about (1) and (2). Of course neither JS nor his LDS contemporaries referred to or considered the HC model by name, they just assumed the colonization scenario it describes. Further, you appear not to understand what the LTC model is. It was not discussed in published form until 1985, when Sorenson published his book. So whether JS functioned as author or translator, he didn't (and couldn't) consider the LTC model, nor the colonization scenario it assumes, and describes.

[maklelan]

maklelan:

In order to appreciate and respond to the Problem Two arguments, you have to understand that the two models, HC and LTC, are colonization models. They aren't just "BoM geography models," though of course the LTC model posits a limited Mesoamercan geography for the BoM narratives. Rather, the fundamental difference between them has to do with the biological and cultural identity of (1) all pre-Columbian inhabitants throughout the hemisphere and (2) the biological and cultural identity of the peoples and actors within the BoM text. The two models produce vastly different profiles for those two groups: everyone in the ancient American hemisphere and everyone in the text.

I wasn't aware they were colonization models.

Also, when I refer to the "model" JS would have been using to compose the text, I'm referring to his assumptions about (1) and (2). Of course neither JS nor his LDS contemporaries referred to or considered the HC model by name, they just assumed the colonization scenario it describes. Further, you appear not to understand what the LTC model is. It was not discussed in published form until 1985, when Sorenson published his book. So whether JS functioned as author or translator, he didn't (and couldn't) consider the LTC model, nor the colonization scenario it assumes, and describes.

When you say LTC I include any comparable Limited Geography model. There are a dozen models that function within the exact same geographic borders as the LTC that do not fit a strict definition of the LTC, so (unless you would like me to strictly interpret LTC) then I have to disagree with the above statement. The Times and Seasons (Times and Seasons 3/22 (15 September 1842) contains mention that Zarahemla was probably in Guatemala north of the isthmus of Panama. This precludes any Hemispheric model and shows that Joseph Smith was open to different interpretations.

[freakin a man]

I have been struggling to read the KJV while my face is in a hat. Any suggestions?

[PosterMania]

I have been struggling to read the KJV while my face is in a hat. Any suggestions?

make sure there are breathing holes in it....that may clear your brain a little more !! LOL

[SlackTime]

I have been struggling to read the KJV while my face is in a hat. Any suggestions?

You obviously lack the right rock, get one that glows (Radium I'm told has a nice glow), then slam your face into it a few times with all your heart, might, mind, and strength... I'm sure you'll begin to see the light!

-SlackTime

[Addictio]

In response to my last post, maklelan first said:

I wasn't aware they were colonization models.

Well, perhaps that explains your first reply to my post discussing and using the two models. But then your next paragraph indicates you still aren't "aware" that they are colonization models. In response to my additional comments about the assumptions JS would have used to compose the BoM:

Also, when I refer to the "model" JS would have been using to compose the text, I'm referring to his assumptions about (1) and (2). Of course neither JS nor his LDS contemporaries referred to or considered the HC model by name, they just assumed the colonization scenario it describes. Further, you appear not to understand what the LTC model is. It was not discussed in published form until 1985, when Sorenson published his book. So whether JS functioned as author or translator, he didn't (and couldn't) consider the LTC model, nor the colonization scenario it assumes, and describes.

maklelan wrote:

When you say LTC I include any comparable Limited Geography model. There are a dozen models that function within the exact same geographic borders as the LTC that do not fit a strict definition of the LTC, so (unless you would like me to strictly interpret LTC) then I have to disagree with the above statement. The Times and Seasons (Times and Seasons 3/22 (15 September 1842) contains mention that Zarahemla was probably in Guatemala north of the isthmus of Panama. This precludes any Hemispheric model and shows that Joseph Smith was open to different interpretations.

Sorry, but until you appreciate the difference between colonization models (which are used by LDS and other DNA analysts to summarize a position regarding subjects (1) and (2)) and a geography model that addresses and/or takes a position only on the location and/or scope of the BoM narratives, you're not being coherent, or making sense. You may want to look at my recent post on the "DNA Pundits" thread. I explain a bit further there the difference between the two kinds of models and also address the 1842 Times and Seasons articles, one of which you cite above.

Your last, bolded sentence, btw, is like responding to an assertion (mine) about what JS believed about the origin and biological identity of all ancient inhabitants of the hemisphere with: "On the contrary, JS believed the events recorded in the BoM occurred entirely in Mesoamerica!" Not only is your "this precludes any Hemispheric model" statement false as a matter of fact (see the Roper article), but an assumed hemispheric or more limited spacial scope for the narratives does not determine one way or the other the origin/identity of all ancient inhabitants of the hemisphere. The difference between the two sets of issues should not be that hard to grasp, seems to me. Perhaps if you read the Roper "Bom geography" article I mention in the post on the other thread, you'll understand why John Taylor and others could accept an HC-model postion on the origin/identity of ancient inhabitants of the hemisphere while also indentifying BoM cities with the ruins discovered in Central America.

[PacMan]

Dan,

I think you mean argument from silence.

I meant argumentum ad ignorantiam

I haven't given an interpretation, creative or otherwise. But you have. Mesoamericans knew what a volcano was, but the BOM doesn't mention them. The destruction in the BOM doesn't have to be volcanic. It just has to be divine. You might think it fits with volcanic eruption. Fine. But that's not proof that JS could not have written it.

But, I have? Iâ??m not pigeonholing the catalyst of this destruction as anything. Moreover, this is not an interest of â??Mesoamerica,â? but individuals keeping accounts, and their editor Mormon. But to answer you: Why no other volcanic destruction accounts in the BoM? Because they were either unknown, insignificant, or otherwise completely irrelevant to the purpose of the BoM as seen by Mormon and his son.

When Whitmer and others said he didn't have any manuscript to read from, they were debunking the Spaulding theory. If JS had instructed Cowdery to copy certain chapters from the Bible or read them from the Bible, that would not necessarily have been mentioned.

Irrelevant! It was Emma that made perhaps the most solid statement on the subject and to whether they were debunking Spaulding theory or the Teletubby theory is completely irrelevantâ?¦the only thing that the accounts mention relating to the subject was a dearth of secondary material.

That was Cowdery's method with his rod, which answered yes and no questions.

Cowderyâ??s method? Re-read D&C 8 and 9. The process is defined as the spirit of revelation. This is not some independent method used exclusively by Oliver. As such, my previous comment stands unchanged. The gift of Aaron was specially given to Oliverâ?¦explained to be, â??another gift,â? independent from the gift of revelation.

I'm just saying, he wasn't working as hard as his neighbors. Besides, he could think about what he was going to dictate while walking to Colesville and doing other things.

I find it highly suspicious that you can make such an irresponsible statement. Unless you have a statistical sampling sufficient to conclude the actions of his neighbors, with a qualification of what constitutes, â??hard work,â? I think youâ??re promulgating only wishful thinking. But I do agree that he did plenty of thinking while working, etc. Joseph and Oliver talked a lot about what they were doingâ??natural enough, but even in the extreme it proves nothing with regard to his ability to extract such volume of literature, if not considered as scripture.

As per the Cowdery conspiracy theory, let us remember that Joseph was translating before he ever met Cowdery. Regarding the shear number of people involved in the whole process, including the 3 and 8 witnesses, I find it tremendously curious that none of them ever blew the doors of conspiracy open, despite leaving the church.

Samuelâ??s caretaking was desperately needed help to free Josephâ??s time. But as you point out, it truly wasnâ??t enough.

If JS was translating the Isaiah chapters, why are they nearly identical to the KJV including mistakes?

Again, I think Josephâ??s use of the seer stone and U&T wasnâ??t strict. In other words, they translated words and ideas, but I donâ??t think they were necessarily complete. We know this is the case because Joseph wasnâ??t always using them and at a point was able to turn to direct revelation alone. Moreover, I donâ??t have a problem that he actually was using the Isaiah text (I think evidence (at least initial testimonies) goes against this). If he were at this point truly translatingâ??rather than simply dictatingâ??responsible translation would have used secondary sources for comparison. Remember, the Lord will do for us what we canâ??t do for ourselves: if texts were available for comparison, I find it highly consistent that the Lord would have expected Joseph to consult them.

There could be day full of dictation, or days with none, or days with an hour hear and there, or a few hours in the morning followed by work and return to dictating after supper. Who knows? All you have to do is divide the number of pages from the number of days to get the 8-page figure.

Exactlyâ??I agree. And those other days were traveling to Colesville, finding work, and doing what other business that needed to be done: not working on secret manuscripts with Oliver.

Cheers,

PacMan

P.S. Darn you Freakn a man !