A Challenge to Critics

[Uncle Dale]

...Why is the Stanford University study being essentially ignored here?

...

If Mormonism is essentially a game of "follow the leader," then any meaningful

action/response must begin with the leader(s).

So far the LDS leaders have given no response to the Stanford researchers'

2008 report on Book of Mormon authorship. The leaders themselves are

probably only vaguely aware of the problem -- they have many, many

other things to deal with in running a church, besides paying attention to obscure

professional papers on computerized word-print analysis.

So, the "leaders" delegate their response down to the "scholars" -- and middle-men

like Dan Peterson get stuck with the task of determining which external challenges

are worth responding to and which are not. Dan knows that the Stanford study is

worth responding to ---- but he also knows that the "second shoe" has yet to drop,

and that the Stanford team are in possession of additional word-print studies on

Rigdon, Smith, Cowdery, etc.

The problem for Dan is, that as soon as his fellow scholars issue a response to

the Stanford team, it is possible that the content of the LDS response will quickly

be overshadowed by new reporting from the Stanford folks ---> or by some other,

totally independent "Gentile" computer analysis supporting Stanford methodology.

Dan and friends will eventually publish the LDS response -- probably split into

two well-researched and well-written papers, one issued through the Maxwell Institute

and the other one submitted to a non-LDS peer-reviewed statistics journal.

So, until Simon Says, actually says something the Mormon echo chamber

can only whisper out rumors of "it was rigged for Rigdon" and await further

marching orders from headquarters.

This is a contest meant to be played out in 2019; not in 2009 ----

Uncle Dale

ps:

http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Jock2008.htm

ps:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon2.htm

.

[ttribe]

me>>>At the risk of thread drift let me say that you have presented some valid points. If I can believe in the novel Jonathan livingston seagull you can believe in a historical book of mormon. What I find illogical is the claim that since A is true therefore B is true, which makes C true, culminating in the CoJCoLDS is the one true church, without any logical thought behind it.<<<

Hello ttribe,

The proof is in the fact that in the many months I have been here, that there has never been a discussion about which of the many restoration churches, if any, one should be a part of, if we assume the book of mormon is true.

That's not proof of your assertion. That's a completely different topic. I suggest you open a new thread and see if you can bring together some focused discussion on the issue, otherwise it will get lost in the shuffle.

[DrW]

If Mormonism is essentially a game of "follow the leader," then any meaningful

action/response must begin with the leader(s).

So far the LDS leaders have given no response to the Stanford researchers'

2008 report on Book of Mormon authorship. The leaders themselves are

probably only vaguely aware of the problem -- they have many, many

other things to deal with in running a church, besides paying attention to obscure

professional papers on computerized word-print analysis.

So, the "leaders" delegate their response down to the "scholars" -- and middle-men

like Dan Peterson get stuck with the task of determining which external challenges

are worth responding to and which are not. Dan knows that the Stanford study is

worth responding to ---- but he also knows that the "second shoe" has yet to drop,

and that the Stanford team are in possession of additional word-print studies on

Rigdon, Smith, Cowdery, etc.

The problem for Dan is, that as soon as his fellow scholars issue a response to

the Stanford team, it is possible that the content of the LDS response will quickly

be overshadowed by new reporting from the Stanford folks ---> or by some other,

totally independent "Gentile" computer analysis supporting Stanford methodology.

Dan and friends will eventually publish the LDS response -- probably split into

two well-researched and well-written papers, one issued through the Maxwell Institute

and the other one submitted to a non-LDS peer-reviewed statistics journal.

So, until Simon Says, actually says something the Mormon echo chamber

can only whisper out rumors of "it was rigged for Rigdon" and await further

marching orders from headquarters.

This is a contest meant to be played out in 2019; not in 2009 ----

Uncle Dale

ps:

http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Jock2008.htm

ps:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon2.htm

.

UD,

Thanks. Really.

IMHO, your response here was the best researched, best thought out, and most insightful contribution to this thread so far.

I agree that our friend Dr. Peterson has his work cut out for him.

Wonder if he will show up here and let us in on his plans for dealing with this issue.

[DrW]

Hi DrW,

Well I find the study interesting and it is an important first step in moving the debate into the wider academic community. But I do feel caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of this study. Frankly I do believe there are issues with the this study that greatly weaken it's conclusions. Now I do not of course expect you to take my word for it. If I have the time within the next week or so I will try and start a thread discussing what I find problematic about this study. There was a recent thread on this here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...0&start=260

(Although this thread does not really address what I find problematic in this particular paper)

All the Best,

Uncertain

Uncertain,

I thought that "doubt and uncertainty" was the job of the critics and that the job of believers was "faith and sure knowldege".

[Uncle Dale]

...

Wonder if he will show up here and let us in on his plans for dealing with this issue.

You look at the bottom of your screen, to see which MB members are currently signed on --

and perhaps see only your own identifier, along with "0 Guests" and "1 Anonymous User"---

That's the Doc.

When his contribution to the thread suddenly appears, the line at the bottom of

your screen still shows only you and "1 Anonymous User" reading the topic.

The response for "for dealing with this issue" will come when.......

.........it comes.

UD

.

[Brenda]

Since Emma wasn't able to see the plates, it seems quite possible (in my mind) that the "other text" could have existed as loose pages placed between the metal sheets. Or an entire bound book could have been hidden inside the plates (perhaps hidden within a compartment of false pages--ie. the "sealed" portion). Joseph Smith could have, at other times when he didn't even use the plates, had portions of the BoM text within his hat. You'll remember Whitmer's statement that what Joseph Smith saw while staring into the seerstone(s) was an inscription on parchment. Maybe this is because Joseph Smith was actually reading from parchment in his hat (you should know that a hat with secret compartments was a standard prop for stage magicians). While sitting at a table, Joseph Smith could have also hidden a book in his lap and read it through a hole in the hat. All sorts of possibilities exist... many of which would have been rather easy to pull off. And as explained by Uncle Dale, Joseph Smith could have also memorized certain passages that he had dictated.

Why would anyone in their right mind go to all this trouble to produce a book? Why wouldn't Joseph just write the whole thing alone, by himself, if he was making it all up? All of these "possibilities" involving other people are not even rational, not to mention too risky. Reading from parchment in his hat? Holes and secret compartments? With all due respect, I can't believe you're even suggesting this.

[ttribe]

You look at the bottom of your screen, to see which MB members are currently signed on --

and perhaps see only your own identifier, along with "0 Guests" and "1 Anonymous User"---

That's the Doc.

When his contribution to the thread suddenly appears, the line at the bottom of

your screen still shows only you and "1 Anonymous User" reading the topic.

The response for "for dealing with this issue" will come when.......

.........it comes.

UD

.

When Dr. Peterson is here, his name shows up at the bottom. My guess is he is traveling, as he often does.

[William James]

I will try to answer based upon what I believe is most likely.

1. Did Joseph Smith believe that he had visions and revelations or was he lying?

Both. Sometimes I think he really believed it and sometimes he was lying. (and sometimes he truly had them)

2. Did the Smith family believe in the authenticity of Josephâ??s visions or were they lying?

Both.

3. Did Emma Smith believe in the authenticity of Josephâ??s visions or was she lying?

At times she believed and at times she probably lied.

4. Did Oliver Cowdery believe in the authenticity of Josephâ??s visions and the Book of Mormon translation or was he lying?

At times he believed and at times he probably lied.

5. Did Martin Harris believe in the authenticity of Josephâ??s visions and the Book of Mormon translation or was he lying?

At times he believed and at times he probably lied.

6. Did Joseph Smith construct or acquire something that resembled gold plates?

a. If so, how was this accomplished?

Don't know.

b. Did the Three Witnesses actually handle something that they believed were the plates?

Unlikely, but maybe.

c. Did the Eight Witnesses actually handle something that they believed were the plates?

i. If not, why do you think they claimed to?

Unlikely, but maybe. They could have lied because they so much wanted it to be true, or were convinced they were supposed to perceive them when there was in fact nothing to see.

ii. If not, why do you think they never repudiated their claim?

Somehow I thought that at least one of the 8 witnesses had retracted his testimony, but I don't recall where I heard that. In any event, if none of them repudiated, it could easily have been because they did not want to admit to lying.

7. Did Joseph Smith construct or acquire something that resembled what he described as a Urim and Thummim and breastplate?

a. If so, how was this accomplished?

I don't know, but his magical world view would be consistent with either creating such instruments or else finding some object which he took to have magical properties and using that.

b. If so, why did he only show them briefly to a few and then dispose of them?

One explanation could be that he knew that the general public would not accept their authenticity and/or magical properties if they were permitted to examine them.

c. If not, was Lucy Smith lying or deluded when she claimed to have seen and handled them? If deluded, how was this accomplished, considering the detail in which she described them?

She could have been outright lying or else embellishing her testimony, or she could have been telling the truth. She could have been deluded if she so much wanted it to be true that her imagination got the best of her.

8. Were the Three Witnesses lying or deluded when they claimed to have seen the vision of the angel who showed them the plates and Nephite artifacts?

Don't know. I believe in angels, and I believe JS was a prophet, but I also believe there were a lot of lies and embellishments surrounding those early experiences in Church history.

a. If deluded, how was this accomplished?

b. If lying, why do you think they did this?

c. If lying, why do you think they never repudiated their claim?

d. What do you credit the conviction that they spoke of the experience with throughout their lives?

If you desperately want something to be true badly enough, or if you are sufficiently scared of being exposed as a liar, you might sound very convinced and authentic. Ever heard of the phrase, "he doth protest too much"?

9. Who (if anyone), besides Joseph Smith, contributed to the Book of Mormon?

Emma. Sidney Rigdon. Oliver Cowdery. All the scribes.

a. If others contributed, how was this accomplished?

I suspect they had oral conversations with Joseph, not necessarily explicitly about putting things in the BoM, but they raised concerns with Joseph which coincidentally were addressed in the BoM. I suspect Emma conversed with JS about polygamy and that the Jacob chapters were in part dictated during Emma's scribe period.

b. Did the traditional accounts of translation with Joseph using a seer-stone and dictating a scribe take place?

Probably, but the accounts are probably embellished.

10. Did Joseph Smith have written sources present during the Book of Mormon dictation?

Maybe not present, but he almost certainly relied upon his own recollection of those writings while dictating the BoM, as evidenced by Abinidi's King James version of the 6th commandment (Thou shalt not kill, instead of the correct Thou shalt not murder).

a. If so, were the scribes aware of this?

i. If so, why do you think they lied about it

b. If so, what sources might he have used?

11. If others beside Joseph Smith contributed to the Book of Mormon and/or if written sources were used, how do you think this was accomplished?

See above. The contributions were not necessarily express, but JS likely addressed concerns of people close to him in the BoM to encourage them to believe in its authenticity and correctness.

a. If Joseph Smith used a seer-stone as the accounts claim, how do you reconcile this translation ritual with blatant fabrication?

The seer stone could do two things: convince JS that his own thoughts were true revelations; convince others that his "revelations" were authentic.

All of that being said, I still think he was a prophet, even if he was a liar like all of us.

[Uncle Dale]

When Dr. Peterson is here, his name shows up at the bottom. My guess is he is traveling, as he often does.

He was sighted by my bodyguards in the Honolulu airport near the first class passenger lounge.

Wonder if he waved, as he flew over the Big Island?

UD

.

[Brenda]

It makes much more sense for Joseph to have omitted all stories of angels, breastplates, stones, gold books, etc. and just wrote the manuscript out of his head, claiming divine inspiration. If he had time to memorize massive amounts of scripture, secretly make metal plates and breastplates, he had time to write.

[DrW]

It makes much more sense for Joseph to have omitted all stories of angels, breastplates, stones, gold books, etc. and just wrote the manuscript out of his head, claiming divine inspiration. If he had time to memorize massive amounts of scripture, secretly make metal plates and breastplates, he had time to write.

Brenda,

It would seem that you believe whatever happened with regard to the events being discussed here was planned out in advance.

When looked at critically, it is clear that this was a "make it up as you go along" enterprise. And it eventually spawned a "make it up as you go along" religion.

Here are some examples;

First 116 pages lost with no copies available? Quick fix: claim that an abridged version of content of these 116 pages was contained in another part of the plates and then re-write that section leaving out specific details (names and places) that you could not remember for sure so that you would not be caught out if the 116 pages happened to show up again. Thus we have the Book of Mormon detail "black hole" text sections. [bTW: If JSJ were a real prophet, or had the capabilities he claimed, why would he not have have used his peepstone to locate the missing 116 pages?]

Made the mistake of having relations with another woman? Quick fix: Get a revelation about polygamy.

Institutionlized racism no longer socially acceptable? Quick fix: Get a revelation.

Examples abounded then and do so today. The Everlasting Gospel might be better characterized as the "Everchanging Gospel".

The substantial changes in Church teachings and doctrine in my lifetime are nothing short of staggering for a body of doctrine described as the Everlasting Gospel.

[Chris Smith]

My question is; Why is the Stanford University study being essentially ignored here?

The same reason that the Hilton wordprint study is being ignored: because even though the methodology may at first appear effective, I believe it's ultimately flawed.

[DrW]

The same reason that the Hilton wordprint study is being ignored: because even though the methodology may at first appear effective, I believe it's ultimately flawed.

Thanks for the answer.

The qualified and dis-interested peer reviewers of the paper, and the journal editors who cleared it for publication, apparently do not agree with you.

Given results from previous such research studies that came to a similar conclusion, a scientist would look at Stanford paper as adding to the weight of evidence of the claim that others beside Joseph Smith played significant roles in writing the Book of Mormon.

[Brenda]

Brenda,

It would seem that you believe whatever happened with regard to the events being discussed here was planned out in advance.

When looked at critically, it is clear that this was a "make it up as you go along" enterprise. And it eventually spawned a "make it up as you go along" religion.

Here are some examples;

First 116 pages lost with no copies available? Quick fix: claim that an abridged version of content of these 116 pages was contained in another part of the plates and then re-write that section leaving out specific details (names and places) that you could not remember for sure so that you would not be caught out if the 116 pages happened to show up again. Thus we have the Book of Mormon detail "black hole" text sections. [bTW: If JSJ were a real prophet, or had the capabilities he claimed, why would he not have have used his peepstone to locate the missing 116 pages?]

Made the mistake of having relations with another woman? Quick fix: Get a revelation about polygamy.

Institutionlized racism no longer socially acceptable? Quick fix: Get a revelation.

Examples abounded then and do so today. The Everlasting Gospel might be better characterized as the "Everchanging Gospel".

The substantial changes in Church teachings and doctrine in my lifetime are nothing short of staggering for a body of doctrine described as the Everlasting Gospel.

All of this entails HUGE risk of discovery! What mortal man could pull off such a hoax (improvised much less) and not be totally discredited in nearly 200 years? No logic here at all. (And it's a little obvious that you don't know your facts very well.)

[SilverKnight]

It would seem that you believe whatever happened with regard to the events being discussed here was planned out in advance.

Which makes the greatest hoax ever perpetuated all the more incredible. A haphazard, chaotic, make-it-up-as-you-go mess that has not produced a single conspirator willing to reveal how it really went down. Astounding.

When looked at critically, it is clear that this was a "make it up as you go along" enterprise. And it eventually spawned a "make it up as you go along" religion.

Which elevates Joseph Smith's genius to truly godlike levels, considering he made everything up on the fly.

Made the mistake of having relations with another woman? Quick fix: Get a revelation about polygamy.

Except by the time the published revelation hit there were a great many people having a great many revelations. Hardly a quick fix.

Institutionlized racism no longer socially acceptable? Quick fix: Get a revelation.

Except it was about 20 years too late. Hardly a quick fix.

The substantial changes in Church teachings and doctrine in my lifetime are nothing short of staggering for a body of doctrine described as the Everlasting Gospel.

Aside from the priesthood revelation, care to enumerate the "staggering doctrinal changes" that have occurred during your lifetime?

I thought that "doubt and uncertainty" was the job of the critics and that the job of believers was "faith and sure knowldege".

No smug surety is reserved for critics (the secular ones at least). The job of a believer is a fairly miserable, thankless one fraught with peril, pain and agonizing internal conflict.

[Mike Reed]

Why would anyone in their right mind go to all this trouble to produce a book?

Power, money, because they believed they were called by god to do so (pious fraud?).

Why wouldn't Joseph just write the whole thing alone, by himself, if he was making it all up?

Maybe he felt he needed some help. Maybe the hoax was initiated by another, and that Smith was simply chosen to play the role of "translator" in order to make the story appear all the more miraculous.

All of these "possibilities" involving other people are not even rational,

Not "rational" like angelic visitations and peep-stones, right?

not to mention too risky.

People take risks all the time. The many con arts in Joseph Smith's day were of no exception.

Reading from parchment in his hat? Holes and secret compartments? With all due respect, I can't believe you're even suggesting this.

Why is this so hard for you to believe?

[Uncle Dale]

...

People take risks all the time. The many con arts in Joseph Smith's day were of no exception.

...

Recall the "risk" Smith took in attempting to proposition Nancy Rigdon.

When Miss Rigdon rejected his sexual advances, and made them public,

Smith denied making such an attempt upon Miss Rigdon's virtue.

Then, with witnesses present, Nancy produced the seduction letter

Smith had entrusted to her ---- and he eventually had to confess the

episode, adding the lame explanation that he was merely testing her.

So, what do Mormons do? They take the evidence produced against

Smith, showing the great risk he took with Miss Rigdon, and copied

it (from John C. Bennett, of all places!!) and used it as an example

of Smith's inspired wisdom!

See excerpt from the Nancy letter in my sig-line for this posting.

When you have a set of mindless followers, ready to rescue your

every mis-step, and turn it into righteousness, you can afford to

"take risks."

From his money-digging days onward, Joe Smith always had a

bunch of "true-believer" followers about him, prepared to save

him from any "risk" he took.

UD

[Brenda]

Power, money, because they believed they were called by god to do so (pious fraud?).

Maybe he felt he needed some help. Maybe the whole hoax was the idea of another, and that Smith was simply chosen to play the role of "translator" in order to make the story appear all the more miraculous.

Not "rational" like angelic visitations and peep-stones, right?

People take risks all the time. The many con arts in Joseph Smith's day were of no exception.

Why is this so hard for you to believe?

Because it's just not logical. If Joseph was after power and money, why pick such a crazy route? He certainly had the charisma and personality to pull it off, w/o adding the angels, etc. My goodness . . . peepstones and breastplates? Why on earth would he bring all that into it and make it all that much harder for people to believe him, if he was after power and money? If he was making it all up, he would just write a book and concoct a more believable source. Why shoot himself in the foot, so to speak?

I already said that I can see that the whole story of angels is far-fetched. I said that the explanations that you and other critics give DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. The only thing that makes sense is that he didn't make it up, OR his whole concoction would have been a whole lot less fantastic.

[DrW]

All of this entails HUGE risk of discovery! What mortal man could pull off such a hoax (improvised much less) and not be totally discredited in nearly 200 years? No logic here at all. (And it's a little obvious that you don't know your facts very well.)

Hello Brenda,

Who said that the whole story has not been discredited? The whole sad saga has been thoroughly discredited by secular science including such institutions as the National Geographic Society and Stanford University and is seen as a fraud by the vast majority of others who have considered the facts.

Whether or not we agree on the details of how it was done is immaterial. The Book of Mormon and (especially) the Pearl of Great Price themselves, as well as hundreds (perhaps thousands) of secular research papers in the areas of archeology, geology, geography, genetics, anthropology, history, ethnology, oceanography, linguistics and statistics (including the one I cited above), stand as evidence of the scam.

On the other hand, I know of no credible secular research that in any way supports any specific claims in the BoM or PoGP.

How much more discredited could it be?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hello Brenda,

Who said that the whole story has not been discredited? The whole sad saga has been thoroughly discredited by secular science including such institutions as the National Geographic Society and Stanford University and is seen as a fraud by the vast majority of others who have considered the facts.

This is laughable. I don't think you and your secular buddies are as winning as you think you are. I think you have over simplified many many things.

[DrW]

Which makes the greatest hoax ever perpetuated all the more incredible. A haphazard, chaotic, make-it-up-as-you-go mess that has not produced a single conspirator willing to reveal how it really went down. Astounding.

Which elevates Joseph Smith's genius to truly godlike levels, considering he made everything up on the fly.

Except by the time the published revelation hit there were a great many people having a great many revelations. Hardly a quick fix.

Except it was about 20 years too late. Hardly a quick fix.

Aside from the priesthood revelation, care to enumerate the "staggering doctrinal changes" that have occurred during your lifetime?

No smug surety is reserved for critics (the secular ones at least). The job of a believer is a fairly miserable, thankless one fraught with peril, pain and agonizing internal conflict.

SK,

Good answers, especially your last line response.

The facts that you describe secularists as we secularists describe believers is sort of interesting was well.

And I agree that the word "Quick" probably does best charactrerize the fixes. But "fixes" they were.

[SilverKnight]

Who said that the whole story has not been discredited? The whole sad saga has been thoroughly discredited by secular science including such institutions as the National Geographic Society and Stanford University and is seen as a fraud by the vast majority of others who have considered the facts.

There is significant evidence in favor of the supernatural origins of mormonism. If there wasn't this board and this conversation wouldn't exist.

Whether or not we agree on the details of how it was done is immaterial. The [insert religious text here], and especially the [insert another religious text here] themselves, as well as hundreds (perhaps thousands) of secular research papers in the areas of archeology, geology, geography, genetics, anthropology, history, ethnology, linguistics and statistics (including the one I cited above), stand as evidence of the scam.

Edits mine.

On the other hand, I know of no credible secular research that in any way supports any specific claims of [insert any theistic belief or supernatural claim].

Wouldn't we all love for secular science to validate our various religions, or even the existence of God.

[ttribe]

Thanks for the answer.

The qualified and dis-interested peer reviewers of the paper, and the journal editors who cleared it for publication, apparently do not agree with you.

You know the peer reviewers are qualified and disinterested? You know that without any doubt? I'm curious, have you prepared a paper for submission to one of these journals? Having been on the "inside" for a short period of time in academia, I can tell you without hesitation that my experience shows there is a HUGE amount of politics involved and many papers are accepted despite their methodological shortcomings simply because of the nature of the subject or one of the author's names (even though it's supposed to be blind).

BTW, Chris Smith is a critic and still thinks these studies have problems. Care to re-think your acerbic response to him?

Given results from previous such research studies that came to a similar conclusion, a scientist would look at Stanford paper as adding to the weight of evidence of the claim that others beside Joseph Smith played significant roles in writing the Book of Mormon.

Again, I'm curious - are you actually qualified to evaluate the methodology employed in a critical way and judge for yourself whether these papers do what they purport?

[ttribe]

Hello Brenda,

Who said that the whole story has not been discredited? The whole sad saga has been thoroughly discredited by secular science including such institutions as the National Geographic Society and Stanford University and is seen as a fraud by the vast majority of others who have considered the facts.

CFR that the "sad saga" is "seen as a fraud by the vast majority of others who have considered the facts". BTW, unless you have a statistically valid survey sample of the world's population who have "considered the facts", you can't possibly know this. I long for the day when you hold yourself to the same level of scrutiny that you hold the Church.

Whether or not we agree on the details of how it was done is immaterial. The Book of Mormon and (especially) the Pearl of Great Price themselves, as well as hundreds (perhaps thousands) of secular research papers in the areas of archeology, geology, geography, genetics, anthropology, history, ethnology, oceanography, linguistics and statistics (including the one I cited above), stand as evidence of the scam.

This is laughable. You love to talk about these so-called mounds of evidence as if they were both definitive and unequivocally damning, when, in fact, you've shown no evidence that supports your arrogance.

On the other hand, I know of no credible secular research that in any way supports any specific claims in the BoM or PoGP.

Since you have a propensity to ignore contrary evidence, this statement is, I believe, quite accurate - you really don't know of any such evidence.

How much more discredited could it be?

Are you actually here to engage in good faith dialogue, or just assert your alleged intellectual superiority?

[DrW]

There is significant evidence in favor of the supernatural origins of mormonism. If there wasn't this board and this conversation wouldn't exist.

Edits mine.

Wouldn't we all love for secular science to validate our various religions, or even the existence of God.

SK,

Why is my statement arrogant? My statement was factual. If you believe otherwise, and can present evidence that I was wrong, then please do so, and I will gladly apologize if needed.

My statementt was no more arrogant than someone on this board or in teh Church stating that they "know" that the Church is true ( and especially that they have had "personal revelation" that this is so)..

As for secular science that supports the supernatural origins of the Book of Mormon or Mormon Church, I would have to respectfully request a single example.