More Proof Of The Book Of Mormon?

[phaedrus ut]

For those who said they hadn't seen an accurate depiction of Joseph translating from church sources here is one.

I can't recall where this picture was published. But for some reason the Juvenile Instructor comes to mind or maybe BOM reader.

Another problem with the translation process is the inclusion of exact KJV text, errors and all. With the greatest accounting of the textual variants being the exclusion of the italicized words. Most apologists will state that Joseph used the KJV translation for "versus he recognized". But how did he reach over for the bible on the table next to him? As he scanned these versus why did he choose to exclude the italicized words? Was that choice somehow going to make the text more original or authentic?

There is no accounting from Joseph or the scribes that he used his Bible during translation, yet strong agreement from many apologist that he did. Look at 3 Nephi 25:2

"But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall."

This is identical to Malachi 4:2, except that the word Son is used in place of Sun. Sun and Son are homophones to a English speaker and would easily be mistaken by the ear of a scribe. The words aren't even similar in Hebrew. Oh and for the record, Malachi lived 2 centuries after Lehi and family left Jerusalem yet strangely his words made it to the Nephites. That is just one example of dozens and dozens of similar mistakes.

So now we have a KJV bible in the room and it's specifically used in the BOM's composition yet conveniently never mentioned. What else can we now allow in the process?

Phaedrus

[charity]

Uh, no you don't. How do we know the entire thing was dictated orally? We don't.

No one necessarily had to do that, charity.

Why did there have to be so many people involved in the fraud? By my count, only Joseph and his scribes were necessarily in on it. That's what, 4 or 5 people?

Emma knew how many pages she took down, Oliver knew how many he did, there were other scribes involved. It was not done in a vacuum. You should read the link DCP provided. Oliver and Joseph didn't go off some place and come back with a manuscript tied up with ribbon. The translation process was done in front of a lot of people.

Witnesses to the actual transcribing--Emma Hale Smith, Reuben Hale, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Mrs. Peter Whitmer. A group of " anxious friends" not named by David Whitmer.

How many witnesses are enough for you? Or conspirators in a fraud?

[Mordecai]

Furthermore, there is evidence offer by apologists that suggest that there were errors that can only be made is someone is copying something rather than listening. I know what this article below is trying to show but the same evidence can be read as evidence of an entirely different senario whereby the scribe was copying something rather than really listening to what JS was saying as he looked into his hat. It was all a show.

article:

http://mormonstudies.com/scribe.htm

The evidence of copying errors are there. The question is: what happened when?

As your mormonstudies author points out, only a couple of errors COULD HAVE been due to misreading/miscopying. Others like writing him instead of them would not be found if Cowdery were copying. If anyone can find errors in the OM that definitely are the types that occur from miscopying, let us know. Otherwise, completely moot points.

[Zakuska]

put,

What of all the Parallels to the LXX. Perhaps he had one of those in the room too?

Ships of Tarshsish

[Not quite me]

Emma knew how many pages she took down, Oliver knew how many he did, there were other scribes involved. It was not done in a vacuum. You should read the link DCP provided. Oliver and Joseph didn't go off some place and come back with a manuscript tied up with ribbon. The translation process was done in front of a lot of people.

As Tarski said, the misdirection worked on you, so why not on the folks who were there?

Witnesses to the actual transcribing--Emma Hale Smith, Reuben Hale, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Mrs. Peter Whitmer. A group of " anxious friends" not named by David Whitmer.

How many witnesses are enough for you? Or conspirators in a fraud?

Witnesses to misdirection are just that.

We've had this conversation before, charity.

[Merry]

I see no reason to invoke a malicious trickster deity or an earthly conman

[Tarski]

As Tarski said, the misdirection worked on you, so why not on the folks who were there?

Witnesses to misdirection are just that.

Right! Did they compare notes and add up the pages? Did they memorize what they wrote so as to make sure it was the same as what was in the book?

Look, JS did not have to stick with one method. Just when you figure out how something might have been done a good magician or fraudster then employes another method. It never occurs to the mark that there is more than one trick being employed. Later the mark can counter skeptical claims by saying but he couldn't have faked it that way becuase blah blah blah, never realizing that several methods of deception were employed so that every theory would have a rebuttal. But that only works if one assumes only one method of misdirection could have possible been used.

Never under estimate the power of misdirection. It is easy to fool people--there are tons of good magicians and it isn't hard.

[Mordecai]

As Tarski said, the misdirection worked on you, so why not on the folks who were there?

Witnesses to misdirection are just that.

We've had this conversation before, charity.

Martin Harris was also a scribe. He was skeptical so he went to Prof. Anthon (quite a long trip) and then MORTAGED HIS HOUSE just to print the book. Wow.

Oliver Cowdery left the Church claiming Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. When required to testify in court (supposedly against Joseph), he wept openly, saying he was in error and wished to be "reunited with the Saints." I think a thorough historian might find a lot of details like this to support them being actual believers. That's why Fawn Brodie claimed that Joseph Smith had "hypnotic ability" or something like that. The evidence strongly suggests they believed. Just another reason critics can't agree. Some believe the evidence that they believed. But once they do accept Cowdery and Harris believed, then close inspecition of the BoMormon starts to suggest a miracle. After all, if just Joseph Smith was the author, and dictated it with his eyes covered, the BoMormon should be a big fat mess, shouldn't it?

Even in the opening of U. Dale's discussion on how Sidney Rigdon would be the guy who wrote most of the BoMormon, he says himself no matter how unlikely, if it is the only explanation, it must be true. The problem with U. Dale is that he eliminates the MIRACLE before-hand as IMPOSSIBLE. At least, though, he admits that Rigdon being the author is UNLIKELY and also eliminates Joseph Smith being the author as also impossible. Especially since the source of that rumor began with that big, fat liar Hurlbut, who also claimed Joseph Smith said things like, "Ain't not."

[charity]

tarski, when there is such a difference of opinion, the authors of the opinion really come into play. Skousen vs Chandler. Let's see. World renowned scholar vs prolific anti-Mormon writer of what credentials did you say? The website with the link you provided does not give credentials for Mr. Chandler. Google his name and you get some computer teacher, which may or may not be him. But there is no person who shows up with a degree in linguistics or anything close. So please supply his vitae so we can judge for ourselves. Thanks.

[Not quite me]

Martin Harris was also a scribe. He was skeptical so he went to Prof. Anthon (quite a long trip) and then MORTAGED HIS HOUSE just to print the book. Wow.

Wow, indeed.

Oliver Cowdery left the Church claiming Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. When required to testify in court (supposedly against Joseph), he wept openly, saying he was in error and wished to be "reunited with the Saints." It think a thorough historian might find a lot of details like this to support them being actual believers. That's why Fawn Brodie claimed that Joseph Smith had "hypnotic ability" or something like that. The evidence strongly suggests they believed. Just another reason critics can't agree. Some believe the evidence that they believed. But once they do accept Cowdery and Harris believed, then the BoMormon starts to look like a miracle. Hmmmm...

Sure, there's evidence they were believers. As I said to charity the other day, it doesn't have to be a dichotomy between total fraud and God's anointed prophet.

Even in the opening of U. Dale's discussion on how Sidney Rigdon would be the guy who wrote most of the BoMormon, he says himself that even it is unlikely, if it is the only explanation, it must be true. The problem with U. Dale is that he eliminates the MIRACLE before-hand as IMPOSSIBLE. At least, though, he admits that Rigdon being the author is UNLIKELY. Especially since the source of that rumor began with that big, fat liar Hurlbut, who also claimed Joseph Smith said things like, "Ain't not."

I don't eliminate the miracle, but I do find it extremely unlikely, given the sum of the rest of the evidence. I have no idea what to make of Dale's Rigdon theory, but it bears investigation and not a flip dismissal. As for the "big fat liar," he may well have gotten Joseph Smith's diction down, as I recall reading some of his letters, which contained such constructions. Come to think of it, apologists have relied on Joseph's poor writing skill as evidence that he couldn't have written the BofM.

[sailgirl7]

As your mormonstudies author points out, only a couple of errors COULD HAVE been due to misreading/miscopying. Others like writing him instead of them would not be found if Cowdery were copying. If anyone can find errors in the OM that definitely are the types that occur from miscopying, let us know. Otherwise, completely moot points.

Did you read the entire article? Or just the first couple of paragraphs? Did you read where it says:

In the remainder of this paper, I will document many of the errors in the Book of Mormon manuscript, which provide clear evidence that the manuscript was copied rather than dictated.

He then goes on to list hundreds of examples.

[Yong Xi]

Consiglieri, for your premise (supernatural rather than manmade origin) to be valid, you must first jump through the following hoops:

Prove the existence of a creator.

Prove that this creator is involved with man.

Prove that this creator's involvement with man is via revealed religion.

Prove that Christianity is the the creator's religion of choice.

Prove that true Christianity was lost according to the creator's desire.

Prove that the creator physically visited Joseph Smith for the purpose of restoring true Christianity.

What I hear you saying is, "Since non-believers are divided on the origins of the BOM, it must have a supernatural origin, and furthermore, all of the above are proven as well."

[Mordecai]

I have no idea what to make of Dale's Rigdon theory, but it bears investigation and not a flip dismissal. As for the "big fat liar," he may well have gotten Joseph Smith's diction down, as I recall reading some of his letters, which contained such constructions. Come to think of it, apologists have relied on Joseph's poor writing skill as evidence that he couldn't have written the BofM.

I didn't dismiss Dale's theory. I just said that the problem with it is that he eliminates the miracle, making the only possible explanation a hoax concocted by Rigdon. In fact, I rather like Dale's theory, because it is a non-Mormon confessing that there is no way Joseph Smith put the BoMormon together, debunking Brodie's description of events.

Also, Hurlbut's story was also contradcited COMPLETELY by all first-hand witnesses and by the time Hurlbut talked to Joseph Smith, Smith was a fantastic writer. Have you compared Joseph Smith's 1838 writings to Cowder's, for example? Cowdery was supposed to be a teacher, but his writings are not even in the same league as Smith's. The guy was not just literate. He was talented.

[Tarski]

tarski, when there is such a difference of opinion, the authors of the opinion really come into play. Skousen vs Chandler. Let's see. World renowned scholar vs prolific anti-Mormon writer of what credentials did you say? The website with the link you provided does not give credentials for Mr. Chandler. Google his name and you get some computer teacher, which may or may not be him. But there is no person who shows up with a degree in linguistics or anything close. So please supply his vitae so we can judge for ourselves. Thanks.

Appeal to authority?

You won't win that way---what do most scholar think about these type of things? Spiritualism loses.

I would be quite happy to abide by the findings of a large panal of experts who have no prior commitments of Mormonism.

But never mind the appeal to authority ( a prior believer in this case!). What of the evidence and the arguments?

Look, magic and the supernatural aren't real but people want to believe. You are the mark and it has fooled you nicely. Even smart people get suckered because of human nature and the need for another world or afterlife:

Check out the case of Arthur Conan Doyle

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm

[Mordecai]

Consiglieri, for your premise (supernatural rather than manmade origin) to be valid, you must first jump through the following hoops:

Prove the existence of a creator.

Prove that this creator is involved with man.

Prove that this creator's involvement with man is via revealed religion.

Prove that Christianity is the the creator's religion of choice.

Prove that true Christianity was lost according to the creator's desire.

Prove that the creator physically visited Joseph Smith for the purpose of restoring true Christianity.

What I hear you saying is, "Since non-believers are divided on the origins of the BOM, it must have a supernatural origin, and furthermore, all of the above are proven as well."

One might theorize about "remote viewing" or "genetic memories" or perhaps some other supernatural source of the BoMormon. Maybe the "real God" just went along with the Christianity story, because he/she/it thought it would help people. Maybe time travellers decided to change history, so they used technology. Lots of possible near-supernatural explanations could be used. All of them unlikely, but hey, you can be an atheist or a non-Christian and believe Joseph Smith produced an apparent miracle.

[Uncle Dale]

As your mormonstudies author points out, only a couple of errors COULD HAVE been due to misreading/miscopying. ....

Couple as in two exactly? Or couple as in a few less than "several"??

or ... "couple" as in a couple of hundred?

These errors indicate clearly that the scribes were misreading rather than mishearing the text. The errors often involve pairs of letters that are formed similarly when written but are pronounced differently when spoken. Even Skousen himself often had difficulty determining which of two letters a scribe had written. Nor can the errors be dismissed due to the fact that the scribes were not very good spellers, because they often misspelled words which they clearly knew how to spell. Also, these errors were corrected, so if the scribes used the spelling which they thought was correct, how did they know that the spelling needed to be corrected and how it should be corrected? Joseph Smith surely didn't spell out every word for the scribes as the translation appeared in the interpreters. Furthermore, many of the errors result in nonsense words or render nonsensical the meaning of the sentence in which they occur. It is apparent that the scribes were copying an unfamiliar hand and that their task produced confusion and tedium. Deciphering the original text and constantly looking back and forth between the original and the copy for long periods of time made them prone to committing copying errors, mistaking one letter for another. And, the mechanical and tedious nature of the task, which impaired their ability to concentrate, led them to make even nonsensical errors. There may also be other contributing factors that we are not aware of, such as the condition of the manuscript that was being copied, the lighting in the room where the scribes worked, and distractions, such as conversations that may have been going on while the scribe worked.

Can Mormon scholars devise a new theory to accommodate the evidence from the Book of Mormon manuscript? In doing so, they will have to give attention to certain facts. Joseph Smith did not obtain possession of the plates until September 1827, and he then moved to Harmony, Pennsylvania. Martin Harris acted as Joseph Smith's scribe from 12 April to 14 June 1828. In July, Joseph learned that the 116 pages of manuscript that Harris had been allowed to take home had disappeared, and they were never recovered. Oliver Cowdery did not start his service as scribe until April 1829. It might have been possible for Joseph to translate the Book of Mormon between July 1828 and April 1829 and then give his text to scribes to copy. But more annoying details intrude. Oliver Cowdery was granted the gift of translating, which was then revoked, in April 1829 (D&C 8 & 9). In May 1829 Joseph Smith was given a solution for the problem of the lost Harris manuscript (D&C 10). Oliver Cowdery also stated that he had written most of the Book of Mormon as dictated by Joseph Smith. It appears then that Joseph could not have produced a translation before April 1829, which Oliver and the other scribes merely copied, and if he had, we must ask why Joseph and Oliver would lie about how they had produced the manuscript.

It cannot be doubted that there was an extant manuscript that Joseph Smith's scribes copied. The simplest explanation is one that was proposed in the nineteenth century: Joseph Smith obtained the manuscript of a story written by Solomon Spalding, which was revised and printed as the Book of Mormon.

Reply to Critics

Since this article was posted, several people have suggested - without doing any research or presenting any evidence - that the examples that I have listed are simply cases of the scribes replacing a malformed letter with a better attempt at forming the intended letter. In other words, the problem is one of faulty penmanship. This explanation sounds reasonable, but it is not confirmed by the evidence.

As I stated at the beginning of this article, Royal Skousen distinguished between different cases. When he was able to determine the original letter that a scribe wrote and the letter that replaced it, Skousen used one set of symbols, which he explained as "x has been overwritten by y." When he was uncertain what letter a scribe had written, Skousen used another set of symbols, which he explained as "the text may be x or y, with x preferred or intended." Skousen also developed symbols to indicate when a letter was erased or aborted, when a letter was overwritten by the same letter, when a letter is missing a stroke or has an extra stroke, and when a letter is illegible. All of the examples that I have listed fall into two categories: those cases where Skousen was able to determine the original and replacement letters and those cases where a letter was erased. If the critics are right, my examples should fall in the other categories. We would expect Skousen to indicate that he was uncertain what letter a scribe had written, because it was malformed, or that the letter was overwritten by the same letter, or that the letter was missing a stroke or had an extra stroke. If Skousen believed that the errors that I have listed were merely cases of a scribe correcting faulty penmanship, he certainly had the means to indicate this. But, on the contrary, Skousen seems to be clear that the scribes wrote one letter and then replaced it with a completely different letter.

In his facsimile, Skousen provides photographs of three complete pages from the Book of Mormon manuscript. The third page is completely in the handwriting of scribe 3. The first two pages show transitions from the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery to the handwriting of scribe 2 or vice versa. Unfortunately, the major portion of each of the first two pages is in the handwriting of scribe 2, while those parts in Oliver's handwriting are fainter and much more difficult to read. The book Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Parry, Peterson, and Welch, 2002, 10) provides a much more legible photograph of the "Testimony of Three Witnesses" in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. Admittedly, the photographs are less than ideal, and I had only a handheld magnifying glass to aid me, but I was nonetheless able to glean some information. There are resemblances between the ways in which Oliver forms his "r," "n," and "v." However, the photographs do not show any instances in which Oliver tried to correct his penmanship by forming any of these letters more perfectly, except for two instances where Oliver overwrote an "r" with the same letter. On the other hand, Oliver's "r" does not look like his "s." Also, Oliver's "p" is clearly distinguishable from his "f." Furthermore, I cannot see any problem in distinguishing Oliver's a, o, and e, or his b, h, and k, or his m and n.

Scribe 2's "r" is generally elevated with a square top, and it does not resemble either his "n" or "v." Also, his "h" does not look like his "k." Scribe 2's "p" actually looks more like his elongated "s" than his "f." Scribe 3's "r" does not resemble either his "n" or his "s." Although similar to his "f," scribe 3's "p" is oddly shaped, and the stem of his "p" tends to be shorter than the stem of his "f." Also, Scribe 3's b, h, and k are distinct.

In short, I do not see any convincing evidence to justify the claim that the scribes were merely correcting their faulty penmanship. On the contrary, they were replacing one letter with a different letter by either overwriting or erasing the original letter. Furthermore, this explanation requires us to believe, for example, that Oliver Cowdery's incorrectly formed "n" looked like an "r," his incorrectly formed "v" lookd like an "r," and his incorrectly formed "s" looked like and "r." But, on the other hand, Oliver's incorrectly formed "r" sometimes looked like an "n," sometimes like a "v," and sometimes like an "s." All of this seems highly improbable. And, as far as I am aware, there is no recognizable pattern in the manuscript of a hypothetically malformed "n" looking like a "v" or "s," a malformed "v" looking like an "n" or "s," or a malformed "s" looking like an "n" or a "v." But there are patterns of an "r" being changed to an "n," "v," or "s," and vice versa, and it appears that these patterns arise not because the scribe made a mistake in penmanship, but because the scribe mistook one letter for another. The critics also ignore other types of errors that I listed, which clearly cannot be explained as correcting penmanship errors. If the critics want to discount the evidence, they will have to come up with a much better explanation supported by real evidence.

UD

[Mordecai]

Appeal to authority?

You won't win that way---what do most scholar think about these type of things? Spiritualism loses.

I would be quite happy to abide by the findings of a large panal of experts who have no prior commitments of Mormonism.

But never mind the appeal to authority ( a prior believer in this case!). What of the evidence and the arguments?

Look, magic and the supernatural aren't real but people want to believe. You are the mark and it has fooled you nicely. Even smart people get suckered because of human nature and the need for another world or afterlife:

Check out the case of Arthur Conan Doyle

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm

In this case, appealing to an authority is not a logical fallacy. Skousen's work on the BoMormon is in his field of expertise, which is a perfectly valid point. Pointing out that the next President of the United States believes that Skousen's linguistic analysis is correct would be a logical fallacy. Skousen is qualified and knowledgeable in the field of linguistics. Just like in court, expert witnesses are valid. Not that it even matters. Your website was entirely unconvincing and irrelevant. SOME errors MIGHT have been from copying, while most of them were the kinds that DEFINITELY are typical of dictation? Please. It was pathetic. So what if some MIGHT have been. What matters is what does the overall manuscript indicate. Skousen says it's indicative of dictation.

[Not quite me]

In this case, appealing to an authority is not a logical fallacy. Skousen's work on the BoMormon is in his field of expertise, which is a perfectly valid point.

Well, actually, no, Skousen's work is in linguistics, which may or may not have anything to do with whether a manuscript was transcribed or copied.

Pointing out that the next President of the United States believes that Skousen's linguistic analysis is correct would be a logical fallacy. Skousen is qualified and knowledgeable in the field of linguistics.

Is the comparison of handwriting mistakes a linguistic analysis? I would think not.

Just like in court, expert witnesses are valid.

Hence a handwriting expert might be better here instead of Skousen.

Not that it even matters. Your website was entirely unconvincing and irrelevant. SOME errors MIGHT have been from copying, while most of them were the kinds that DEFINITELY are typical of dictation? Please. It was pathetic. So what if some MIGHT have been. What matters is what does the overall manuscript indicate. Skousen says it's indicative of dictation.

I'd say Chandler has made a reasonable case for an alternative hypothesis. Tarski's right that you may be dealing with a false appeal to authority.

[Uncle Dale]

I didn't dismiss Dale's theory. I just said that the problem with it is that he eliminates the

miracle, making the only possible explanation a hoax concocted by Rigdon....

Why you continue to misrepresent my position is quite beyond my ability to imagine.

I have never said that a 19th century compilation of the Book of Mormon text excluded the possibility

of divine miracles, satanic miracles, advanced technology miracles, or miracle of any sort whatever.

In fact, if you'll take the trouble to read some of my posting on the MB, in regard to this very subject,

you'll see that I hold open the possibility of Sidney Rigdon being subject to bouts of automatic writing;

as well as the possibility that he and a small circle of other pre-1830 Mormons believed the work was

progressing by the "gift and power of God;" as well as the actual possibility of the entire origin and

development of early Latter Day Saintism being overseen by Divine Providence, (no matter its untold

secrets or problems).

If you can find one sentence of mine, where I have ever judged the BoM to be the product of a "hoax,"

please point it out to me, so I can correct any such words to correspond with my Latter Day Saint religion.

Dale R. Broadhurst

[consiglieri]

This is certainly an interesting and lively discussion. It seems from what I have read that yet another theory is being advanced to the growing corpus of alternative naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon; that of Joseph Smith--the Magician.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mordecai]

These errors indicate clearly that the scribes were misreading rather than mishearing the text.

WHAT errors specifically? And howso? Call for references.

These errors indicate clearly that the scribes were misreading rather than mishearing the text. The errors often involve pairs of letters that are formed similarly when written but are pronounced differently when spoken. Even Skousen himself often had difficulty determining which of two letters a scribe had written.

This is not evidence of dictation or copying. It's evidence of sloppiness. Nothing more. This is also true of the writing being nonsensical. In my view, nonsensical writing wouldn't occur from copying another manuscript. If it's nonsensical, you can hold off on writing until it is determined what is written. With dictation, this can't be done. Nothing this guy says explains the repeated mistake of writing him instead of them. That is clearly due to dictation. Also, I tire of anti-Mormons using the phrase it is clear. If it's clear, then you should SHOW that it is clear. This gump, Chandler, does no such thing. Also, his speculation about lighting in the room? Why wouldn't they just use more light, if it caused them to make repeated errors? What a load of crap.

In July, Joseph learned that the 116 pages of manuscript that Harris had been allowed to take home had disappeared, and they were never recovered.

If this was Harris's writing copied from the "real" original manuscript, wouldn't the "real" original manuscript still be available to Joseph and company for them to simply reproduce? If so, why wouldn't they simply reproduce it?

It cannot be doubted that there was an extant manuscript that Joseph Smith's scribes copied.

It can't? That's strange, because I am certain that I do doubt it. And this guy's ramblings don't change my mind even a little bit.

But, on the contrary, Skousen seems to be clear that the scribes wrote one letter and then replaced it with a completely different letter.

And this can't possibly be simply due to momentary absent-mindedness? And this can't possibly occur during dictation? As I pointed out, when someone is copying a manuscript and isn't clear on what they're copying, they can simply study it until they are sure. Thus, errors like this are unlikely to occur. Someone rushing to keep up with dictation would likely make sloppy mistakes, on the other hand. With similar letters, a mentally fatigued person's muscle memory might kick in and the wrong letter could easily turn up. Again, Chandler claims it's the lighting and/or fatigue. But that's not provable. That his theory requires unprovable speculation to explain away inconsistency illustrates that it is not strong enough to stand on its own. And none of this explains the other errors that are simply not found in copying texts. Him for them? The context is most tellingg. Between certain sounds, this error would occur more frequently, and according to Skousen, the error does occur where one would expect from taking dictation.

In short, Ted Chandler's alleged "evidence" is weak or non-existent. It's obvious that more of EVERY kind of error would occur with dictation; as one is rushing to keep up, one can get ahead of one's self or simply get tired. No one makes a lot of errors when copying text, because one can simply read over it until they're sure what they want to write. This guy doesn't provide a SINGLE example of the kinds of errors that only occur in copying texts, while Skousen, a respected expert, finds multiple examples of errors that result from PHONETIC issues involved with dictation and not misreading. I've read some of Skousen's stuff, and I having studied phonetics in college, have to agree with him that there are multiple errors that are ONLY typical of dictation. Perhaps, Uncle Dale, you ought to look at Skousen's work more closely and ignore this moron and his ramblings. He is competely inept in his argument since he completely avoids the types of errors Skousen describes that support ONLY dictation.

[charity]

If this was Harris's writing copied from the "real" original manuscript, wouldn't the "real" original manuscript still be available to Joseph and company for them to simply reproduce? If so, why wouldn't they simply reproduce it?.

Mordecai, because Joseph was told that nerfarious types had come into control of the manuscript pages and they had altered them, so that when Joseph produced a second translation they would bring these out to say he could not do the same thing twice. In those days, there weren't really good ways to examine documents for forgery, so the nefarious types could have pulled it off.

[Mordecai]

Well, actually, no, Skousen's work is in linguistics, which may or may not have anything to do with whether a manuscript was transcribed or copied.

It most definitely would. I promise. Phonology experts will know what things SOUND like whe SPOKEN quickly and will be able to identify the types of errors that would most likely occur.

Is the comparison of handwriting mistakes a linguistic analysis? I would think not.

Handwriting mistakes aren't indicative of anything for certain, one way or another.

Hence a handwriting expert might be better here instead of Skousen.

If so, let's get one on the job, then. I see no reason why they wouldn't agree wtih Prof. Skousen's analysis of the types of errors that occur being the types that would only occur in dictation.

I'd say Chandler has made a reasonable case for an alternative hypothesis. Tarski's right that you may be dealing with a false appeal to authority.

I'd say he has practically no case at all. Not a single word of it was even a little bit convincing to me, after having read just a FEW excerpts of Skousen's expert work. I studied the same stuff he did, so it wasn't hard for me to understand his reasoning. It was very clear and unequivocal. I learned years ago that when one intends to convince people, they need to address the opposition's point of view. Chandler never deals directly with Skousen, except where he thinks it will serve his own purposes. Responses to Skousen's strongest arguments are strangely absent from Chandler's "work."

Mordecai, because Joseph was told that nerfarious types had come into control of the manuscript pages and they had altered them, so that when Joseph produced a second translation they would bring these out to say he could not do the same thing twice. In those days, there weren't really good ways to examine documents for forgery, so the nefarious types could have pulled it off.

I know, but this is a poor explanation for someone trying to prove Joseph Smith was a faker. Granted, they may believe that Joseph Smith really believed he was a prophet, but then again, why would he throw away all the work that Rigdon had so kindly done for him? That'd be strange. And why would Rigdon then provide a back-up copy, in the form of the Book of Nephi, of many of the things that were in the Book of Lehi? Did Rigdon know the that the 116 pages were stolen/altered? It's all a very strange story, unless the manuscript was produced the way they said it was produced, and they truly weren't authorized to reproduce the 116 pages and God foresaw this and provided a solution.

[Not quite me]

Mordecai, because Joseph was told that nerfarious types had come into control of the manuscript pages and they had altered them, so that when Joseph produced a second translation they would bring these out to say he could not do the same thing twice. In those days, there weren't really good ways to examine documents for forgery, so the nefarious types could have pulled it off.

Is there any evidence for the existence of such a plot by nefarious types?

It most definitely would. I promise. Phonology experts will know what things SOUND like whe SPOKEN quickly and will be able to identify the types of errors that would most likely occur.

Handwriting mistakes aren't indicative of anything for certain, one way or another.

No. Well, let's get one on the job, then. I see no reason why they wouldn't agree wtih Prof. Skousen's analysis of the types of errors that occur being the types that would only occur in dictation.

I'd say he has no case at all. It's pathetic.

Then we disagree. I'd really like to see an expert weigh in. So far, I have Dr. Peterson's "it's stupid" argument and yours.

I know, but this is a poor explanation for someone trying to prove Joseph Smith was a faker. Granted, they may believe that Joseph Smith really believed he was a prophet, but then again, why would he throw away all the work that Rigdon had so kindly done for him? That'd be strange. And why would Rigdon then provide a back-up copy, in the form of the Book of Nephi, of many of the things that were in the Book of Lehi? Did Rigdon know the future, that the 116 pages would be stolen? It's all a very strange story, unless the manuscript was produced they said it was produced, and they truly weren't authorized to reproduce the 116 pages and God foresaw this and provided a solution.

I don't know. I can think of at least one reason to get rid of the original manuscript as it was copied. But then I'm nefarious (I like that word).

[SolarPowered]

I don't know. It has taken 7000 years or so to figure out how they made the Shroud of Turin. Why was that hoax successful?

Not Quite Me, I've been following the Shroud with great interest. I seem to have missed this discovery. Could you please fill me in about how the Shroud was made?