The Case Against Rigdon, Spalding, Pratt, Cowdery, et al

[Kevin Christensen]

LDS "scholars" who wish to remain LDS scholars start with the assumption that "The Church is True".

Actually, leaving aside the "poisoning the well" implication, the LDS approach to the Book of Mormon is quite varied, but the most productive approaches have followed the guidelines developed my Renaissance scholars for authenticating ancient documents:

To illustrate this claim and not to undertake a thorough investigation at this time, let us briefly apply to the Book of Mormon the main rules put forth by Friedrich Blass in his classic work on hermeneutics and criticism, which remains the "standard work" on the subject.3 The rules given by Blass are all obvious enough to experience and reflection, but every one of them is a stumbling block to the superficial critic, and they have all been scrupulously avoided by those attacking the Book of Mormon.

To begin with, says Blass, "We have the document, and the name of its author; we must begin our examination by assuming that the author indicated really wrote it." You always begin by assuming that a text is genuine.4 What critic of the Book of Mormon has ever done that? One can hear the screams of protest: "How unscientific! How naive! How hopelessly biased!" Yet to the experience of the centuries Blass adds perfectly convincing reasons for his shocking rule. It is equally biased to accept or reject a text at first glance, but still one must assume at the outset that it is either spurious or genuine if one is to make any progress.

Jacoby, the foremost authority on Greek historical writing, observes that no great historical writing was ever produced "sine ira et studio"5

[Gervin]

How many complex, hundreds of word, hundreds of characters, a thousand years of time novels have you written? Oh, and have you read the Book of Mormon? The convoluted story of the groups that go off looking for the other breakoff groups, come across others not the breakoff group. . . it takes charts to keep it all straight. I sounds to me that your light dismissal of the ocmplexity comes from a base of no knowledge of the Book of Mormon at all.

I must admit I've not written any novels but, of course, this is no criteria for critiquing the Book of Mormon. I have read the Book of Mormon and more than once and feel comfortable standing by the statement that 'generally, the characters are very linear." There are some characters that are developed and there are some story lines with some complexity. Generally speaking, however, I find this is to be the exception, not the rule.

An LDS film reviewer noted that a strict reading of the first portions of the book doesn't make for compelling dramatization. This points somewhat to some of the same problems I see in the text:

The trouble is that what makes for a good religious document doesn't necessarily work as a film. For one thing, you need an interesting, dynamic protagonist, and Nephi is not one. He has no apparent character flaws, even slight ones, and he doesn't change, learn or grow over the course of the film. Since the record is mum on the subject of Nephi's rough edges, some fictionalization would have been needed to make him work as a movie character. I'm not saying make him a bad guy; I'm saying make him a human being. At the very least, give him an important lesson to learn. The movie version of Nephi is exactly the same at the end as he was at the beginning. And that's boring.

At the other end of the spectrum, there's Laman, Nephi's constantly backsliding brother. Readers of the text have noted that Laman is capable of seeing an angel on one page, and complaining again on the next. (It is also true, though I had not noticed it until seeing it enacted on the silver screen, that Laman's solution to everything is to tie Nephi up.) When the story is told in broad, general strokes, it seems unlikely that a real person would behave that way; obviously there are details omitted for the sake of brevity that would have explained Laman's personality and motivations. A movie is a golden opportunity to explore that -- not to make him the central character, of course, but at least to make him believable as a villain. But in Rogers' movie, Laman is as uneven and inscrutable as he is in the text. That's OK in the book, because you're not reading the scriptures to see three-dimensional characters. It's not OK in a movie.

There is no "story" in these 66 pages, at least not the kind of story that has exposition, rising action, climax and resolution. There is, rather, a series of episodes, any of which could conceivably be fleshed-out, given the just-mentioned elements of story, and turned into films. But instead, Rogers has merely propped The Book of Mormon on an easel and filmed every page, whether it's useful in telling the story of these people or not.

http://www.ericdsnider.com/movies/the-book-of-mormon-movie/

I remain open-minded, however, and if there is some text-critical analysis of the Book of Mormon's literary attributes I'd be glad to read and consider it.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Who is "credible?"

What makes a person so?

...

Of course there is no one "accrediting society" that provides credentials

to scientists and rational scholars. That fact is part of the dispute between

Creationists and Evolutionists, as one example.

Still, I think we must admit that something like a "scientific consensus"

does develop among credible scholars, academics, professionals, etc.

Take the controversy over the shape of the earth. There are today still

some "flat earthers," including intelligent people, who base their views

on a literal reading of the Bible. If the scriptures speak of the "four

corners" of the world, then, of course, the world must have four corners, etc.

If I could attend a gathering of the Flat Earth Society, I'm sure that I

would hear explanations and testimonies which were very convincing to its

members and advocates.

But when I suggested to them that they publish their conclusions in the

major scientific journals, and subject the flat earth paradigm to a

peer-review by leading experts, I think they would decline the offer.

Most people today agree that the earth is a globe, and not a flat object.

Implementation of the scientific method has greatly helped in establishing

that consensus -- not just among scientists, but among all people.

Now, suppose I were to submit a paper to Nature, or even to

Scientific American, repeating what I was told about Enoch's City,

in RLDS Sunday School ----- Do you suppose those claims could be accepted

as a scholarly/scientific consensus?

1. That Enoch's City was lifted from off the earth, leaving the Caribbean Sea

as a depression in the aftermath of its departure.

2. That Enoch's City became an asteroid or planetoid, separate from the earth.

3. That Enoch's City orbits the sun, exactly opposite the earth -- so that

it can never be seen through a telescope.

4. That Enoch's city will return as the Celestial Zion, descending upon

the earth at the commencement of the Christian Millennium, at Independence,

Missouri, as part of the Reorganized Church's Political Kingdom of God.

Suppose Scientific American consented to publish my paper -- how would

its readers and other scientists go about determining if I am "credible?"

By what process would my assertions be judged true or false? Would the

fact that members of the church I belong to believe my assertions make

me more "credible?" Would the fact that some of those same members are

scientists themselves help make me more "credible?"

What makes me so? An RLDS testimony that our Church is true? A table of

mathematical calculations, demonstrating that an object of a certain mass

does indeed orbit the sun, on its other side? Geologic evidence of the

Caribbean Sea having been formed when a hunk of the earth was detached?

Within the RLDS Church (or perhaps even within Community of Christ), I can

find hundreds of people who would find my Enoch's City explanations credible.

Their loyal affirmations would not, however, make me credible to the

"outside world." Not even if dozens of them had PhD degrees and had

written intelligent books, published by the Latter Day Saints........

Uncle Dale

.

[Kevin Christensen]

Of course there is no one "accrediting society" that provides credentials

to scientists and rational scholars. That fact is part of the dispute between

Creationists and Evolutionists, as one example.

And of course, selecting "Creationists and Evolutionists" as a standard example of a dispute establishes a paradigm, a framework for identifying the crackpot fringe from the real scientists. How about something not fully resolved, say, how about the debate between diffusionist and "independent invention" theories about the origins of civilization?

Still, I think we must admit that something like a "scientific consensus"

does develop among credible scholars, academics, professionals, etc.

Of course it does. And how that process happens can be examined as well, subjected to scientific observation. I like Kuhn on that.

Take the controversy over the shape of the earth.

Again, a standard example designed to divide the field into crackpots versus real scientists. Not, I notice, a standard example that shows disputes between real scientists. Why not look at something like continental drift and the eventual rise of plate tectonics? Why not look at an example of how an idea once dismissed as crackpot science eventually became productive, widely accepted, and now a heavily supported paradigm?

There are today still

some "flat earthers," including intelligent people, who base their views

on a literal reading of the Bible. If the scriptures speak of the "four

corners" of the world, then, of course, the world must have four corners, etc.

Never mind that other bright people read it differently. de Santillana and von Dechund in Hamlet's Mill, for example. They see the four corners as pointing to astronomy, the solstices and equinoxes. But never mind. Let's set the stage and put the believing crackpots with the Dunce caps on in one corner, opposed to those with the caps and gowns and university chairs in the other.

If I could attend a gathering of the Flat Earth Society, I'm sure that I

would hear explanations and testimonies which were very convincing to its

members and advocates.

And this is all leading up to "likening" this example of a crackpot society to Book of Mormon scholarship.

But when I suggested to them that they publish their conclusions in the

major scientific journals, and subject the flat earth paradigm to a

peer-review by leading experts, I think they would decline the offer.

Perhaps the reason that I got an essay peer reviewed and published by Oxford Press is because I was not arguing for a flat earth. But the choice of "standard example" leads us along in another direction.

SNIP

Now, suppose I were to submit a paper to Nature, or even to

Scientific American, repeating what I was told about Enoch's City,

in RLDS Sunday School ----- Do you suppose those claims could be accepted

as a scholarly/scientific consensus?

It happens that I would dispute the things you were told about Enoch's city were they taught by anyone in LDS Sunday school. I've read the Pearl of Great Price accounts myself, and I don't feel obligated to treat every reading by anyone born LDS or RLDS as anymore definitive than "four corners of the earth" reads to a flat earther.

I've mentioned before Nibley's memory of being taught that the Rocky Mountains were formed as part of the destruction reported in 3 Nephi. But that a close reading reveals a very sober, realistic account of massive volcanic event, and that there actual evidence of just such an event in the general time and place to which a close reading of the text fits it. Mormons have no creeds, Joseph Smith said, and are willing to receive all true principles as they are manifest. According to the D&C we are to read "good books" and study, in order to understand "more perfectly." That is, we have room to grow. We have a tree to nurture, not a fragile crystal to protect from either reinterpretation or critical violence.

UD continues:

SNIP

Suppose Scientific American consented to publish my paper -- how would

its readers and other scientists go about determining if I am "credible?"

One way would be to simply align myself with who ever comes along to "point and mock" without bothering to read the text closely, to see whether the interpretation is at all justified by the text. Others might take a bit of text with far more easily testable details, an unambiguous location, and see if they can get to Nahom from Jerusalem, and then turn east, and see if there is a Bountiful candidate in that direction, and see how many details of the locations there turn out to be consistent with an eye-witness description.

How long would the Criddle-Jockers method have to run before it answered that question, even in a bank of Cray supercomputers?

By what process would my assertions be judged true or false?

Each reader can choose. Some can uncritically dismiss the claims. Some can appeal to disapproving authorities, assuming that the men sitting in the Judgments Seats have carried out a formal, detailed, "objective" investigation, that they always know when they speak, and when they speak, they are never wrong. (The famous Smithstonian Letter.) Some might carry out personal experiments. The process varies. In my case, having read the Pearl of Great Price myself, and knowing the difference between extravagant claims and the actual text, I would judge based on my own experience and study.

Would the fact that members of the church I belong to believe my assertions make

me more "credible?"

Those who uncritically pass along uncritical readings are doing just that. Uncritically passing along an interpretation. Those who go to the source themselves often come away with something quite different.

Would the fact that some of those same members are scientists themselves help make me more "credible?"

That would depend on whether those scientists had themselves done their science properly. In the example you gave, I don't see how this applies. I don't know of any LDS scientists who have read the Enoch text in that way, or tried to publish a defense of that reading. In the case of Bruce's and Ben's criticisms of Criddle Jockers, or the various LDS DNA scientists who have commented on the DNA and the Book of Mormon commentary, I don't see the scientists' uncritically moving to prop up any belief that someone somewhere labels as Mormon. I see them looking closely at texts and methods and data. And if some somewhere, even named McConkie, wrote something like "principle ancestors", and that leads to misunderstanding of the source text, the source text and the science take precedence over the opinion. Skousen's study of the original Book of Mormon manuscripts led him to freely criticize claims that the translation was error-free. But he also noted that the text other wise shows strong evidence of being dictated just as described, in word groups of about twenty words.

SNIP

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bruce Schaalje]

LDS "scholars" who wish to remain LDS scholars start with the assumption that "The Church is True". This where their scholarship ends and their apologetics begins. This is especially the case when working in areas where LDS doctrine can be in conflict with science. LDS scholars who follow the data instead of the doctrine, and have the temerity to publish their findings, often end up as non-LDS scholars

Do you have data on this? I

[Uncle Dale]

... I don't know of any LDS scientists who have read the Enoch text

in that way, or tried to publish a defense of that reading.

...

In the case I presented, that would not be a major consideration. LDS

and RLDS scientists may disagree on how Enoch's City departed the earth.

Were I to write such a paper, the major considerations would be the

teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr., and Joseph Smith III on the subject --

supplemented, perhaps, by instruction from President F. M. Smith.

The scriptures, including the Book of Revelation, would come second,

unless they contain passages never explicated by one holding the keys

to the last dispensation, and receiving continual Divine revelation.

I am not a geologist (although I have an undergraduate degree in that discipline)

and I am certainly not a recognized expert in the geomorphology of the

Caribbean --- but, if I, or somebody else could convincingly demonstrate

that the Caribbean depression was caused by the dislocation of a great

mass of the continental plate, in that location, such a discovery would

be worthy of publication in the professional literature (and not just in

a stand-alone book for popular readership) of peer-reviewed journals.

I am not an astrophysicist -- but, if I, or somebody else could convincingly

demonstrate that a small asteroid is indeed orbiting on the other side of

the sun -- causing extremely small gravitational disturbances, etc.), then

that discovery would be worthy of publication in the professional literature.

The combination of these two discoveries would set the stage for somebody

theorizing that the dislocated mass from the earth was identical to the

unknown body orbiting behind the sun.

Even if the discoveries did not go beyond just that much, I can assure you

that there would be great celebrations in Independence. The lagging RLDS

missionary effort would get a great shot in the arm. Books and articles

would stream out to the Gentiles -- maybe even a Mormon or two would read them.

But, without such supporting evidence, the Enoch assertions would never be

published in the professional literature. The best we could hope for might

be something like a scholarly review of their historiography, published by

Oxford Press -- which did not offer a new paradigm for the scientific world

to consider, test and possibly incorporate into the scientific consensus.

UD

[Glenn101]

Please see comments above. What is so hard to understand about the fact that credible scientists have no interest in working with demonstrably fraudulent data sets? The "work" of LDS scholars to understand and explain the "science" or even "facts" related to the BoM has about as much value to society as the work of "trekkies" to understand the science and fact associated with Star Trek. To mainstream scientists, the two pursuits have near identical value.

You have presented an irrational argument here. I.E. that no credible scientists have any interest in working with demonstrably fraudulent data sets. But if no one has tested those data sets, how are you to demonstrate fraud?

Now which of the items that I listed are demonnstrably fraudulent.

1. The over 300 proper names in the book of Mormon with 188 being unique to the Book of Mormon?

2. The cast of over two hundred different characters?

3. Complex, well crafted chiasmus such as Alma 36?

4. Authentic Hebraic idioms and structures interwoven tightly into the text throughout the Book of Mormon?

Glenn

[Ariarates]

In post # 51 Kevin makes some very good points on how the BoM can be approached. This is followed up in subsequent posts by other posters.

I think these points apply to many other texts as well, but in my opinion that doesn't mean that each text deserves the same attention. Would anyone here be willing, for example, to approach the writings of L. Ron Hubbard that way and devote their precious time and resources to such an enterprise? If not, then maybe you get a feel for why non-LDS scholars are hesitant to give the BoM the light of day as a book about actual events.

[Uncle Dale]

...maybe you get a feel for why non-LDS scholars are hesitant

to give the BoM the light of day as a book about actual events.

If it is indeed a "book about actual events" which was etched

on metal plates by a preColumbian American civilization, then

some artifact identifiable with that civilization should be

produced for inspection.

At the investigative stage, the scientific method requires

observation and data gathering. That requirement could be

fulfilled by exhibiting the metal plates -- or by displaying

other metal plates produced by that American civilization --

or even by directing forensic technicians to the Nephite

stone box on the Hill Cumorah, where those plates were housed.

Absent any such direct evidence, the Mormons might offer up

artifacts of any sort, confirming the presence of an Old World

people in preColumbian America.

Something so simple as fossil pollen left by the Nephite

wheat fields would be a good start. Mormon scientists could

submit maps showing the dispersion of that Old World wheat

agriculture, amidst the known dispersion of New World maize

agriculture -- then we would know that an Old World (Israelite)

colony was in existence in preColumbian America.

Until the LDS scientists share such compelling evidence to

the world's non-LDS scientists, I see no reason for the rest

of the world to pay any attention to Mormon claims.

How can observation and data gathering begin, until the

Mormons tell the rest of the world where it was that the

Nephites planted their wheat, built their great temple,

and inscribed their metal plates?

UD

[Glenn101]

In post # 51 Kevin makes some very good points on how the BoM can be approached. This is followed up in subsequent posts by other posters.

I think these points apply to many other texts as well, but in my opinion that doesn't mean that each text deserves the same attention. Would anyone here be willing, for example, to approach the writings of L. Ron Hubbard that way and devote their precious time and resources to such an enterprise? If not, then maybe you get a feel for why non-LDS scholars are hesitant to give the BoM the light of day as a book about actual events.

Your analogy is inexact. Hubbard hasn't written a book claiming it to be a translation of an ancient document.

But this thread is not about that at all. This thread is data and internal structural evidence in the Book of Mormon which legislates against any of those people being the authors of the Book of Mormon. I have listed four areas that any author would have to work with in order to become a viable candidate as an author of the Book of Mormon. This evidence has been assembled by qualified scholars using widely accepted methods. It is up to a Spalding/Rigdon theorist to show with equal type of scholarship how any one of the proposed authors either singly or collectively could have authored the Book of Mormon given the hurdles I enumerated. So far no one has seriously engaged the arguments.

The Spalding/Rigdon theory is on the fringe as far as scholars go. Even most non-LDS scholars and critics give it but little credence. This is an opportunity for those comfortable with that theory to show everyone else that there is something more than smoke and mirrors to this theory.

Glenn

[Bruce Schaalje]

In post # 51 Kevin makes some very good points on how the BoM can be approached. This is followed up in subsequent posts by other posters.

I think these points apply to many other texts as well, but in my opinion that doesn't mean that each text deserves the same attention. Would anyone here be willing, for example, to approach the writings of L. Ron Hubbard that way and devote their precious time and resources to such an enterprise? If not, then maybe you get a feel for why non-LDS scholars are hesitant to give the BoM the light of day as a book about actual events.

Researchers are free to research what they want. If they don

[Uncle Dale]

...

It is up to a Spalding/Rigdon theorist to show with equal type

of scholarship how any one of the proposed authors either singly

or collectively could have authored the Book of Mormon given

the hurdles I enumerated.

...

A good suggestion, no doubt -- but to whom is it really being made?

Is it not being made to the LDS themselves, as though to say:

"These 19th century authorship advocates can safely be ignored,

because we know they cannot meet our reporting requirements" ???

Or, if not to the LDS themselves, then to the Gentiles, to say:

"These Spalding-Rigdon advocates can be safely ignored, because

we can see they are not proving their case -- not even surmounting

the initial hurdles, of showing how the book could have been made." ???

Or, if not to the Brodieites and Gentiles, then how can the message

be conveyed to those who wish to investigate the S-R authorship idea?

Is this meant to say to them, "First of all, meet our standards for

scholarship, and then we will grant that your theory has enough merit

to be properly investigated by objective, fair-minded scholars, who

have not already pre-judged the controversy." ???

If the message is addressed to the S-R advocates, then they can NEVER

convince the First Presidency and Apostles that the 19th century authorship

explanations merit serious investigation.

Those General Authorities have an UNSHAKEABLE testimony -- given by direct

revelation from God -- that the book and its Nephites are "true."

For the LDS leaders, and their trusted scholars to admit that the

19th century authorship theories merit serious investigation, is to

say that God Himself has been lying to them since before 1830.

The best we can hope to do, is to one day convince Dan Vogel that

the controversy merits serious investigation. If he ever agrees,

that will mean more to the Wikipedia entries than if a thousand

LDS turn apostate and leave the church over BoM authorship.

But Dan also has an unshakeable testimony -----

that Brother Joseph wrote the book....

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

Researchers are free to research what they want. If they don

[Bruce Schaalje]

I must admit I've not written any novels but, of course, this is no criteria for critiquing the Book of Mormon. I have read the Book of Mormon and more than once and feel comfortable standing by the statement that 'generally, the characters are very linear." There are some characters that are developed and there are some story lines with some complexity. Generally speaking, however, I find this is to be the exception, not the rule.

I'm definitely going out on a limb with this post, but as a layman in literature I disagree. I haven

[Uncle Dale]

...the Hamlet-like tension...

Or, the Macbeth-like tension, when pursuers are misdirected

away from the scene of an assassination, to run after innocent

people -- who in the midst of confusion, appear to be possible

assassins themselves?

UD

[Bruce Schaalje]

Just so long as the leadership allows the LDS scholars to investigate

issues at variance with latter day revelation, and to reach their

conclusions scientifically -- (even if it means denying some parts of

LDS doctrine).

Where is Apostle Talmadge when we really need him?

UD

As Glenn points out, LDS scholars have done lots of work - whether it's not at variance with revelation is not the point. LDS revelation has nothing to do with guys like 44foxtrot who criticize what LDS researchers have done while refusing to address it in any meaningful way.

[Uncle Dale]

As Glenn points out, LDS scholars have done lots of work -

whether it's not at variance with revelation is not the point.

...

Depends upon who it is that is making said point.

As an outsider, I would at least hope that if an LDS scientist

made a discovery not in compliance with LDS doctrine, that he

or she would be free to publish that discovery, without fear

of losing his/her calling, temple recommend, or reputation.

If that freedom has not been granted, then I do not see

how the scientific method can be fully implemented by the

scholars and academics Glenn indirectly cites.

What would we make of the fact (?) that no Jewish scientist

throughout history ever reached a professional conclusion

not in agreement with the Talmud? Or if no Catholic scientist

ever made a discovery not sanctioned by Papal authority?

Would we not guess that a religious prejudice had interfered

with the proper application of the scientific method and the

right of those Jewish/RCC scientists, to publish findings not

immediately acceptable by fellow Jews or Catholics?

"Bro. Copernicus, the Holy Father, Clement VII, will see you now..."

UD

[Glenn101]

Depends upon who it is that is making said point.

As an outsider, I would at least hope that if an LDS scientist

made a discovery not in compliance with LDS doctrine, that he

or she would be free to publish that discovery, without fear

of losing his/her calling, temple recommend, or reputation.

If that freedom has not been granted, then I do not see

how the scientific method can be fully implemented by the

scholars and academics Glenn indirectly cites.

UD

Dale, that is a red herring. You have the evidence before you. If there has been a variance because a discovery might not be in compliance with official or unofficial LDS doctrine, it should be easy to spot. The proper names in the Book of Mormon though speak for themselves. They are easily confirmed or refuted now because we have computers that can search the online texts so easily. The 188 names unique to the Book of Mormon can also be checked as easily using computers. The over two hundred individual characters can be checked using computers. The chiasmus can be checked. The Hebraic idioms and constructs can also be checked, albeit a little more laboriously and a little more knowledge of the Hebrew language would be necessary. The problems needed to write a piece of fiction with a large cast of characters can be verified easily using the internet.

This is the reason but few critics have attached any significance at all to the Spalding theory. There are just too many problems that have not been addressed. Unless you or another Spalding enthusiast can assemble some cogent and coherent evidence that will overcome the holes in the theory, it is doomed to the outer fringes.

When the subject of the Conneaut and Amity witnesses were brought up, the theorists were engaged by the LDS posters here and answered point by point, in a rather lengthy thread or threads. No one seems to have been swayed either way, but at least the effort was made. No one has even attempted to show how that any of the proposed authors was even aware of chiasmus of had even a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew except for possibly Spalding. No one has even tried to show how any author could write a novel the size of the Book of Mormon and keep track of all of the plots, 200 plus characters, 300 plus names, while introducing 188 new names and keep track of all of that so well and yet do so in secrecy so complete that no one was aware of it.

Glenn

[44Foxtrot]

You have presented an irrational argument here. I.E. that no credible scientists have any interest in working with demonstrably fraudulent data sets. But if no one has tested those data sets, how are you to demonstrate fraud?

Now which of the items that I listed are demonnstrably fraudulent.

1. The over 300 proper names in the book of Mormon with 188 being unique to the Book of Mormon?

2. The cast of over two hundred different characters?

3. Complex, well crafted chiasmus such as Alma 36?

4. Authentic Hebraic idioms and structures interwoven tightly into the text throughout the Book of Mormon?

Glenn

Glenn,

My first response would be as follows. If the entire Book of Mormon has been judged as fraudulent by mainstream science, after having been available for examination for more than 150 years, then what is the point of quibbling over four apologetic straws? I see this as analogous to concern about how much heat a wooden match would add to that of a nuclear detonation.

The second response is to point out that a neutral third party considering your claims would have to select the better of two basic hypotheses with regard to the provenance of the Book of Mormon:

Hypothesis 1: A small group of men in the 19th century, one or more of whom had studied at a university, had an interest in religion, and had access to the Bible, Hebrew language materials, and contemporary manuscripts with narrative story lines very close to that found in the BoM, were able to create a fictional narrative of ancient civilizations that numbered in the millions and for which there exists no evidence, said narrative comprised in no small part of plagiarized Biblical text and stories and containing numerous contradictions and anachronisms.

Hypothesis 2. The BoM was produced solely by the supernatural aided (magical) translation of an unknown language written on golden plates, said plates being first disclosed and later removed by a supernatural being, leaving no physical evidence of their existence, said golden plates being translated by a method of looking at a stone in a hat normally when said golden plates were not even in same room as the translator and scribe, and said BoM containing numerous anachronisms and other indications of plagiarisms and fraud and having no physical evidence whatsoever to support the testable truth claims contained therein.

Which to you think a scientist would find to be a more reasonable hypothesis?

Can you see the problem here?

Would it not be clear to one who does not have a testimony of the gospel (as well as to many who have or had a testimony of the gospel) that hypothesis #1 is the one requiring fewer contingencies, and supported by more evidence, than hypothesis number 2?

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, that is a red herring.

...

No more of a "red herring," than my saying that a Muslim scientist is

not free to publish that humankind did not originate from a clot of

blood, through the instrumentality of Allah.

I helped instruct two Muslim science students who were attending

Ohio State University. They were free to study, discuss, and

write about all sorts of scientific maxims and theories -- in the

fields of astronomy, mathematics, physics, etc. But they could NOT

contradict the Koran and "The Prophet," under any circumstances.

Although we did not discuss the "clot of blood" tenet, we did discuss

human evolution in general. The two fellows were very reluctant to

say anything contradictory to the Muslim faith. Finally one of them

confessed: "When I take my tests, I act like an American: otherwise,

I act and think like a UAE (United Arab Emirates citizen)."

The fellow could not contradict Muslim theology, upon pain of a fatwa

being issued against his life. I'm not making this up.

If Mormon scientists are not under such tight restrictions, that would

be good to know.

Has there ever been an LDS scientist whose discoveries have contradicted

Mormon doctrine? ---- say, some Australian, studying American genotypes?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...The proper names in the Book of Mormon though speak for themselves.

They are easily confirmed or refuted now because we have computers

that can search the online texts so easily. The 188 names unique to

the Book of Mormon can also be checked as easily using computers.

...

OK, then -- a Mormon told me that "Kishkumen" was an ancient

Assyrian name. I answered that it was more likely taken

from the historical Kishkumenitus Village, east of Pittsburgh,

by Solomon Spalding -- who made up similar proper nouns, based

upon Great Lakes area geographical names, throughout his

Roman story.

Shall I provide you with examples?

If Spalding was incapable of constructing 188 unique names,

(mostly based upon variations of a root syllable, through the

application of prefixes and suffixes), then it stands to

reason that he could not have made up names like Helorum and

Helaman and Laman. I'm ready to concede that point.

But....

First of all; how do we investigate this?

Can you speak Assyrian?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

The problems needed to write a piece of fiction with a large cast

of characters can be verified easily using the internet.

...

And yet it is done all the time.

Granted, it would have been practically impossible for

Joseph Smith to have accomplished such a creation,

on-the-fly, while dictating to Oliver Cowdery.

But Edgar Rice Burroughs created hundreds of unique

names, ape-language words, and character-relationships

which play, and re-play, and re-play again throughout his

22 or so "Tarzan books." I think somebody one pointed out

one inconsistency among all of that literary creation.

How did Burroughs accomplish such a feat? By breaking the task

into smaller portions, and writing one story at a time. In some

cases he foresaw what characters or names he would develop in

a later part of the Tarzan epic, and merely planted the plot

"seeds" in an earlier book. In other cases, he left open the

exact number of members in a certain family, or some similar

set of relationships -- so that he could expand upon the

prior information in a later segment of the saga.

Are you saying that Robert Southey could NOT have written

"Madoc" (the story admittedly most like the BoM) because it

contains many characters, and a complex plot, wherein the

Old World migrants cross back and forth, over the Atlantic,

before finally engaging in wars of extermination -- which lead

to the eventual extinction of the preColumbian Christians of

ancient mesoAmerica?

If Southey could not have written such a lengthy, complex

saga, full of authentic preColumbian mesoAmerican names,

thirty years before the Book of Mormon, then who wrote "Madoc?"

Angels?

UD

[44Foxtrot]

As Glenn points out, LDS scholars have done lots of work - whether it's not at variance with revelation is not the point. LDS revelation has nothing to do with guys like 44foxtrot who criticize what LDS researchers have done while refusing to address it in any meaningful way.

I would also criticize serious creationists for spending a lot of time and effort on "creation science", once I had seen enough of it to know it is a useless endeavor that can add nothing of value to society. I do not see a need to address creationism in a "meaningful" way, once sufficient information is collected to ascertain its real value.

And I am sure you would agree that Scientology can be safely criticized after the most cursory consideration of its truth claims.

Is one obliged to seriously consider and address every absurdity in a "meaningful way" before passing judgment and moving on?

[Uncle Dale]

...

Is one obliged to seriously consider and address every absurdity

in a "meaningful way" before passing judgment and moving on?

The Mormons say that Zarahemla is a real place and it is the

task of Gentile and apostate critics to prove that it isn't.

The only way I can think of doing that, is to start up in

Alaska, and travel down to the tip of South America -- stopping

every ten feet along the way, and planting signs that say

"No Zarahemla here."

It would take a life-time, and a fortune to accomplish the

task. But if Google Street Views can do something similar,

then I suppose it is up to the non-Mormons to make an effort.

I'm starting in my own back-yard -- which I dug up, down to

the bed-rock, to plant a garden, without a trace of Nephites.

My new sign: "No Zarahemla here."

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

When the subject of the Conneaut and Amity witnesses were brought up,

the theorists were engaged by the LDS posters here and answered point

by point, in a rather lengthy thread or threads. No one seems to have

been swayed either way, but at least the effort was made.

...

Which parts of the Conneaut testimony can a modern Mormon accept,

and still remain a faithful, active member of the Church?

1. Solomon Spalding really did live at Conneaut.

2. He had a brother named John, who also gave testimony.

3. He wrote fiction.

4. He failed in business in Ohio.

5. He hoped to sell his fiction in Pittsburgh.

6. He wrote about the Israelites coming to America.

?????

If a Mormon agreed to item #6, could he remain a Mormon?

UD