A Challenge to Critics

[Uncle Dale]

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.

Here is a way that Daniel Peterson and Co. can discredit the Stanford study,

in such a way as to effectively destroy its authorship arguments, both with the

Saints and within the larger scholarly statistics and authorship research communities.

1. Employ or encourage a "Gentile" word-print analyst to run computerized studies of the

entire Evening & Mormon Star and Messenger & Advocate newspaper run.

2. Apply different word-print methodologies to that digitized newspaper text, until the

results of one of those computerized methods isolated the sections of text attributable

to Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon.

3. Publish the results of just that much of the study, to enable the "experts" to

agree that the Rigdon and Cowdery "voices" were accurately identifiable by this

particular computerized "word-print" analytical method.

4. Next, use the Stanford team's own methodology on the same lengthy set of

newspaper texts, and demonstrate its "ultimately flawed" results -- incapable of

identifying Cowdery & Rigdon sections of the text that we all know they really wrote.

5. Lastly, run the verified computer methodology against the BoM text, to show

that no Cowdery and Rigdon "voices" appear in THAT text.

Results:

Cowdery and Rigdon "voices" effectively discovered and tabulated for LDS newspapers.

Cowdery and Rigdon "voices" absent from the BoM.

A "little birdie" tells me that this is essentially what the LDS experts intend to do next year.

UD

.

[ttribe]

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.

He said "evidence", not "secular science"....please read closely.

[Mike Reed]

It seems you can't make up your mind, Brenda.

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?

Here you argue that the exotic details included in Smith's claim made his story less believable.

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.

Now, in the next breath, you claim that the existence of such unnecessary exotic details somehow confirms to your mind that the story was true (or that he didn't make it up).

So which is it? The exotic details make the story less or more believable?

Speaking of exotic hoaxes, have you heard of this one?:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/moonhoax.html

Why did the hoax include the exotic details about the Beaver and Bat people, etc.? Why not something less exotic, like the moon being inhabited by people six feet tall and dressed like quakers? Do you think the Moon Hoax's extra, more exotic details made the story more (or less) believable to people like you? Please explain in detail. Thanks.

[SilverKnight]

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.

The "vast majority of those who have studied the facts know its a fraud" statement resounded with arrogance. But I tried, too slow, to edit my knee jerk response to it.

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.

Come on Dr.

You're honestly saying there's not a single shred of evidence supporting the faithful version of LDS truth claims?

Here's a website to start at: http://www.fairlds.org/

[Gervin]

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

I don't think "genius" necessarily has anything to do with "godliness" or "godlike levels" (not sure what that last phrase even means. See, "The Difference Between a Genius and An Apostle", Soren Kierkegaard, for a very good explanation.

[Chris Smith]

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.

David Holmes' "qualified and dis-interested" peer-reviewers and journal editors let him publish a statistical paper that asserted that the Book of Mormon was the product of a single author. That doesn't mean his methodology was valid or his conclusion accurate, any more than it does in the case of the Stanford study. Frankly, peer-reviewers may not be experts on every aspect of the question at hand, and often don't think that deeply about the item under review, anyway. It's their job to decide whether the paper is worth publishing, not whether its conclusions are accurate.

There is little convincing evidence of a collaborative conspiracy in creating the Book of Mormon. But more importantly, it is my studied opinion there is far too much of Joseph Smith in the Book to make such a conspiracy plausible, in the first place. The Book of Mormon shows evidence of composition on the fly, it includes autobiographical elements relating to the life of Joseph Smith, and it includes elements that are clearly designed to appeal to the scribes and their life-circumstances at the time of dictation. I think that introducing the idea of a collaborative authorship conspiracy only unnecessarily complicates a matter that doesn't need to be that complicated.

[DrW]

Here is a way that Daniel Peterson and Co. can discredit the Stanford study,

in such a way as to effectively destroy its authorship arguments, both with the

Saints and within the larger scholarly statistics and authorship research communities.

1. Employ or encourage a "Gentile" word-print analyst to run computerized studies of the

entire Evening & Mormon Star and Messenger & Advocate newspaper run.

2. Apply different word-print methodologies to that digitized newspaper text, until the

results of one of those computerized methods isolated the sections of text attributable

to Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon.

3. Publish the results of just that much of the study, to enable the "experts" to

agree that the Rigdon and Cowdery "voices" were accurately identifiable by this

particular computerized "word-print" analytical method.

4. Next, use the Stanford team's own methodology on the same lengthy set of

newspaper texts, and demonstrate its "ultimately flawed" results -- incapable of

identifying Cowdery & Rigdon sections of the text that we all know they really wrote.

5. Lastly, run the verified computer methodology against the BoM text, to show

that no Cowdery and Rigdon "voices" appear in THAT text.

Results:

Cowdery and Rigdon "voices" effectively discovered and tabulated for LDS newspapers.

Cowdery and Rigdon "voices" absent from the BoM.

A "little birdie" tells me that this is essentially what the LDS experts intend to do next year.

UD

.

UD,

Do you think such a tactic would make it through peer review at a reputable scientific journal?

(And by the way, I hope you will save your little "prophecy" as a dated document so that you can "prove" your powers of discernment and abilities as a seer of the future should such a tactic actually be used).

[Uncle Dale]

UD,

Do you think such a tactic would make it through peer review at a reputable scientific journal?

Not if the new research study admitted to cherry-picking a computerized methodology

that was successful in automatically identifying pre-determined "Cowdery" and "Rigdon"

sections of newspaper text.

The new study folks would have to finesse that particular point, so as to remain within

established Scientific method parameters -- and not come across as disguised LDS

defenders.

So, I suppose they would have to justify their rationale for utilizing an alternative

computer method that JUST HAPPENED to be very successful in identifying Rigdon

and Cowdery contributions to old texts. Probably, with some judicious forethought,

that little problem could be surmounted.

(And by the way, I hope you will save your little "prophecy" as a dated document so that you can

"prove" your powers of discernment and abilities as a seer of the future should such a tactic actually be used).

My ego involvement long ago began to fade away. Columbus discovered a new world,

but he ended up in chains. I have no illusions of being singled out as a prescient predictor

of Book of Mormon literary analysis. I'll be happy just to sit on the beach one day and

forget that such a religious mess ever existed.

UD

[DrW]

David Holmes' "qualified and dis-interested" peer-reviewers and journal editors let him publish a statistical paper that asserted that the Book of Mormon was the product of a single author. That doesn't mean his methodology was valid or his conclusion accurate, any more than it does in the case of the Stanford study. Frankly, peer-reviewers may not be experts on every aspect of the question at hand, and often don't think that deeply about the item under review, anyway. It's their job to decide whether the paper is worth publishing, not whether its conclusions are accurate.

There is little convincing evidence of a collaborative conspiracy in creating the Book of Mormon. But more importantly, it is my studied opinion there is far too much of Joseph Smith in the Book to make such a conspiracy plausible, in the first place. The Book of Mormon shows evidence of composition on the fly, it includes autobiographical elements relating to the life of Joseph Smith, and it includes elements that are clearly designed to appeal to the scribes and their life-circumstances at the time of dictation. I think that introducing the idea of a collaborative authorship conspiracy only unnecessarily complicates a matter that doesn't need to be that complicated.

Chris,

Fair comment. My response would be that methods improve, and in assigning weight to evidence, the demonstrated reliability of the methods used must be taken into consideration.

In the Stanford paper, two methodologies were independently applied, resulting in essentially the same outcome and conclusion.

So in one paper, we in effect have a result and independent confirmation of that result.

Granted, more work will need to be done to convince critics of the approach. Some will probably never be convinced. That is why science uses weight of evidence criteria in such matters, and this paper looks pretty heavy to me.

[DrW]

The "vast majority of those who have studied the facts know its a fraud" statement resounded with arrogance. But I tried, too slow, to edit my knee jerk response to it.

Come on Dr.

You're honestly saying there's not a single shred of evidence supporting the faithful version of LDS truth claims?

Here's a website to start at: http://www.fairlds.org/

SK,

Okay. Thanks.

And I clearly should have said that the vast majority believe it is a fraud.

Even better (less arrogant) would be, '"the vast majority do not believe as do faithful Mormons in this regard".

Anyway, I clearly do not have access to a statistical study. What I have done many times is some back of the envelope calculations, so let me try to convince you anyway.

They go something like this:

There are somewhere north of 11 million Mormons in the world according to Church records (you can pick your own reasonable number if you wish.)

Mormons constitutes a small fraction of 1% of the world population, and less than 2% of the US population. (1.3% by the 2001 Aris numbers: you can check out all of my numbers here ).

Catholics and Baptists, combined, make up just under 41% of the US population.

Of the less than 2% who are Mormons, approximately 40% are inactive. Many are probably like me in that after critically considering Mormon claims in light of secular knowledge, they no longer believe the Church is what it claims to be.

Now, I could include Jews, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. but 40% is a nice round number. And I will use Catholics and Baptists only because both religions warn about Mormonism and Mormon missionaries, and I have never met anybody in either religion who had not been taught what the Mormon Church is and why (as a religion) it was to be avoided at all costs.

(And please do not claim that the information they are given about the Church is not factual. Nowadays, it is factual, and is no more carefully selected from available factual information about the Church than that provided to active Mormons by the Church).

So, for the US, letâ??s do the numbers:

We have an approximate 1% population of Mormons who believe in the Church.

We have a slightly lower number of Mormons that have their doubts or do not believe.

An finally we have approximately 40% of the population who have been taught about Mormonism as a matter of their religious education and have arguably decided that they do not believe it (or they would be setting next to you in Church).

If we counted Jews, Methodists, and Lutherans it would bring the number to 50% of the US population (but I do not know if they are taught about Mormonism in Church as a matter of course as is the case with Baptists and Catholics).

Given these numbers, and recognizing that people vote with their feet (or by the pews in which the sit), I would claim that the vast majority of those who have considered Mormon claims have found them unconvincing. And considering what those claims are, one would have to believe that they did not come from God in order not to believe them. So one could say that the claims were seen as fraudulent (not as represented by the Church or its missionaries).

As for the vast majority ratio: it is anywhere from 10:1 (being kind) to 50:1 being not so kind.

I would settle for 20:1 (95%), which in anybody's book is a vast majority.

[Brenda]

It seems you can't make up your mind, Brenda.

Here you argue that the exotic details included in Smith's claim made his story less believable.

Now, in the next breath, you claim that the existence of such unnecessary exotic details somehow confirms to your mind that the story was true (or that he didn't make it up).

So which is it? The exotic details make the story less or more believable?

You're not getting my point. Joseph's claims are hard to believe. Anybody can see that. So IF he made it all up, why would he purposely make it hard to believe by adding all that stuff to it? Why not make up a story that is MORE believable, by leaving out the angels, plates, etc.?

That is, if he truly was after power and money.

Logic says, that either:

1. He didn't make it up, or

2. He DID make it up, but is extreming stupid for make it LESS believable by adding the angels, plates, etc.

If it IS #2, then how did such a stupid young man pull it off? How could anyone so stupid as that, fabricate the BoM, and fool scholars for nearly 200 years?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're not getting my point. Joseph's claims are hard to believe. Anybody can see that. So IF he made it all up, why would he purposely make it hard to believe by adding all that stuff to it? Why not make up a story that is MORE believable, by leaving out the angels, plates, etc.?

That is, if he truly was after power and money.

Logic says, that either:

1. He didn't make it up, or

2. He DID make it up, but is extreming stupid for make it LESS believable by adding the angels, plates, etc.

If it IS #2, then how did such a stupid young man pull it off? How could anyone so stupid as that, fabricate the BoM, and fool scholars for nearly 200 years?

Accourding to DrW those scholars aren't fooled, the debate is over.

[Brenda]

Along the same lines as my above post. The BoM names the birthplace of Jesus as Jerusalem. Every 5 yr-old knows that the birthplace was Bethlehem. IF Joseph Smith wrote the book, why would he make such an obvious mistake? Why would he invite criticism, when he had to have known it was Bethlehem?

Maybe he didn't make it up?

[SilverKnight]

You're not getting my point. Joseph's claims are hard to believe. Anybody can see that. So IF he made it all up, why would he purposely make it hard to believe by adding all that stuff to it? Why not make up a story that is MORE believable, by leaving out the angels, plates, etc.?

That is, if he truly was after power and money.

Logic says, that either:

1. He didn't make it up, or

2. He DID make it up, but is extreming stupid for make it LESS believable by adding the angels, plates, etc.

If it IS #2, then how did such a stupid young man pull it off? How could anyone so stupid as that, fabricate the BoM, and fool scholars for nearly 200 years?

Brenda,

I can save you the trouble by telling you what they will say in advance:

He did make it up, and the fantastic elements are expected for a would-be pious fraud who wanted to convince others he was restoring ancient christian religion. The fantastic Christian elements, especially the angels and divine visitations were fused with some existing cultural folk magic resulting in mormonism.

In short, the cultural milieu which JS grew up in would naturally include fantastic things for a future religious fraud, who was growing up in a superstitious culture drawn to heavenly visions, golden treasure and divination.

[Uncle Dale]

Accourding to DrW those scholars aren't fooled, the debate is over.

Well, Sandra Tanner, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe and a bunch of other "experts"

remain fully "fooled."

Such as:

---> Joseph Smith, Jr, had absolutely no help in writing his first book.

or:

---> Nor in writing his second one either -- since Sidney Rigdon was merely a scribe on the JST.

Such people will never change their minds -- their minds were made up long, long ago.

As for Joseph Smith, he was an original genius. If he had been given an opportunity to

get out of the superstition-infested environment of Manchester, NY, c. 1820-1830, and

had been able to spend his early years attending an academy in Salem, with more

enlightened members of the family, he might today have his picture on the US currency --

or at least upon a commemorative Vermont postage stamp.

UD

[DrW]

Along the same lines as my above post. The BoM names the birthplace of Jesus as Jerusalem. Every 5 yr-old knows that the birthplace was Bethlehem. IF Joseph Smith wrote the book, why would he make such an obvious mistake? Why would he invite criticism, when he had to have known it was Bethlehem?

Maybe he didn't make it up?

Maybe he made a mistake.

[Tchild2]

Brenda,

I can save you the trouble by telling you what they will say in advance:

He did make it up, and the fantastic elements are expected for a would-be pious fraud who wanted to convince others he was restoring ancient christian religion. The fantastic Christian elements, especially the angels and divine visitations were fused with some existing cultural folk magic resulting in mormonism.

In short, the cultural milieu which JS grew up in would naturally include fantastic things for a future religious fraud, who was growing up in a superstitious culture drawn to heavenly visions, golden treasure and divination.

Right, because a naturalistic explanation works for other religions, but not for Mormonism, and fantastic supernatural events that happen to no one that you or I know, or will ever know, make more much more sense than mundane and everyday explanations.

[Brenda]

Maybe he made a mistake.

Nope, can't have it both ways. He either is a deluded genious, or a clumsy fool. A fool can't produce the BoM. A genious wouldn't have made such a clumsy mistake.

[SilverKnight]

Right, because a naturalistic explanation works for other religions, but not for Mormonism, and fantastic supernatural events that happen to no one that you or I know, or will ever know, make more much more sense than mundane and everyday explanations.

Not at all. It's just that you and your secular brethren are nothing if not predictable.

In fact, I'd wager I could take any question someone might ask about mormonism and recite your reply before you make it.

[DrW]

Well, Sandra Tanner, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe and a bunch of other "experts"

remain fully "fooled."

Such as:

---> Joseph Smith, Jr, had absolutely no help in writing his first book.

or:

---> Nor in writing his second one either -- since Sidney Rigdon was merely a scribe on the JST.

Such people will never change their minds -- their minds were made up long, long ago.

As for Joseph Smith, he was an original genius. If he had been given an opportunity to

get out of the superstition-infested environment of Manchester, NY, c. 1820-1830, and

had been able to spend his early years attending an academy in Salem, with more

enlightened members of the family, he might today have his picture on the US currency --

or at least upon a commemorative Vermont postage stamp.

UD

UD,

Somewhere along the line, I have been misquoted here.

I did not offer an opinion as to whether scholars are convinced that Joseph Smith was or was not the single author of the BoM.

What I did say, and was probably misquoted or misunderstood by MRSR, is that secular science has discredited that Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price as NOT being as claimed by Joseph Smith and the Church, and that the vast majority of people (over 90%) according to my last post (and probably closer to 99% ) who have heard this story do not believe it.

As to science discrediting the BoM and PoGP, I have been asked for the evidence and am preparing a post. It will be long and ugly.

[Uncle Dale]

Nope, can't have it both ways. He either is a deluded genious, or a clumsy fool. A fool can't produce the BoM. A genious wouldn't have made such a clumsy mistake.

Oh, the LDS apologists have put forth some good arguments, that the BoM's land of Jerusalem

would have been seen as encompassing its Bethlehem suburb -- both in the mind of a Lehite

and possibly in the mind of an early 19th century affectionado of biblical commentaries.

More likely a product of the mind of Hyrum Smith (who went to school on Dartmouth campus)

than his younger brother -- but even young Joe might have browsed Clarke's Commentary

once or twice.

I don't think we have to search so far afield as Sidney Rigdon, Ethan Smith or Solomon Spalding

for the source of odd mentions of the land of Jerusalem, Bethabara, etc., in our BoM.

UD

[DarwinLovesYou]

Nope, can't have it both ways. He either is a deluded genious, or a clumsy fool. A fool can't produce the BoM. A genious wouldn't have made such a clumsy mistake.

Only a Sith thinks in absolutes, right? Either he is a genius and makes no mistakes at all or he is a complete fool who doesn't know the most basic facts. Welcome to the real world, where things are a little sloppier. If you don't think geniuses are capable of mistakes then you should read a little more about geniuses.

(By the way, Genius is an especially funny word to misspell.)

[Uncle Dale]

...

I did not offer an opinion as to whether scholars are convinced that Joseph Smith

was or was not the single author of the BoM.

...

That's good -- now we can get off the "precepts of men" track and back on the

straight and narrow of latter day inspiration.

Anybody mind if I quote from the "revelations" of Joseph Smith III?

"Personally, I am willing that the "Manuscript Found" shall be proved to be the

origin of the Book of Mormon, but it will require better proof than conjecture,

no matter how good, or how pious, or omniscient and conscientious the

conjecturer may be."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/mischig.htm#101786

Mr. Smith, may I introduce Mr. Jockers?

Mr. Jockers, may I introduce President Smith?

UD

[DrW]

Nope, can't have it both ways. He either is a deluded genious, or a clumsy fool. A fool can't produce the BoM. A genious wouldn't have made such a clumsy mistake.

I didn't ask for it both ways. I just suggested that he made a mistake.

You are the one attempting to use the false dichotomy fallacy to argue here.

My position on the matter is simple. The Book of Mormon and PoGP did not come about as JSJ claimed, and are therefore not as JSJ and the Church claim, period.

How they did come about, I do not know and do not particularly care. (If I have been passed a bogus $100 bill, I do not care how the forger made it. I just want my money back and then to warn others to watch out for phony $100 bills and suggest ways that they might be identified.)

Both works are abject frauds, and again, that view is held by secular science and (as I believe I have demonstrated) the vast majority of people who have considered the issue.

[Brenda]

I didn't ask for it both ways. I just suggested that he made a mistake.

You are the one attempting to use the false dichotomy fallacy to argue here.

My position on the matter is simple. The Book of Mormon and PoGP did not come about as JSJ claimed, and are therefore not as JSJ and the Church claim, period.

How they did come about, I do not know and do not particularly care. (If I have been passed a bogus $100 bill, I do not care how the forger made it. I just want my money back and then to warn others to watch out for phony $100 bills and suggest ways that they might be identified.)

Both works are abject frauds, and again, that view is held by secular science and (as I believe I have demonstrated) the vast majority of people who have considered the issue.

You are accusing someone of fraud, and cannot offer any logical method in how that fraud was committed. Critics throw out a few possible explanations, then retire thinking the mystery is solved. But those explanations just don't work.

Example: He has secret compartments hidden his hat in which he keeps written material from which he reads to the scribe. And this is so that the scribe will be fooled into thinking the words are coming from a rock?

He painstakingly and secretly builds a metal breastplate, to pass off as some kind of ancient device, then hardly shows it to anyone for fear they'll discover it's a fake.

He also secretly creates tin plates complete with engravings, passes them off as gold, and fools 11 men who each saw and "hefted" them.

He, unschooled, age 21-22, writes the 500+-page BoM in a few months (possibly with the help of others, none of whom ever spoke up and admitted anything, even though some left the Church).

None of these make any sense to me.