Spin-off from the Spalding-Rigdon Thread

[Sleeper Cell]

If I understand correctly, the Spalding-Rigdon theory is based on the belief that the author of Manuscript Found also wrote Manuscript Not Found.

The real problem for Mormon apologists is that the Spalding-Rigdon theory presents them with a no-win scenario. If the theory is ever proved, the apologists obviously lose. If the theory remains neither completely proved or disproved, the apologists must continue to spend time and effort on it. If the Spalding-Rigdon is ever completely disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt, this would do nothing to disprove the assertion that the Book or Mormon was written by a 19th century author.

[noel00]

I have been enjoying a few days at a resort with my wife,a birthday celebration with one of my four daughters, so Mr Wegland you will have to wait.

[Uncle Dale]

If I understand correctly, the Spalding-Rigdon theory is based on the belief that the author of Manuscript Found also wrote Manuscript Not Found.

The real problem for Mormon apologists is that the Spalding-Rigdon theory presents them with a no-win scenario. If the theory is ever proved, the apologists obviously lose. If the theory remains neither completely proved or disproved, the apologists must continue to spend time and effort on it. If the Spalding-Rigdon is ever completely disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt, this would do nothing to disprove the assertion that the Book or Mormon was written by a 19th century author.

I was trying to say something like that earlier in the thread, but did not get

my message across completely. I do not think that 19th century authorship

explanations for the Book of Mormon have much impact upon average, observant

Mormons -- those claims are not much of a danger to the testimony of the

recommend-carrying, satisfied members of the Church.

But in the case of potential new converts and already wavering, inactive

or dissatisfied members, non-LDS explanations for the origin of the LDS

"Standard Works," and of Mormonism itself, do present a danger. Such people

may not disassociate themselves from Mormonism ONLY because of the theory

for a Spalding-Rigdon authorship, but rather, the evidence for a naturalistic

19th century origin will be "piled on" with all the other anti-Mormon

assertions that the potential convert, or wavering member, begins to take

seriously, as the likely "truth."

That is why "the LDS apologists must continue to spend time and effort on it."

Besides just that, there are a very small number of dedicated historians of

Mormonism whose dedication to compiling accurate historical facts cause them

to run smack into the S-R theory as a part of the Mormon past. These few

students of history "must continue to spend time and effort on" S-R claims,

because a few of them are factual and help explain certain parts of the

early Mormon experience (for example, the whole 1833-34 episode involving

D. P. Hurlbut and his anti-Mormon investigations).

But there is one more reason why "the apologists must continue to spend time

and effort on it," and that is because the S-R claims are predictive of the

nature of new historical and textual discoveries. Those claims do not predict

that evidence will be uncovered implicating most early Mormons in the writing

of the book and the founding of the religion -- but the claims do focus upon

certain early Mormons, predicting that the more we uncover regarding their

motives, methods and means, the stronger the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory

will become. The same goes for textual discoveries.

New discoveries will inevitably be made, and either will require the apologists'

attention directly, or else in the form of the expanded S-R claims which they

support. As time goes by the apologists' responses inevitably become more focused,

less generalized and more evidence-driven. This is not a happy situation for

the promoters of Mormonism.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

the S-R claims are predictive of the nature of new historical and

textual discoveries.

...

I do not say this as a wild guess, but as a conclusion I've

reached after a considerable period of minor discoveries

being made -- discoveries which add to the accumulation of

historical evidence centered upon Rigdon, Pratt, Cowdery and

the Smiths.

If we travel backwards in time, with our imaginations, to the

mid-20th century, when Fawn Brodie was writing her book, the

amount of known historical information relating to the pre-1830

activities/whereabouts of Sidney, Oliver, Parley and Joseph

would have fit into a single drawer in a regular filing cabinet.

Since Brodie's time a great deal more information has been uncovered,

by a number of researchers and writers, some pro-LDS, but mostly

from non-Mormon investigators. Most of what has been added to the

Spalding "pile" is tabulated in Art Vanick's 2000 book -- but that

is only part of all the new discoveries. Much more can also be

gleaned from my on-line old newspaper articles and other compilations

of historical information.

If the Spalding-Rigdon authorship hypothesis were an unreasonable one,

then we might expect that the new evidence uncovered since Brodie's day

would be more or less "flat" and "random" in its use as elucidation of

Book of Mormon origins. But that is not the case.

We have not uncovered a bunch of hitherto unknown allegations that

W.W. Phelps wrote the book -- or new information placing Joseph Knight

among possible authorship conspirators -- or letters implicating

Martin Harris in the composition of Book of Mormon chapters. We have

not uncovered hitherto unknown references to Sidney Rigdon being

located far away from Joseph Smith's neighbors -- or for Oliver Cowdery

having no possible path-crossings with Sidney Rigdon -- or for members

of the Smith family not traveling westward toward (or to) Ohio, etc.

What we have uncovered (and continue to discover) are historical facts

and pieces of information compatible with the SR-theory, and which are

the sort of stuff that theory predicts will continue to be uncovered.

Weigh that against how much evidence has been brought to light, since

the mid-20th century, for the location of Zarahemla -- or for the use

of Hebrew/Egyptian inscribed metal plates in preColumbian America --

or for Joseph Smith's word-print not being discernible in the book.

We might even start a list here, of the post-1950 evidence discoveries

by LDS polemicists, apologists and sundry writers, against the S-R theory:

1. Robert & Rosemary Brown discovered the Conneaut witnesses did not live in Conneaut

2. The Spalding-Rigdon land transfer document was found to have been a forgery

3. The Dec. 1833 Aron Wright letter was found to have been written by D. P. Hurlbut

4. ........

I think I've made my point

UD

[Glenn101]

New discoveries will inevitably be made, and either will require the apologists'

attention directly, or else in the form of the expanded S-R claims which they

support. As time goes by the apologists' responses inevitably become more focused,

less generalized and more evidence-driven. This is not a happy situation for

the promoters of Mormonism.

UD

The Spaulding/Rigdon theory is pretty much a fringe theory. The apologist responses for the most part have always been evidence driven, (like where is the evidence for that theory), hence the interest in the manuscript found in Honolulu. Most scholars who have ever read that manuscript are confident that it has no connection to the Book of Mormon.

The Jockers/Criddle study was/is an effort to find some solid evidence for a Spaulding/Rigdon connection with the Book of Mormon. However, it now seems that it has not shed much light on the subject if I understand Bruce's comments. He has a paper awaiting publication but which can be read here: My link

From my point of view it pretty well undermines the conclusions that the Jockers study came to. Evidently the Jockers team has yet to respond to the paper, so we will have to wait on that.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

The Spaulding/Rigdon theory is pretty much a fringe theory.

And yet, B.H. Roberts credited it as the only real threat to the

traditional LDS version of Mormon origins. He barely even considers

the pre-Brodie "single author" explanations (such as Riley).

Turn to any 1850s-1880s encyclopedia or other non-LDS commentary

on Mormonism and you'll see this multi-author explanation being

promoted everywhere (in literally thousands of sources). I do not

think that such a phenomenon can be dismissed as a "fringe" threat.

The apologist responses for the most part have always been evidence driven,

I think that the pre-1880s LDS and RLDS responses can be summed up in

two sentences:

1. D. P. Hurlbut fabricated these devilish lies.

and

2. Rigdon never even lived in Pittsburgh before 1823.

Both of those preemptive red herrings have long since been

relegated to the trash heap, and the Mormon polemicists have

been forced to dig more deeply into the historical evidence,

than just asserting that it "amounts to nothing."

(like where is the evidence for that theory), hence the interest

in the manuscript found in Honolulu. Most scholars who have

ever read that manuscript are confident that it has no connection

to the Book of Mormon.

And, I would argue back, that very, very few of those "scholars"

were non-Mormons who did not have a pre-voiced testimony to defend.

Almost the entirety of the non-LDS critical response has rested

upon the preliminary statements of President Fairchild and L.L. Rice,

both of whom readjusted their initial perceptions of the Honolulu

discovery, after they had taken time to study the matter more carefully.

Unfortunately these retractions by Fairchild and Rice never reached

the encyclopedia writers of the early 20th century. In fact, the

RLDS Church took the opportunity, back in those days, to mail out

countless copies of the Church's edition of what was called (only

by the RLDS editors) "Manuscript Found," with the Fairchild and

Rice initial statements attached.

The results were, that untold newspaper editors, reference book

compilers and historians had the so-called "Manuscript Found" on

their desks, with "Gentile" assertions of its authenticity

attached. At first glance, just from reading the included non-RLDS

statements from presumed "experts," the case appeared closed.

So much for the effects of RLDS postage investments.

The Jockers/Criddle study was/is an effort to find some solid evidence for a Spaulding/Rigdon connection with the Book of Mormon. However, it now seems that it has not shed much light on the subject if I understand Bruce's comments. He has a paper awaiting publication but which can be read here: My link

From my point of view it pretty well undermines the conclusions that the Jockers study came to. Evidently the Jockers team has yet to respond to the paper, so we will have to wait on that.

...

It seems a bit odd that Bruce's initial paper has nowhere been accepted

for publication -- not even in Provo. As I understand it, he is now

working on a more Spalding/Rigdon-focused paper, which will include his

pca charts, etc. Perhaps this second try will see better success with

the non-LDS peer reviewers and will see publication in the professional

literature next year or so.

I'm even trying to talk the guy into letting me polish up his charts --

How's that for LDS/RLDS cooperation on a controversial issue!!

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...the Honolulu discovery

...

This coincided marvelously with the LDS abandonment of polygamy

and the evolution of the church in Utah into a respectable

organization, much less subject to attack by the popular press.

The decline of the acceptance of the S-R authorship explanation

cannot be credited entirely to Fairchild and Rice, and dispensing

of free copies of "Manuscript Found" around the world. There was

another dynamic at work around the same time (at least so after

the Reed Smoot controversy had died down) and that was a new

public view on Utah as a state in the Union and the Mormons as

a part of a united, Christian America.

The most rabid of the anti-Mormons kept up their attacks, of course,

but the American public grew tired of those attacks and they took

on an ever diminishing role in the popular press.

Without the constant drum-beat of the "war on polygamy" there began

to be less reason for hundreds (thousands?) of Gentile journalists

to accuse Joseph Smith and associates of having stolen their holy

writ from external sources. The public climate had changed.

Without the sponsorship of a large audience for anti-Mormon reporting,

the post-1900 writers promoting the S-R authorship theory experienced

a diminished interest in such stuff among their potential readers.

Writers such as Schroeder and Linn, at the beginning of the century,

mounted the last substantial effort to promote the S-R theory, in

the context of also explaining the Honolulu discovery.

That effort became more complex, less easily fathomable by the reading

public, and less necessary as a weapon for use in a war that was ending.

Fawn Brodie's contributions came not as a review of the S-R theory,

but as a revival of public interest in the person of Joseph Smith

himself -- apart from any need to make war on polygamy, Mormon

separatism, etc. The attention she paid to the S-R explanation was

relegated to an appendix, out of sight of the average reader.

I think that situation is again in the process of a major change.

UD

[Bruce Schaalje]

It seems a bit odd that Bruce's initial paper has nowhere been accepted

for publication -- not even in Provo. As I understand it, he is now

working on a more Spalding/Rigdon-focused paper, which will include his

pca charts, etc. Perhaps this second try will see better success with

the non-LDS peer reviewers and will see publication in the professional

literature next year or so.

I don't know what you are talking about: not been accepted in Provo? perhaps second try will see better success?

My paper has never been submitted anywhere in Provo. It was reviewed and revised due to reviews from several qualified people in Provo and Logan before submission to LLC. We submitted the paper to LLC about 14 months ago. At the 8-month mark, the editor wrote me and apologized that the reveiw was taking so long. She said that at that time they were still waiting for a second review to be returned. I've never had to wait for a decision from a journal this long in my life (involving over 130 papers submitted to professional journals). Either the reviewer has asked for additional time, or the editor is taking a long time making a decision. But there has been no second try. This journal has published at least two papers claiming to have grave implications for the Mormon church, so it is something new for this journal to have a paper submitted with the other point of view. I can only conclude that this has something to do with the delay in making a decision about the manuscript.

We do have a paper in progress that we plan to submit to the FARMS review, and it indeed will have the PCA plots you might have seen in the associated discussion on this forum.

Meanwhile, we have submitted and had accepted to a statistics journal a paper on closed versus open-set classification, covering much of the same material from a more technical point of view.

We have several other manuscripts in various stages of preparation. Two are pretty close to complete.

I invite anyone who wishes to read and comment on our LLC paper.

Bruce

[noel00]

Craig's latest comments

"Bruce's primary criticism of our work - the closed set of authorship - is something we we made quite clear in the paper itself. We always understood that was an issue. His second criticism about the statistical distances is something we can address if and when Bruce submits a formal professional critique of our paper.

I am quite confident that the work we did will continue to withstand scrutiny, and that we and others will be able to build on it. "

[Uncle Dale]

...

We have several other manuscripts in various stages of preparation. Two are pretty close to complete.

I invite anyone who wishes to read and comment on our LLC paper.

Bruce

Thank you for the clarification, Bruce. I was confused, because generally speaking

pre-pubs such as your linked paper are not offered for full public readership until

the final stages of the peer review process. I was uncertain about the details and

was thus unclear in my summary. If for some reason the first paper does not see

publication in the journal it was submitted to, we can all at least read the online

version. Perhaps there will also be some reference to its main points in the second

(and third?) paper, when it is put through the press. We will all be curious to

see how things work out.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Craig's latest comments

"Bruce's primary criticism of our work - the closed set of authorship - is something we we made quite clear in the paper itself. We always understood that was an issue. His second criticism about the statistical distances is something we can address if and when Bruce submits a formal professional critique of our paper.

I am quite confident that the work we did will continue to withstand scrutiny, and that we and others will be able to build on it. "

Well, it's always interesting to hear what the Stanford folks

have to say -- but I was hoping for a discussion here of the

notion that Solomon Spalding only ever wrote a single work of

historical fiction, and that it was not composed in archaic

English.

Evidently that is not a topic of great interest to the readers

here -- so, if there is some additional aspect of the S-R theory

addressed by Matt Roper and/or other recent reports, we can move

on to some other topic, than the numbers and characteristics of

Spalding manuscripts. I want to at least make an attempt at

providing Wade with a proper explanation of our original purpose.

UD

[noel00]

Dale, you wrote the preface in Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon. What do u think the strengths and weaknesses of that book are?

[All-Seeing Eye]

Well, it's always interesting to hear what the Stanford folks

have to say -- but I was hoping for a discussion here of the

notion that Solomon Spalding only ever wrote a single work of

historical fiction, and that it was not composed in archaic

English.

Evidently that is not a topic of great interest to the readers

here -- so, if there is some additional aspect of the S-R theory

addressed by Matt Roper and/or other recent reports, we can move

on to some other topic, than the numbers and characteristics of

Spalding manuscripts. I want to at least make an attempt at

providing Wade with a proper explanation of our original purpose.

UD

This site seems to claim that the Oberlin manuscript is the only "Native American" manuscript that Spalding could have written:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/spalding.htm

I think that you or someone else has noted, though, that the letter could not have been addressed to Spalding's parents, because Spalding's father had passed away by that date.

[Bruce Schaalje]

Craig's latest comments

"Bruce's primary criticism of our work - the closed set of authorship - is something we we made quite clear in the paper itself. We always understood that was an issue.

Craig is right that they didn't hide the fact fact of assuming that their closed set of authors unquestionably included the true author of each BoM chapter. The point about statistical distances is really the same issue. When the distances are converted to posterior probilities, the answers are ridiculous if the true author is not in the closed set. But you can look at the PCA plot to see if the closed set assumption makes any statistical sense. It doesn't.

His second criticism about the statistical distances is something we can address if and when Bruce submits a formal professional critique of our paper.

The paper has been 'submitted' to LLC, and you have access to it. But I suppose you mean 'accepted'. I hope that happens soon. However, it won't be long before revisions are completed on our paper in a statistics journal on essentially the same issue.

[Uncle Dale]

This site seems to claim that the Oberlin manuscript is the only "Native American" manuscript that Spalding could have written:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/spalding.htm

I think that you or someone else has noted, though, that the letter could not have been addressed to Spalding's parents, because Spalding's father had passed away by that date.

Recently Matt Roper has come around to my way of thinking --

that the Oberlin manuscript is at least a second draft of a

story begun in Salem (Conneaut) Ohio, and perhaps re-worked

in Pittsburgh or Amity, Pennsylvania after 1812.

The evidence for the Conneaut witnesses having seen and testified

to this exact document is unclear -- consisting mainly of a vague

report from Eber D. Howe and a single letter from Aron Wright.

The Conneaut people may have inspected the exact holograph on file

at Oberlin -- but I strongly suspect that they saw the earlier

(first?) draft, which was essentially the same story (and fragments

of which can be found on re-used sheets of writing paper in the

Oberlin document).

Thus, even if Solomon Spalding only ever wrote the "Roman story" as

a work of historical fiction, he may have composed more than one

draft copy and the contents of the respective drafts may have varied

somewhat. Spalding's brother recalled seeing something very similar

to the Oberlin document, at Conneaut in 1812, but with a few small

storyline differences.

Russell Anderson's on-line remarks differ a bit from Roper's recent

two paper's contents -- but perhaps we could compare and contrast

what these two gentleman have offered their readers.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, you wrote the preface in Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon. What do u think the strengths and weaknesses of that book are?

I guess I could go on all day long on that topic.

My preface was written when my name was still on the CoC

membership rolls and I received priesthood counsel to

cease and desist such "endorsements" -- or, at least I

took the import of such counsel to mean the same thing.

I do not consider that preface to be an "endorsement,"

however. I clearly state that what Art and his associates

had published would only impact upon my faith/viewpoint,

if it turned out to be true. I am not aware that their

speculation regarding Oliver Cowdery's early years, etc.

has found any support in new evidence. I considered it

interesting, but a distraction from the main topic.

That "main topic" is addressed in great detail, here and

there in the book -- and when the prose are clear and the

critical apparatus helpful, I can find good material on

several of the pages. But I am an experienced reader of

this sort of reporting, and my interests and ability to

follow the authors' interweavings is something different

from that of the general public.

The book is admittedly difficult to read. It is essentially

a collection of stand-alone chapters which do not flow well,

one into another. The lack of an index is deadly to the

authors' intents (although they subsequently supplied an

on-line version).

I began an on-line review, which is still posted at my site.

Art objected to several things I said there -- so, in an

effort to preserve friendly relations, I cut that review

short, in mid-paragraph.

What else can I say? The pastoral introduction sets a tone

which provides good cause for a Latter Day Saint to read no

more than the first page. Perhaps that is to be expected in

a book published by the official press of the Lutheran Church,

Missouri Synod -- but such religious rhetoric is also deadly...

UD

[noel00]

Yes not having a n index was annoying. Also it's a little like a cut and paste job. Who was it that found the PO letters reported in the paper?

[Uncle Dale]

...Who was it that found the PO letters reported in the paper?

Art's editor, Mr. Moore, discovered the Commonwealth letter lists.

Working independently of Art's team, I discovered the lists

in the Statesman, during a visit to the Carnegie Library in

Pittsburgh.

I thought it very odd that Art published his book, without

supplying readers with a photograph of the names of Sidney

Rigdon and Solomon Spalding appearing in the same letter

list, on the same day. Had I edited the book, I would have

put that graphic on the front cover, and had a little fun

at the expense of B. H. Roberts' published assertions.

I suspect that Rigdon's name also appears in 1817-18-19

letter lists in adjacent Beaver County, but preserved runs

of those newspapers are few and spotty. Rigdon had a habit

of ignoring his waiting letters. We see that again in his

Dec. 1830 visit to the Manchester/Palmyra area of NY. He

later served as Postmaster in Nauvoo -- so perhaps he was

better about reading his mail in those later years.

UD

[hagoth7]

...After reading Matt Roper's recent papers...how comfortable are you with this

historical conclusion:

Solomon Spalding only ever wrote one piece of manuscript fiction,

and it was not composed in old fashioned (Elizabethan/KJV) English.

1. Totally agree ( )

2. Not convinced one way of the other ( )

3. Totally disagree ( )

4. The number of fictional books Spalding might have written is of little consequence.

Here's why:

Whatever he did or didn't write, he wasn't writing in a cultural vacuum. People don't usually draw ideas for fiction out of the blue....ex nihilio.

Instead, they generally draw such ideas from their cultural environment. From discussions in the media, and discussions/events going on in person all around them. (Fx., View of Hebrews, etc.) So some of the ideas that Ethan Smith was writing about and Spaulding was supposedly writing about...may suggest a much broader, more inclusive picture than some have been claiming.

The broader, more helpful question might be...from whence do people get the occasional original idea? If one claims some origin other than God (assuming the idea was a good/helpful idea), one risks denying God's hand in all things. If God cared enough to take a role in the struggle between Persia and Greece, and if God cared enough to play a role in the founding of the United States, wouldn't that imply that God played a more specific role in planting ideas in various people in the United States, to say and write things that would help prepare a people to subsequently accept the message of the Restoration.

By that, I mean, if there were parallel rumblings in the Northeastern states prior to 1830, does that somehow disprove the BoM, as the critics claim? Or does that instead prompt the broader question of: to what degree would God use decent people like Ethan Smith (and those who provided his education) to prepare a people to receive the Nephite account?

How broad was God's reach in preparing people's minds/hearts for the restoration?

So while Palmyra was the epicenter. What groundwork had God been doing during the previous generation or two to make sure that the events of Palmyra could take root when & where they initially did?

[hagoth7]

The reason I take this approach traces to a senior paper I researched/wrote in college.

I was a european studies major, and the question explored in that paper, as suggested to me by a non-LDS prof, was "Why did so many people [from a specific European country] join the LDS church? The question seemed an ideal research avenue.

So while exploring the history of that country, relative to the generation which saw the highest baptismal rates in that country, I noticed an intriguing parallel between certain cultural events/traditions, and the Restoration/Nephite narrative.

And I concluded that conditions in that country, during that generation, were temporaily ideal for the reception of the LDS message.

Which sparked the subsequent questions: Why would that be? And HOW could that be?

(Especially when the message wasn't introduced to that nation until years *after* Joseph's death.)

When at least one Nephite prophet specifically said he had seen our day...what does that imply about his choices in selecting which passages of the Nephite narrative we would end up reading (of which over 99/100ths was edited out)? To what end would God choose to reveal our day to one of the key Nephite editors?

So here's my broader view on pre-Book of Mormon U.S. publications: If a single question from a non-LDS professor at a secular school can impact the direction of my life/writings/opinions, what does that imply about Solmon, Ethan, and a score of others in 18th & 19th-century America? If God can accomplish his work through anyone, including a king of Babylon, and a king of the Medes/Persians, if he can work through founding fathers, what might that imply about the development of much of the rest of pre-Restoration American culture?

If popular pre-1830 publications parallel certain facets of the Nephite narative, or the Restoration message, does that mean what critics claim it means? Or does it suggest something about the broader scope of God's plan for mankind? Does it suggest that God laid the groundwork for the reception of his own latter-day message?

[hagoth7]

The rule of farming is that before planting the seed...

...you first take care to break up and soften the soil.

Are Christian skeptics suggesting that the master of the vineyard somehow did not know this?

Or that he somehow didn't apply that principle to his own marvelous work/wonder?

While I would agree that these questions create something that in the realm of logic might be called a circular argument...

...Christian critics should be ready to concede that their counter argument/question is based on their own preferred conclusion.

So while we can discuss the same events, the same publications, and the same pieces of evidence...we're doing so from completely different paradigms. But with the stance described above, I stand nothing to lose in such a discussion. And everything to gain.

So would I be troubled in the least if Spalding wrote something else?

Nope. I wouldn't even be surprised if he had.

[Uncle Dale]

...

How broad was God's reach in preparing people's minds/hearts for the restoration?

...

I'm still enough of a Latter Day Saint, not to dismiss this sort of thinking.

If we extend our viewpoints to include even the ideas, visions and hopes of

numerous 19th century non-Mormons, then perhaps we can find places for almost

everyone in "God's plan."

I'm comfortable with that expansive point of view. I think it has validity.

However, if Solomon Spalding never composed fiction in "King James" English,

then he obviously did NOT contribute any extensive text to the Book of Mormon.

But, beyond just that -- if the preponderance of the evidence indicates that

Spalding never wrote fiction in archaic English, then a much stronger case

can be made for the belief that the "Roman story" must have been the document

his old associates remembered reading and having read to them.

Correct?

UD

[noel00]

Craig's latest comments

"If you are committed to a supernatural explanation --as Bruce is-- then no naturalistic explanation is acceptable. The contrary is also true, and it is a basic assumption of science. Science does not admit supernatural explanations: naturalistic explanations are considered far more probable and, in fact, have repeatedly defeated supernatural explanations. When my lab group does experiments and we get unexpected results, we do not invoke fairies or vampires or angels. We assume that natural explanations exist, and we perform experiments to identify the likely causal agents.

For his part, Bruce is obliged to dismiss all historical evidence contrary to the supernatural explanation with a wave of the hand (or in this case, a plea to Matthew Roper) and to claim that his statistical analyses trump all historical or additional statistical evidence supportive of a naturalistic explanation.

We have tested historically plausible candidate authors consistent with the historical and linguistic evidence and have detected patterns consistent with the theory that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century collaboration."

[wenglund]

Is this what you are talking about? ---->UD

Let's not play dumb, Dale. I quoted specifically what I was talking about, and I clarified and reclarified what I was specifically talking about. Please stop evading my reasonable CFR. If you can't manage this, then please have the common courtesy of not speaking for Matt, but speak only for yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...

For his part, Bruce is obliged to dismiss all historical evidence

contrary to the supernatural explanation

...

I wonder if that is really the case. Perhaps it is -- but from my several

years' experience, discussing this controversy with many different people,

I've discerned a spectrum of views on the matter among the Saints:

1. LDS Total believer, whose testimony negates all but Nephite origins

2. LDS True believer, who nevertheless tries to be open-minded regarding history

3. Cultural LDS, whose testimony is vague or lacking -- is open to historical evidence

4. LDS-in-name-only, who has no testimony to defend -- is open to historical evidence

5. RLDS True believer, whose testimony does not include Nephites -- open to history

I cannot speak for Bruce -- but I assume that he would place himself somewhere

between descriptions #1 and #3. I've known LDS Scientists who are quietly supportive

of a non-Nephite origin of the Book of Mormon, and whose examinations/conclusions

in Scientific study can at least "set aside" supernatural explanations during their

"working hours."

UD