Jockers et al

[canterdogs]

It was found. It turned out it didn't match what the critics claimed at all. Then the critics just asserted that there was an additional manuscript that was still lost that really matched what they claimed. See here.

What was found was Manuscript Story. The article you directed me to is suggesting that there is no Manuscript Found - that the existence of this manuscript was fabricated by the BoM critics. Craig Criddle's assertion is that Manuscript Found existed at some point in time is now lost. He also asserts that there were witnesses that attest to this and that Manuscript Found was the foundation of the BoM. Those are his claims - not mine.

[maklelan]

What was found was Manuscript Story.

And a "Manuscript Lost," distinguished from "Manuscript Story" has never been shown to have existed outside of the heads of opponents of Mormonism, many of whom have been shown to have been coached along by Hurlbut.

The article you directed me to is suggesting that there is no Manuscript Found

That's what the evidence shows.

- that the existence of this manuscript was fabricated by the BoM critics.

See above.

Craig Criddle's assertion is that Manuscript Found existed at some point in time is now lost.

And he doesn't address any concerns with that theory. Nor, it appears, do you.

He also asserts that there were witnesses that attest to this and that Manuscript Found was the foundation of the BoM. Those are his claims - not mine.

And if you'd read the whole article to which I linked you, you'd know why the testimony of those witnesses is problematic.

[canterdogs]

And a "Manuscript Lost," distinguished from "Manuscript Story" has never been shown to have existed outside of the heads of opponents of Mormonism, many of whom have been shown to have been coached along by Hurlbut.

That's what the evidence shows.

See above.

And he doesn't address any concerns with that theory. Nor, it appears, do you.

And if you'd read the whole article to which I linked you, you'd know why the testimony of those witnesses is problematic.

And the gold plates have never been shown to have existed outside the heads of Joseph Smith's family and close associates (the witnesses).

I haven't taken any position as to the existence or otherwise of Manuscript Found or on reliability of the witnesses to this text. I have merely stated Craig's argument - and the fact that your original post was misleading.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ok point taken. I'll have a look through past posts.

just one last thing. is there any draft response to Jockers that is available for inspection? When is the paper expected to be published?

The one I've previewed isn't available for distribution yet, it's pending publication and publication can take a long time. Having read it, though, I feel completely safe in encouraging everyone to avoid hanging their hat on the Criddle paper. It is fatally flawed in regards to BoM authorship. The response has some other interesting suggestions about the possibilities of using the method, though, so it's not a total wash on that front.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The one I've previewed isn't available for distribution yet, it's pending publication and publication can take a long time. Having read it, though, I feel completely safe in encouraging everyone to avoid hanging their hat on the Criddle paper. It is fatally flawed in regards to BoM authorship. The response has some other interesting suggestions about the possibilities of using the method, though, so it's not a total wash on that front.

While pre-review papers are often available, generally, pre-publication copies of the final draft are not made publicly available. For a brief period, the paper in question was available on-line to assist in the review process, but was taken down when that process was complete. I don't expect to see it available again until it is published.

Ben M.

[LifeOnaPlate]

While pre-review papers are often available, generally, pre-publication copies of the final draft are not made publicly available. For a brief period, the paper in question was available on-line to assist in the review process, but was taken down when that process was complete. I don't expect to see it available again until it is published.

Ben M.

It's a good'un, too.

[canterdogs]

I suppose how one interprets Jockers et al's results depends on which viewpoint you are coming from. It is easy to criticize statistical analyses. I must say that I was impressed with the Jockers paper and Craig's presentation at the 2009 ex mormon foundation conference. Ok its one side of the story. Perhaps i'm biased, but to me smart ex mormon guys like Craig Criddle always seem more impressive than Mormon apologists who always seem to be grasping at straws. Just another example of the clutching at straws as I review the FARMS website is the apologetic argument as to why passages from 1 Corinthians appear in the BoM.... unexplainable, except, of course, you conclude that Joseph plagiarized this from the KJV - which is where Sperry eventually ends up in his article... hey but that's ok, not troubling at all isn't it?!

We emphasize here the fact that different prophets may have somewhat similar inspiration in dealing with a given subject. This inspiration may be expressed in very similar language. In considering the Book of Mormon we have to take the translator into account. When the Prophet Joseph Smith came to a passage which contained statements that reminded him of similar ones in the New Testament, he was doubtless influenced by their wording and used them whenever it was possible to do so.

lol http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=87

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And the gold plates have never been shown to have existed outside the heads of Joseph Smith's family and close associates (the witnesses).

This is false. There is good evidence that JS had plates. Even certain critics go so far to say that JS made some tin plates. The plates should never be doubted.

We have at least 11 poeple that claimed to have seen gold plates.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

unexplainable, except, of course, you conclude that Joseph plagiarized this from the KJV - which is where Sperry eventually ends up in his article... hey but that's ok, not troubling at all isn't it?!

As a person the believes in the bible, would it be impossible for God to reveal to the Nephites those exact phrases?

I don't thus it becomes a non issue.

[canterdogs]

We have at least 11 poeple that claimed to have seen gold plates.

And all were his family and close associates

[canterdogs]

As a person the believes in the bible, would it be impossible for God to reveal to the Nephites those exact phrases?

I don't thus it becomes a non issue.

Or you can take the more obvious explanation that he simply copied from Paul.... That an ancient record in America would almost exactly coincide with Paul's writings is just about impossible. If the BoM were so original and better than the Bible etc, why the need to borrow from it??? This is surely another evidence of its fraudulent nature!!!

[LifeOnaPlate]

I suppose how one interprets Jockers et al's results depends on which viewpoint you are coming from. It is easy to criticize statistical analyses. I must say that I was impressed with the Jockers paper and Craig's presentation at the 2009 ex mormon foundation conference. Ok its one side of the story. Perhaps i'm biased, but to me smart ex mormon guys like Craig Criddle always seem more impressive than Mormon apologists who always seem to be grasping at straws. Just another example of the clutching at straws as I review the FARMS website is the apologetic argument as to why passages from 1 Corinthians appear in the BoM.... unexplainable, except, of course, you conclude that Joseph plagiarized this from the KJV - which is where Sperry eventually ends up in his article... hey but that's ok, not troubling at all isn't it?!

lol http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=1&id=87

This is what is known as a "red herring." Perhaps you're biased? Well, I'd say it's rather inevitable. Comparing unrelated arguments and unrelated methodologies seems like bad reasoning, to me. But I'm biased though.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And all were his family and close associates

So what of it? You have no evidence that they were not real plates of metal.

[maklelan]

I have merely stated Craig's argument - and the fact that your original post was misleading.

My original post was not misleading. The manuscript those folks claimed to remember is the manuscript that was discovered, only it was called "Manuscript Story" and not "Manuscript Found," and the details which overlapped so significantly with the Book of Mormon were not there. Otherwise we must be asked to accept that Spalding had two parallel manuscripts being readied for publication, that he only ever spoke of one of them, and that his wife was only aware of the one of which he never spoke.

[maklelan]

Or you can take the more obvious explanation that he simply copied from Paul.... That an ancient record in America would almost exactly coincide with Paul's writings is just about impossible. If the BoM were so original and better than the Bible etc, why the need to borrow from it??? This is surely another evidence of its fraudulent nature!!!

Or the anaphoric nature of the translation. I've been over this, and you've not addressed it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

My original post was not misleading. The manuscript those folks claimed to remember is the manuscript that was discovered, only it was called "Manuscript Story" and not "Manuscript Found," and the details which overlapped so significantly with the Book of Mormon were not there. Otherwise we must be asked to accept that Spalding had two parallel manuscripts being readied for publication, that he only ever spoke of one of them, and that his wife was only aware of the one of which he never spoke.

canterdos is obviously behind on the history behind the spalding manuscript, which isn't a surprise since he's following Criddle, who completely fumbles the historical aspect of the study (because getting it right would destroy the enterprise from the very start of course.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Or you can take the more obvious explanation that he simply copied from Paul.... That an ancient record in America would almost exactly coincide with Paul's writings is just about impossible.

I know you are a bible believing indidual. It is impossible that mana fell from hevean. It is impossible that Moses parted the Red Sea.

If the BoM were so original and better than the Bible etc, why the need to borrow from it??? This is surely another evidence of its fraudulent nature!!!

Oh boy, you can't even get the basics right. Were does the BoM claim to be "so original" or "better than the bible"? It doesn't what it claims to be is the most correct book on earth and that man can get closer to God by abiding by it's precepts. So the BoM claims to be the most correct in principal.

It is not evidence of anyting other then there is similar phrasology on some of the verses in the BoM.

If God is the source for both the BoM and the bible why would I expect to not find some common elements even down to the same phrases.

[maklelan]

And all were his family and close associates

Until the majority of them became disenchanted and fought against the church, going so far as to aid his imprisonment. In spite of this, not a one of them ever recanted, despite being vehemently urged to do so by their own family and associates. Whether or not this supports the veracity of their testimony, it certainly complicates your notion that their relationship to Smith undermines their testimony. Care to respond, or are you just going to throw something else at the wall in the hopes that it will stick?

[maklelan]

canterdos is obviously behind on the history behind the spalding manuscript, which isn't a surprise since he's following Criddle, who completely fumbles the historical aspect of the study (because getting it right would destroy the enterprise from the very start of course.)

One of my criticisms of his article when it first came out was that he never addressed any single criticism of his position, going so far as to assert Bushman basically plagiarizing Brodie for want of his own argument.

[canterdogs]

Until the majority of them became disenchanted and fought against the church, going so far as to aid his imprisonment. In spite of this, not a one of them ever recanted, despite being vehemently urged to do so by their own family and associates. Whether or not this supports the veracity of their testimony, it certainly complicates your notion that their relationship to Smith undermines their testimony. Care to respond, or are you just going to throw something else at the wall in the hopes that it will stick?

And many of his close associates went off with other groups that also relied on the BoM as part of their scriptures.

[44Foxtrot]

I suppose how one interprets Jockers et al's results depends on which viewpoint you are coming from. It is easy to criticize statistical analyses. I must say that I was impressed with the Jockers paper and Craig's presentation at the 2009 ex mormon foundation conference. Ok its one side of the story. Perhaps i'm biased, but to me smart ex mormon guys like Craig Criddle always seem more impressive than Mormon apologists who always seem to be grasping at straws. Just another example of the clutching at straws as I review the FARMS website is the apologetic argument as to why passages from 1 Corinthians appear in the BoM.... unexplainable, except, of course, you conclude that Joseph plagiarized this from the KJV - which is where Sperry eventually ends up in his article... hey but that's ok, not troubling at all isn't it?!

lol http://maxwellinstit...l=4&num=1&id=87

Craig Criddle's presentation at the 2009 ex mormon conference, as available on video, is more convincing and succinct than all of the apologist's theories and rationalizations combined regarding the provenance of the BoM.

His presentation showed his group's theory to not only fit well with the statistical data and known facts, but to be the most parsimonious and predictive of any available. It therefore carries more weight than apologist claims.

Weight of evidence is the name of the game. As I see it, the rational narrative from scientists like Criddle, Jockers, Southerton and others regarding the origins of the Book of Mormon is now gaining weight at an astounding rate.

[noel00]

Dan, you should get you own seerstone just as BY thought all the members should have, that way your have an advantage. You study using grammars etc, poor Joseph had a rock in a hat. Working backwards with so many problems lying about polygamy, Book of Abraham fraud, Kinderhook plates, grandiose leadership aspirations, President, Mayor, Council of Fifty etc etc, I am sure there is a naturalistic explanation for the BOM origins. The S/R theory is one.Once Bruce S has his paper is published we shall see. But you see Dan, both Craig and Matt have another life in their respective professions. This is a sidebar

[maklelan]

And many of his close associates went off with other groups that also relied on the BoM as part of their scriptures.

This could not be any more irrelevant. We're discussing the 11 witnesses here. As I predicted, you only tried to make something else stick to the wall. I don't appreciate taking the time to explain things only to have my comments ignored. If you can't even show me enough respect to acknowledge my concerns with your points, then we're done here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Craig Criddle's presentation at the 2009 ex mormon conference, as available on video, is more convincing and succinct than all of the apologist's theories and rationalizations combined regarding the provenance of the BoM.

You can go ahead and hang your hat upon this presentation. I think Bruce S did a fine job of arguing, through the details, to show that this study proves nothing of worth. That is, who did write the BoM? The study cannot even answer that question.

[Vance]

And many of his close associates went off with other groups that also relied on the BoM as part of their scriptures.

So, they continued to believe in the divine origin of the BoM. And this helps your argument how?