A brief discussion of Method

[TOmNossor]

Is there a response from LDS about this correspondence? All I see here is a bearing of testimony. A testimony is a good thing to have, no doubt, but why me and glenn seem to use it as a means for not engaging the specifics of your research. Also, is there a link to any of your pages that expands on these correspondences? thanks/G

Gervin,

If I am not mistaken the 51 word correspondence is a hypothetical. Thus, responding to its existence would not only be off topic for the thread, but quite premature.

Glenn responded to Uncle Dale

[LifeOnaPlate]

Probably, if we stacked up all these sundry "scriptures" in a pile by my desk,

they would break through my ceiling and spill out over the roof.

They cannot all be authentic.

Even if they cannot all be "authentic" that doesn't indicate none of them contain authenticity. That's sort of what is cool about Mormonism.

But -- out of all that fraud and priestcraft, we can single out one instance

which was pure and perfect -- untouched by Lucifer or the Great & Abominable

Church. This one instance is the latter day scriptures, including the pure

(but unfinished) Joseph Smith Translation of the Old and New Testaments, and

various other holy records and writings.

These alone, out of the great number of faulty, phony or fraudulent holy writings

ever imposed upon humanity are trustworthy. They preserve and promulgate the

"fulness of the everlasting gospel."

First, as Glenn so eloquently stated, "I would not characterize the scriptures of other religions as frauds. But the issue of whether they are a fraud is irrelevant to my belief in the Book of Mormon."

Second, you seem to misunderstand the nature of LDS scripture generally. You seem to believe Mormons are supposed to see true scriptures as infallible. Or maybe simply divine repositories of truth statements that we are expected to agree with, or disagree with at our peril. You make references to Nephi's lament about the corruption of the Bible, or in other words, it's changing nature, its transitory nature, it's being liable to abuse. Nephi talks about another record (ostensibly the BoM) that will restore certain plain and precious things. At the same time, he and other BoM authors lament their shortcomings in communicating the things of God. So while you do well to note the problem the BoM sees with other scripture, you fail to account for the problems the authors of the BoM see with their own record. Clearly, there is a different understanding of scripture being discussed here. In other words, one of the plain and precious things that the BoM restores is a confidence in

[Uncle Dale]

...

First, as Glenn so eloquently stated, "I would not characterize the scriptures of other

religions as frauds. But the issue of whether they are a fraud is irrelevant to my belief

in the Book of Mormon."

...

Regardless of how the Mormons "characterize" other people's purported scriptures, they

generally treat them as frauds. Perhaps some of the texts revered by Wiccans incorporate

fragments of "truth." Perhaps we could open most any book (phony or otherwise) and quote

examples of "facts" -- even "Divine wisdom" from those pages. That is not my point.

Let's say that I attend the next Priesthood meeting, this Sunday, at the nearest LDS ward.

In the middle of those interchanges, I bring up the statements you expressed here. My

interruption is briefly tolerated, but then I'm asked to either make a point or sit down

and let others have their say.

In response I begin to hand out copies of James J. Strang's Book of the Law of the Lord,

some "revelations" of the Prophet Warren Jeffs, and selections from the scriptures composed

by Brian David Mitchell.

I ask my attentive audience to please follow with me, as I show them passages of God's

revelation in those three texts.

And, at about that time, the Bishop shows up with three burly young fellows, asking that

I leave the room and the chapel.

In other words, the Mormons will theoretically admit that those three writings contain

Divine wisdom (or perhaps even revelation) but they will refuse to recognize the purported

authority upholding those "scriptures." And, despite all that you have said here, I'm sure

that I would hear words like "fraud," "fake," phony," and "work of the Devil," if I tried

to sustain that purported authority.

In fact, I'd be told that even the Holy Bible is not immune to textual tampering by the

pen of the Great and Abominable Church -- and that "fraud" can creep into any text not

verified by the LDS Church.

In the case of Strang and Jeffs, numerous people were duped into believing that their

"revelations" were authentic -- the very opposite of a "fraud." In the case of Mr.

Brian David Mitchell, very few people seem to have been taken in. His "fraud" did not

sway the minds of his followers, because he never bothered to gather any followers.

So, when I speak of stack of fraudulent scriptures, the above examples were what I had

in mind. That people like Strang and Jeffs can indeed dupe and delude people in God's name;

and that we do not have very sophisticated explanations for that phenomenon.

Would you designate the published revelations of Joseph Smith III as Divine truth, or

as something closer to a "fraud?" I can read them to you out of my D&C, if you like.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

So your argument seems to be:

Some people have deluded others in the name of religion.

Therefore: religion is shot through with the possibility of delusion.

Therefore: We won;t be able to tell if we are deluded.

Therefore: we are probably deluded because other people are deluded.

?

[Uncle Dale]

So your argument seems to be:

Some people have deluded others in the name of religion.

Therefore: religion is shot through with the possibility of delusion.

Therefore: We won;t be able to tell if we are deluded.

Therefore: we are probably deluded because other people are deluded.

?

Well, I suppose that I might answer that the gift of spiritual discernment and

the true witness of the Holy Ghost might be of help in such instances.

But the last time I suggested that a Reorganized LDS might have access to

such Divine assistance, I was dismissed as some sort of kook.

People can be deluded. I'll leave it up to you to tell us why Hiram Page's

peepstone duped even some respected, prominent Mormons in the early days --

(but will avoid talking about white salamander letters altogether).

UD

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dale,

The Ethan Smith hypothetical case I presented to Ben was based upon David Persuitte's comparison of a small section of Ethan's View of the Hebrews with the Mosiah passage. Persuitte's Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon is partly available on-line at the Google Books web-site.

Except Dale that it is NOT based on this. I have a copy of View of the Hebrews (it's not that hard to get). The phrases "breastplates (or breast-plates) which are large", "is able to interpret the language", "these records should be translated", "they will give us a knowledge", "I am desirous to know", "all records that are of ancient date", "the same is called a seer", "commanded to do these things", "gift from God", and "things which are past" - not a single one of them appear in View of the Hebrews. The comparison isn't of exact phrases, nor are the passages in the VoH in Persuitte's work in close proximity to one another.

So, for example, for the first one, Persuitte takes this passage from the VoH (1825 edition, not the 1823):

On the [skeleton's] breast lay a piece of copper; {also a curious stone five inches in length, two in breadth, with two perforations though it, containing a string of sinews of some animal. On this string were many beads of ivory, or bone. The whole} [which] appeared to have been {designed to wear upon the neck, as} a kind of breast-plate.

Now, of course, he did use an ellipses to remove much of that material that doesn't have any real connection to the Book of Mormon text. But he compares it to this:

And for a testimony that the things that they have said is true {they have brought twenty-four plates which are filled with engravings, and they are of pure gold. And behold, also,} they have brought breastplates, {which are large, and they are} of brass, and copper, {and are perfectly sound.}

My indicators are [] indicate text added by Persuitte, while {} indicates text ommitted by Persuitte. And it should be obvious from anyone who has read Persuitte's book that what he does is nothing at all like your hypothetical Dale.

Of course, Ethan Smith isn't the only one to record this discovery. Josiah Priest's book notes this:

The Rev. Robert G. Wilson, D. D., of Chilicother, furnished the Antiquarian Society, with information concerning the mound, which once stood near the centre of that town. He took pains to write down its contents at the time of its demolition. ... On the breast of this person lay what had been a piece of copper in the form of a cross, which had become verdigris; on the breast also lay a stone ornament, three inches in length, and two and a half in width, with two perforations, one near each end, through which passed a string, by means of which it was suspended from the wearer's neck. On this string, which appeared to have been made of the sinews of some animal, which had been cured or tanned, but were very much injured by time, was string a great many beads, made of ivory, or bone, he could not tell which.

Now, you can tell me Dale, since Priest's book (published in 1833), contains a rather surprising similarity to VoH, should we believe that it is dependent on VoH? If we follow your advice, and just look at these two small sections (not even the whole page), and compare them, we get these phrases which are identical, and in the same order (with one exception noted in {}):

On the breast ... lay ... a piece of copper ... also .... stone ... inches in length, ... two ... with two perforations though ... a string ... {sinews of some animal}. On this string ... many beads ... of ivory, or bone.

So, what conclusions do we draw?

I also want to note that a simple search in the 19th century electronic archive housed at the University of Michigan turns up almost 1,100 different uses of the phrase "dry bones" in 698 different works. This isn't good evidence. It's not convincing. Perhaps, when you put it in the most favorable light it looks convincing - but as I keep telling you, the criteria for selection are everything. And what you have isn't much here. Persuitte engages in the same kind of parallelomania I find everywhere.

Ben M.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, I suppose that I might answer that the gift of spiritual discernment and

the true witness of the Holy Ghost might be of help in such instances.

But the last time I suggested that a Reorganized LDS might have access to

such Divine assistance, I was dismissed as some sort of kook.

Personal revelation is personal, though. I believe there are also revealed checks and balances, friends and leaders who can help us discern, but ultimately it is personal. I believe you are entitled to inspiration Dale, I won't call you a kook. Just a crazy old Uncle!

[Uncle Dale]

...

So, what conclusions do we draw?

...

Conclusions?

That Priest reproduced entire sections of Ethan Smith and that Ethan Smith

made quotations from Caleb Atwater -- and that some people thought Ezekiel's

valley of dried bones might be in Ohio -- and if the Ohio reports had

four and a half broken steel bows, and Nephi spoke of four and a half such bows,

Persuitte might by now be publishing his tenth edition.

It is all food for speculation. Advocates of a 19th century origin for the BoM

will want to pursue each and every example of this sort -- while Mormons will

just naturally shrug their shoulders, saying it doesn't much impress them.

But I only cited Persuitte as my inspiration for going to that part of Mosiah,

and excerpting ten word-strings in order. Ethan S. Smith, G. T. Harrison and

David Persuitte only gave me the idea of looking there, and not elsewhere.

Set all of them to one side, and go back to my hypothetical. The reproduction

of that much text, printed on a single page of Mosiah, would indeed catch your

interest, if you found it all hand-written on a single, pre-1830 manuscript

page -- no matter if Ethan Smith were its author or not.

You might never admit your interest to me. You might ponder the oddity in

secret. But you know Mosiah well enough to have the oddity catch your attention

and would mull it over, more so than if the words were only 21, or 31, or 41.

Your yourself pointed out "amount" as one standard of measurement for textual

relationships.

Having pondered the oddity, and applied some statistical probability tools to

the matter, you might indeed come up with a technical justification for dismissing

the comparison as being "weak;" but you'd also mutter to yourself that you'd

never before seen such a huge amount of BoM textual overlap concentrated on a

single page -- and that you expected never again to see such a thing, outside

of the pages of the KJV.

So I think I made my point. Fifty-one shared words, concentrated into ten

unusual word-strings, written in the same sequential order, in a pre-1830

text would be something worth our talking about here. You would not dismiss

that oddity as totally unremarkable.

But we would both probably dismiss five words found in sequence, in a similar

situation, unless perhaps one of those words were "Lamanites," or some such thing.

Slowly, I'm gaining a perspective on what sort of textual findings will be

of interest to Mormons, and what sort will not. If fifty-one sequential words

marks the high end of a spectrum of "possible interest," then a much shorter

snippet, taken from an old Shaker volume, marks the low end.

My interest is in finding what lies in between, on that spectrum. And you have

already let me know that quantity alone will not be the determining factor.

The determining factor will actually be a combination of things, and may vary

a bit, depending on which Mormon I'm trying to talk to.

UD

[Benjamin McGuire]

There is no doubt Dale, that that much text would meet my criteria, don't you think?

Ben M.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Where was the 51 sequential words example?

[Uncle Dale]

There is no doubt Dale, that that much text would meet my criteria, don't you think?

Ben M.

I think you are unveiling your criteria, more or less one piece at a time.

Yes, you can set up examples of this sort -- and, to a certain degree, they

are informative. But just when I get your criteria figured out, some other

LDS with more clout may come along and present me with something else.

Interactions with Mormons are useful, in experimenting with study methods

and articulation methods. They will help me to round off some rough edges.

But, ultimately, the audience for new explanations of Mormon origins will

necessarily be non-Mormons. the LDS already know what their position is,

and are not prepared to make any substantial changes.

Only non-Mormons can be receptive to revisionist presentations of early

Church history. What it takes to capture their interest is something

different than the experience I gain by interacting with the LDS.

Dan Vogel has been fairly successful in providing the non-Mormons with

explanations they can ponder and incorporate into their world-view. I

probably will not be quite so successful, no matter whether my explanations

are more or less supported by "evidence."

Crediting the BoM to a single source -- to the mind of the genius Joseph --

will always be an easier "sell" among the non-Mormons, than multiple sources.

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

Where was the 51 sequential words example?

I merely went to the Jaredite ruins discovery, in Mosiah 8, and reproduced

ten word-string excerpts from half of page 151 in the current LDS edition.

There is nothing special about that hunk of text, or my excerpts, except

for the fact that its theme (not word-strings) has previously been compared

to Ethan Smith's relaying of reports of ancient artifacts found in Ohio.

I might just as well have excerpted 51 sequential words from King Noah's

pronouncements, and asked Ben if their occurrence elsewhere would catch

his attention.

It all boils down to what a "weak" textual match might be. I think we have

established that the 51 sequential word example stands higher on the scale

of textual comparisons than a "weak" example. It is an admittedly hypothetical

example. A real comparison of this sort would clearly catch Mormon attention.

I suspect that the "weak" designation (originally only applied to part of

the hypothetical match) would only be meaningful in this sentence:

"Dale has pointed out 51 words he thinks would weaken my testimony, if I saw

them both on a Book of Mormon page and a pre-1830 manuscript page; but it

is not my testimony that would be weak, it is his example that's weak."

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

A simple "the 51-word example is hypothetical" would have sufficed.

[Benjamin McGuire]

So long as the person I am conversing with retains the title of observant LDS, he MUST disagree with my conclusions, and he MUST express great skepticism about my motivations and methodology. In some cases, the observant LDS will prematurely conclude that I must be a tool of Satan, purposely working to destroy the latter day work, because I know full well that the Book of Mormon is God's truth, but am still leading people to deny that truth.

You know Dale, this gets awfully tiresome. Apparently I cannot complain about your (lack of) methodology because I am LDS and my motivations must automatically be suspect. Later you note that:

I think you are unveiling your criteria, more or less one piece at a time. Yes, you can set up examples of this sort -- and, to a certain degree, they are informative. But just when I get your criteria figured out, some other LDS with more clout may come along and present me with something else.

This isn't "my" methodology Dale. This is a widely accepted standard about which numerous scholarly books and articles have been written. Your excuse here is really nothing more than an excuse. If you don't like it, then you need to provide us with something meaningful that you want to use that we can critique. But until then, it doesn't really matter how many parallels you throw into the box. They don't mean anything. They won't mean anything until you can explain why they are significant. And this doesn't take lots and lots of time and study - you just make your argument one little parallel at a time. Its not difficult. But you don't seem interested in this - all you seem interested in is simply collecting them and claiming that they must mean something. This is the classic definition of parallelomania that Sandmel gave us. Your attention span seems unbearably short. You want to jump from one example to another - even when your examples don't bear up under any real scrutiny. Perhaps you are simply to tied to the amount of time you have invested in all of this to think that there really isn't serious value in your work.

Ben M.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Your attention span seems unbearably short.

...

Three rounds of eye surgery within a short period,

and the necessity to switch glasses and close one eye

while reading -- while I use the other eye and different

glasses for typing. Talk about "tiresome!"

My wife reads a lot to me. I try to keep it in my brain.

But I'm currently better at writing several sentences

in reply to a short message, than in addressing each and

every item in a longish or complicated message.

Also, I'm a total layman when it comes to accepted standards

for literary criticism, etc. My wife has a degree in the

field -- but generally isn't around to help me.

Break up your messages into short remarks/queries and

I'll probably do a lot better in my replies.

As for dealing with Mormons, I can only rely upon personal

experience of close to seven decades now -- only a small

part of which time was spent in the company of educated LDS.

I did much better in my interactions at BYU, etc. Most

of my other experiences have been markedly frustrating.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

this gets awfully tiresome.

...

Sorry if I came across abrupt, or rude, Ben.

A lot is going on with me right now, and perhaps

I should delay any meaningful responses, until I

get things straightened out here at home.

Dale

[noel00]

Hi Dale I found this paper mentioned on Jockers site

"Testing Authorship in the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith Using NSC

> Classification." Digital Humanities Conference 2008, College Park,

> Maryland, June 22 - 25, 2009.

He informs us that the paper is under review now to be published.

You know anything about this?

Does that mean some of what are considered his personal writings may not be?

[Uncle Dale]

...

You know anything about this?

Not much that I can talk about. However, I'm told that the study there reported

furnished some of the groundwork for the more recent BoC examination.

Does that mean some of what are considered his personal writings may not be?

Mostly, I think it furnishes an example of Jockers' frustration with the LDS

scholars, that they have not identified and made available the basic, reliable

Smith texts that should be consulted in formulating a Smith "word-print" template.

Mormons have run word-print studies in the past. So they should already have

some handle on what is a reliable Smith text, without any extraneous additions.

For example, History of the Church, has Smith's name on it as author.

Does that mean we can simply select any dozen pages out of that multi-volume

set, and construct a Smith word-print template from those pages?

So, Jockers has attempted to do the Mormons' work for them. I suppose they

will disagree with his identification of reliable Smith texts, and charge

that is analysis is faulty, because he used the wrong Smith base material.

DCP says he's already monitoring work on a reply, if I recall correctly.

I'll probably end up reading the Jockers' report and the FARMS rebuttal at

about the same time -- next year(?)

UD

[why me]

It is a mystery. I hope we'll get a clearer picture over time. I think we will. The word print stuff I think will become more and more of a science and less of an art, and eventually I think it might be the thing that cracks the case.

As for how the conspiracy could ever be kept quiet, I recently have been thinking about the quote where Oliver Cowdery on his deathbed encouraged David Whitmer not to deny his testimony of his plates witnessing. (correct me if I have the context wrong) From the LDS perspective it can be faith affirming, showing these men never gave up their testimony of BOM even when losing testimony of Joseph. From the skeptical perspective it can be viewed as OC recommitting Whitmer to the conspiracy (we've come so far don't blow it now). That kind of reading gives insight into how important OC and SR might have believed the BOM was. In other words, maybe they believed the BOM doctrine was God's will and it would still flood the earth and convert the world to what they believed was true doctrine, despite their belief that Joseph mucked it up for a while.

"I was closely connected with Hiram Page in business transactions and other matters, he being married to my aunt. I knew him at all times and under all circumstances to be true to his testimony concerning the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I was also at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery in 1850, and I heard him speak to my Uncle David (Whitmer) and say: 'Brother David, be faithful to our testimony to the Book of Mormon, for we know that it is of God and that it is verily true.' He then closed his eyes in death. My father, Jacob Whitmer, was always faithful and true to his testimony to the Book of Mormon, and confirmed it on his death bed. Of my uncle John (Whitmer) I will say that I was with him a short time before he died at Far West, Missouri, when he confirmed to me, what he had done so many times previously, the he knew the Book of Mormon was true. I was also with Uncle David (Whitmer), who died here in January last, and herd him bear his last testimony in the presence of many witnesses whom he called together for the occasion. He solemnly declared that the record of the Nephites, as he al- [page 165] ways called the Book of Mormon, was of God, and his testimony concerning it true."

http://www.farwesthistory.com/richmond.asp

The amount of testimonies given by the witnesses on their deathbed would be quite unusual for fraudsters. They all obviously believed strongely in what they saw. Now can we believe this person who wrote the above? But if the book is ever proven to be a fraud, Joseph and whoever wrote the book should be considered the greatest conartists in history and not to mention the greatest psychopaths too.

And then we have this website with the testimonies of david whitmer:

http://www.chapmanresearch.org/PDF/David%20Whitmer%20Statements%20on%20The%20Book%20of%20Mormon.pdf

Could he have been so deluded?

[why me]

Mostly, I think it furnishes an example of Jockers' frustration with the LDS

scholars, that they have not identified and made available the basic, reliable

Smith texts that should be consulted in formulating a Smith "word-print" template.

Mormons have run word-print studies in the past. So they should already have

some handle on what is a reliable Smith text, without any extraneous additions.

UD

I think that we must consider the validity of word-print studies. And this may be the problem. Also, if this word-print study does suggest the authorships to the book of mormon and many believe the study, it could b detrimental to the lds church. The idea for the apologists would be to refute the reliability of the procedure.

[Uncle Dale]

I think that we must consider the validity of word-print studies. And this may be the problem. Also, if this word-print study does suggest the authorships to the book of mormon and many believe the study, it could b detrimental to the lds church. The idea for the apologists would be to refute the reliability of the procedure.

A rumor was passed on to me -- that The Brethren are discouraging this sort of

"tampering" with the standard works. However, it would appear that LDS scholars

are still free to conduct additional word-print studies on the Joseph Smith papers.

If this was reported to me correctly, there will be no word print analysis of

the Smith "revelations" in the Joseph Smith papers, however.

Perhaps DCP can inform us whether this is a bogus report or not.

???

UD

[why me]

A rumor was passed on to me -- that The Brethren are discouraging this sort of

"tampering" with the standard works. However, it would appear that LDS scholars

are still free to conduct additional word-print studies on the Joseph Smith papers.

If this was reported to me correctly, there will be no word print analysis of

the Smith "revelations" in the Joseph Smith papers, however.

Perhaps DCP can inform us whether this is a bogus report or not.

???

UD

And rightly so. If the word-print study is not 100% fool proof, I can understand the reluctance. I don't tthink that the brethren would would want to belong to a church founded on a con. But the wordprint research must be 100% foolproof and that is an impossibility at this moment.

[Uncle Dale]

And rightly so.

...

I got essentially the same response from the CoC leaders several years back.

I went to all the trouble of getting a meeting set up with President McMurray --

talked with him informally, and then was to talk with him again on a more

formal basis. Instead, I received a response from some high official in charge

of membership worthiness, or some such ridiculous calling.

The message I finally received back was to treat the Standard Works with tremendous

respect. They are sacred things, entrusted to the keeping of God's One True Church.

I was told God's Holy Word should be read with fear and trembling -- with awe and

thanksgiving -- and should not be "treated like a research rat in a cage."

Hopefully the LDS leadership will be more open to de-constructing the text --

but Elder Holland used that very word in what I took to be an angry response.

Are Mormons ready to lay their cherished scriptures out on the dissecting table,

for unholy hands to probe and pull apart, according to the precepts of men?

We'll wait to see if DCP confirms the rumor, I guess.

UD

[robuchan]

The amount of testimonies given by the witnesses on their deathbed would be quite unusual for fraudsters. They all obviously believed strongely in what they saw. Now can we believe this person who wrote the above? But if the book is ever proven to be a fraud, Joseph and whoever wrote the book should be considered the greatest conartists in history and not to mention the greatest psychopaths too.

What about this as an alternative?

Even if they knew the book was technically a fraud, they had a deep and unshakable belief in the divinity and truthfulness of the book's message.

[Glenn101]

What about this as an alternative?

Even if they knew the book was technically a fraud, they had a deep and unshakable belief in the divinity and truthfulness of the book's message.

But why not take them at their word and not try to invent soemthing for which there is no evidence?

Glenn