The State of Mormon Apologetics

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not surprising to find 16th century content in a 19th century book, that is to be expected, since everything builds on itself.  What would be surprising and I would argue impossible, would be to find 19th century material in a text of 16th origins.  These kinds of anachronisms are what the proponents of the EmodE theory have failed to give a sufficient answer for.  Unless you allow for a very loose control translation, which they don't, so I'm not sure how you can have both. 

Either you have tight control which leads to specific linguistic evidences like Hebrewisms and other elements of an ancient origin, or you have a loose control which allows for Joseph to add 19th century content and linguistics to an ancient text.  The EmodE theory makes more sense if you subscribe to a loose control model in my opinion.  

Yet again, nothing in hermeneutics is simple,  nothing is black and white.

To use Exiled's bad analogy, this is nothing like "the cup is on the table.".

I think that the presumption that ( if it is a 16th century text ) that Joseph had no input whatsoever into the translation is at best naive.

If we are going to presume that we might as well go with the idea that it is God-breathed and infallible and has no input from the translator.

Both of those ideas would require a "dictation model" which excludes any input from Joseph. I just find that naive.

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of tight vs. loose control. The degree of "control" has to do with how much God was involved in mitigating errors. I believe Carmack has expressed his opinion that the translation itself could be rather dynamic or complex, meaning that even though the translation was divinely controlled, it could very well shift between literal and functional. He can speak for himself, but I'm pretty sure that is how he sees it. Or at least he is open to that being the case. In any case, that is how I see the text.

So I think you have a false dilemma on your hands. There is no reason a divinely revealed translation couldn't have high degrees of both functionality and literalness.   

I would love to understand better how Carmack reconciles what I see as a fundamental problem in the theory.  If dynamic and complex non-literal content includes things like theological concepts and other topics dependent on Joseph's environment, I'm not sure how this differs from the loose control model, which already accommodates these possibilities. 

If its just a measure of degree and it can shift along a spectrum whenever one comes across new information that challenges tight control for any particular passage, then I don't see any real value in calling it tight control.  That just sounds like the loose control model to me.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet again, nothing in hermeneutics is simple,  nothing is black and white.

To use Exiled's bad analogy, this is nothing like "the cup is on the table.".

 

I would agree that its not simple, but I would also say that the theory doesn't work.  

[champatsch]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The EmodE theory makes more sense if you subscribe to a loose control model in my opinion.

Tight and loose control refer to the the nature of the revelation, not the nature of the translation. Tight control means that words were delivered, loose control that ideas and names were delivered.

For the translation, it's helpful to use the adjectives literal and non-literal. A translation that combines both, as the Book of Mormon, could be called a dynamic or complex translation.  A creative translation is another label that could be used.

So the Book of Mormon appears to have been a dynamic translation whose delivery was tightly controlled.  If that fits the expansion theory, which I haven't studied, then they are in alignment in this respect.

[Ryan Dahle]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would love to understand better how Carmack reconciles what I see as a fundamental problem in the theory.  If dynamic and complex non-literal content includes things like theological concepts and other topics dependent on Joseph's environment, I'm not sure how this differs from the loose control model, which already accommodates these possibilities. 

If its just a measure of degree and it can shift along a spectrum whenever one comes across new information that challenges tight control for any particular passage, then I don't see any real value in calling it tight control.  That just sounds like the loose control model to me. 

It feels like we have had this conversation before. This is Carmack's explanation directly to YOU from a few months ago:

Quote

 

On 3/7/2018 at 8:56 AM, hope_for_things said:

Ok, so dynamic translation in your description sounds how I understood loose control.  I find that interesting because I thought based on what I've heard Skousen say that he is a proponent of the tight control delivery.  I honestly don't remember the distinction between translation and delivery of text that you mention.  But if Skousen is a tight control proponent, I just assumed based on your close work together that you would align with him on that, rather than allow for dynamic translation.  

The Michael Morse quote is interesting.  Its late and second hand, but many of the other details about the translation that were given about the stone in the hat line up.  I find it interesting that he proposes that Joseph must have been using other materials that he was memorizing.  He seems to acknowledge the Joseph's memory must have been good, but he doesn't agree when they ask him if it was a divinely given ability.    

I'm open to evidence to show that Joseph was using other material, and I'm sure he was using the KJV, but other than that, I don't think we have any strong evidence for other source materials being used.  

No, a dynamic translation varies between a literal translation and a non-literal or freer translation.

I've tried to explain some things to you but you seem to be having trouble grasping some crucial distinctions.

Tight control and dynamic translation are two different things entirely.  Skousen also views the Book of Mormon text as a case of dynamic translation.

For ease of comparison, let's refer to a Skousen 1998 view of the Book of Mormon text and a Gardner 2011 view of the Book of Mormon text.

Skousen 1998
First, the Lord directs / carries out a dynamic translation of the Nephite record into mostly English words.
Second, the Lord transmits / reveals the translated text to Joseph;
     the translated text appears to him as words he can somehow see.
Third, Joseph dictates the Lord's English-language translation to scribes.
Fourth, scribes write down the dictated words.

Gardner 2011
First, the Lord directs / carries out a dynamic translation of the Nephite record into ideas.
Second, the Lord transmits / reveals the translated ideas to Joseph.
Third, Joseph translates the ideas into his own biblically influenced English;
     the translated ideas appear to him as words he can somehow see.
Fourth, Joseph dictates his English-language translation to scribes.
Fifth, scribes write down the dictated words.

Hopefully the above clarifies some of the important differences in Skousen 1998 and Gardner 2011.

(I suspect that Gardner might disagree with my rendition here, in one way or another.  I am assigning a dynamic translation to the Lord, since I think the non-literal aspects of the translation were beyond Joseph's abilities in 1828 and 1829.  This, however, is a secondary consideration.  Even if we alter the initial step, and assign the dynamic part to Joseph, it really doesn't make the view any more likely, based on primary evidence—see below.)

Now, the descriptive linguistic work we've done so far has indicated to us that the Book of Mormon is full of archaic, non(pseudo)biblical syntax and grammar.
This was essentially a foreign language to Joseph Smith.

There are also dozens of potential cases of obsolete, nonbiblical lexis and phraseology in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon.
These support the descriptive work on (morpho)syntax.

These linguistic observations tend to make the Skousen 1998 view extremely likely and the Gardner 2011 view extremely unlikely.

I would ask you to think these perspectives through before posting comments that are inaccurate, and which might mislead others.  (It would be good to gain an understanding of some of the fundamental concepts, so as to increase your chances of reaching an accurate view of things.)

 

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

To use Exiled's bad analogy, this is nothing like "the cup is on the table."

 

That was an analogy you gave on another board, years ago.

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Tight and loose control refer to the the nature of the revelation, not the nature of the translation. Tight control means that words were delivered, loose control that ideas and names were delivered.

So if we're talking about 19th century content in the BoM, then wouldn't that have to fit the loose control model, because in that model an idea was communicated to Joseph and he used 19th century content to express the broad idea.  Unless you're claiming that God is the source of the 19th century content, in which case I'm not seeing a clear difference in practice between tight and loose control, because how would anyone be able to evaluate what is coming from God and what is coming from Joseph.  

14 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It feels like we have had this conversation before. This Carmack's explanation to you from a few months ago:

 

Thanks for the quote, I do remember discussing this last time around, but I don't feel like it ever made complete sense to me.  In my question on this thread, I'm trying to understand how the proponents of this theory can explain 19th century content in the BoM.  

Edited August 13, 2018 by hope_for_things

[champatsch]

What content are you thinking of?

[churchistrue]

8 hours ago, champatsch said:

 

Second, arguments that can be made for 19c content can be matched by arguments for 16c content or ancient content.  I've pointed out before that it can be reasonably argued that the themes of the Book of Mormon – religious, social, and political – do not derive from Joseph Smith’s time, but instead are the prominent issues of the Protestant Reformation, that they date from the 1500s and 1600s rather than the 1800s – examples like burning people at the stake for heresy, standing before the bar of justice, secret combinations to overthrow the government, the rejection of child baptism, the sacrament as symbolic memorial and spiritual renewal, public rather than private confession, no required works of penance, and piety in living and worship.

 

Champatsch, can you please answer.

I first heard Dr. Skousen talk this way about this theory a few years ago at a conference at BYU, but I've never quite understood the position.

If these elements reflect a 16c environment, do you view the BOM as historical? Do you view it as inspired midrash from 16c? Or do you view it as an Expansion Model kind of way, ie some sort of actual history that is expanded greatly through the translation process? How do you see the 16c environmental elements of secret combinations, burning at stake, doctrinal stuff, etc getting into the Book of Mormon?

[champatsch]

I've been looking at that short, 1888 pseudo-biblical text with greater than 50% periphrastic did (about 1,280 words).  A few things I've noticed are the following:

The 1888 text overuses "did say" to the detriment of "said" (6 of 8 = 75%).  The Book of Mormon uses "did say" about 1% of the time, sensitive to earlier tendencies.  Non-emphatic periphrastic did wasn't implemented so indiscriminately in the Book of Mormon, often matching early modern tendencies.

The 1888 text uses both exceeding and exceedingly with following adjectives. The Book of Mormon consistently uses exceeding with adjectives (exceedingly with most past participles), and it has 57 instances of "exceeding great", never "exceedingly great" — very consistent use different from 19c style, which had begun to mix usage, even with great.

The 1888 text has two instances of has, no hath.  The earliest text of the Book of Mormon is more than 90% hath, higher than Shakespeare, and similar to various 17c writers.

The 1888 text has biblical "go to" twice.  The earliest text of the Book of Mormon uses the less-common archaic "go to it" twice.

The 1888 text has "this wise", possibly an error for biblical "on this wise" (10 times). This is found in the Book of Mormon eight times. But the earliest text also has "in this wise" once (mh0718), which was more common in Early Modern English than "on this wise", though missing from the King James Bible.

The 1888 text has "now did the words of the wise men smote upon the ears of the people" — there isn't anything like this in the King James Bible or the Book of Mormon.  Perhaps this is a typo.

The 1888 text mentions "preceding verses"; the Book of Mormon doesn't ever mention verse(s).

 

In short, Book of Mormon language is so much more sophisticated and archaic than this 1888 text or any pseudo-biblical text I've looked at.

Edited August 14, 2018 by champatsch

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

That was an analogy you gave on another board, years ago.

Which works if you understand this but you don't.

Hope for things sent me this- it's a cute cartoon which actually captures your problem IF you "get" it.

In short both are linguistic descriptions and not comments on metaphysics.  But I doubt that will be a sufficient explanation for you since you are a Cartesian.  Actually this will give you a clue- see below. Ideas do not "represent" reality both types of truths- objective and subjective are linguistic utterances and do not portray metaphysical truth.  But you probably will not get either the cartoon or that point.  But yes I stand by other posts I have said that appear to contradict that post- but that is because truth is contextual.

"The cup is on the table" does not "represent" reality any more than "Joseph saw God" does - both are linguistic utterances but within different contexts/language games

The closest we get to "reality" is qualia.

"Everything is physical" is inadequate as are all the others

Clark posted some stuff by Kim which is directly relevant here.  But this is not a philosophy class

Most here are stuck in Cartesian dualism. Correspondence theory.  Oh well. 

Inadequate.

More complicated than what you think.  Again google "positivism is dead".

In short, not even physics is "objective".  Math doesn't "correspond" to reality except with several "shoehorns" pushing and shoving the observations into shape.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Logical-positivism-a-dead-philosophy

Quote

 

Positivism says all evidence and direct observations can only be non-null (or full as the opposite of null). An observation is an existence in itself that cannot be undone. This is not to be confused with true. True is already a value with meaning. The same distinction is required with zero, false, empty, and null. Intuitively these are all false to most people, but if that were so, computers would be unable to compute. Zero is not false. False is not null. Zero equals null is false. This is the essence of computability and mathematics.
 

What failed was not the lasting intuition of Positivism or Logic, but rather the attempt these philosophers made at creating a new language of pure Logic to predicate all Positivist experiences.

To this day, the leap from experience to mathematics is made manually and often painfully, through trial and error, through falsification, and through brute force. Scientists rely on their imagination, philosophic intuition, and their training in mathematics, logical formulation, experimentation, and their overall integrity as a scientist. But to this day, physics is the logical predication of observations.  And every physicist is evidence of this.

Unfortunately for philosophers, Logical Positivism ran its course, and there is really not much to talk about. This means that it made progress and graduated the realm of philosophy, contributing the fruit of its labor into mainstream science. Physics students may not even be aware of the notion, but what they are doing is precisely Logical Positivism put to practice. But what is ubiquitous is not worth mentioning because there is not much to talk about. Physicists are busy talking about physics -- as it should be. For that, they have all the philosophers that preceded them to thank.

This  topic, along with most philosophy, is confusing for beginners because  whenever you try to read about it you cannot distinguish the objective  philosophic intuitions from its subjective philosophic history.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[blueglass]

On 8/11/2018 at 5:01 PM, clarkgoble said:

The problem is always that with Joseph's method, it's not clear Joseph necessarily new what he was translating. So given the U&T it's not clear he could say what page he was on or even exactly what the relationship of the text produced to the plates was. This becomes more significant with his initial Genesis translation and especially with the Book of Abraham where there's no clear connection to the papyri. That he thought there was seems clear from the Alphabet and Grammar but it's not clear his interpretations of the connection are correct.

He did try to build an alphabet and grammar primer for the book of mormon.  he sent Martin Harris to philadelphia to get a translation from likely members of the APS.  

Edited August 14, 2018 by blueglass

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I first heard Dr. Skousen talk this way about this theory a few years ago at a conference at BYU, but I've never quite understood the position.

If these elements reflect a 16c environment, do you view the BOM as historical? Do you view it as inspired midrash from 16c? Or do you view it as an Expansion Model kind of way, ie some sort of actual history that is expanded greatly through the translation process? How do you see the 16c environmental elements of secret combinations, burning at stake, doctrinal stuff, etc getting into the Book of Mormon?

I haven't studied the Expansion model so I'm not exactly sure, but it sounds about right. Yes, historical but with a creative translation as shown by the blending of biblical phraseology in many doctrinal passages.

As for content, the 16c and 17c elements mentioned seem reasonable to me, but other arguments can be made as well.  It's not an area that I research — those have been points that Skousen has made.  I know the form and structure of the English-language text.

Book of Mormon content can come from a variety of time periods.  And isn't it often hard to nail down a particular thematic issue as definitely of one time rather than another?

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, champatsch said:

Second, arguments that can be made for 19c content can be matched by arguments for 16c content or ancient content.  I've pointed out before that it can be reasonably argued that the themes of the Book of Mormon – religious, social, and political – do not derive from Joseph Smith’s time, but instead are the prominent issues of the Protestant Reformation, that they date from the 1500s and 1600s rather than the 1800s – examples like burning people at the stake for heresy, standing before the bar of justice, secret combinations to overthrow the government, the rejection of child baptism, the sacrament as symbolic memorial and spiritual renewal, public rather than private confession, no required works of penance, and piety in living and worship.

To your list I'll add the following: soteriology, atonement theory, Garden of Eden story, Satan, Gadianton Robbers (I'm currently working on a paper on this subject), ideal forms of governmental, church-state relationship, and theory of ethical warfare. Actually I don't know of anything in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated to before about 1650 (with the exception of the first sentence of 2 Nephi 3:15 which I theorize was added by Joseph or Oliver). I've issued this challenge and I will again here: I'd like someone to find me something in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated prior to about 1650.

If you find a horde of coins in 1829 and the latest coin in the bunch dates to 1650 and the coins are all western European, then there's a pretty good chance the horde was buried in or soon after 1650 by a western European. There would be only a very small chance it was buried in, say, 1827 by an American. The horde of coins is the Book of Mormon content which tells me it was very likely produced in Europe before 1650.

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, JarMan said:

To your list I'll add the following: soteriology, atonement theory, Garden of Eden story, Satan, Gadianton Robbers (I'm currently working on a paper on this subject), ideal forms of governmental, church-state relationship, and theory of ethical warfare. Actually I don't know of anything in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated to before about 1650 (with the exception of the first sentence of 2 Nephi 3:15 which I theorize was added by Joseph or Oliver). I've issued this challenge and I will again here: I'd like someone to find me something in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated prior to about 1650.

If you find a horde of coins in 1829 and the latest coin in the bunch dates to 1650 and the coins are all western European, then there's a pretty good chance the horde was buried in or soon after 1650 by a western European. There would be only a very small chance it was buried in, say, 1827 by an American. The horde of coins is the Book of Mormon content which tells me it was very likely produced in Europe before 1650.

Masonry arguably began in 1717.

What of 2 Nephi 26

22 "And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever."

?

 

[JarMan]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Masonry arguably began in 1717.

What of 2 Nephi 26

22 "And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever."

?

 

Before freemasonry there was Rosicrucianism. From wikipedia:

Quote

Rosicrucianism is a spiritual and cultural movement which arose in Europe in the early 17th century after the publication of several texts which purported to announce the existence of a hitherto unknown esoteric order to the world and made seeking its knowledge attractive to many.[1][2] The mysterious doctrine of the order is allegedly "built on esoteric truths of the ancient past", which "concealed from the average man, provide insight into nature, the physical universe, and the spiritual realm."[3] The manifestos do not elaborate extensively on the matter, but clearly combine references to Kabbalah, Hermeticism, alchemy, and mystical Christianity.[4]

Quote

In the early 17th century, the manifestos caused excitement throughout Europe by declaring the existence of a secret brotherhood of alchemists and sages who were preparing to transform the arts, sciences, religion, and political and intellectual landscape of Europe. Wars of politics and religion ravaged the continent. The works were re-issued several times, followed by numerous pamphlets, favorable or otherwise. Between 1614 and 1620, about 400 manuscripts and books were published which discussed the Rosicrucian documents.

The peak of the "Rosicrucianism furore" was reached when two mysterious posters appeared on the walls of Paris in 1622 within a few days of each other. The first said "We, the Deputies of the Higher College of the Rose-Croix, do make our stay, visibly and invisibly, in this city (...)", and the second ended with the words "The thoughts attached to the real desire of the seeker will lead us to him and him to us."[12]

The term "secret combination" was used at this time in the same way as it is used in the Book of Mormon as we can see from this snippet from a 1623 book about the history of England.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 Better yet explain why the "placebo effect" actually works to cure people.

Just for the record, the placebo effect is largely explained by regression to the mean: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6369471/

[Glenn101]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not surprising to find 16th century content in a 19th century book, that is to be expected, since everything builds on itself.  What would be surprising and I would argue impossible, would be to find 19th century material in a text of 16th origins.  These kinds of anachronisms are what the proponents of the EmodE theory have failed to give a sufficient answer for.  Unless you allow for a very loose control translation, which they don't, so I'm not sure how you can have both. 

Either you have tight control which leads to specific linguistic evidences like Hebrewisms and other elements of an ancient origin, or you have a loose control which allows for Joseph to add 19th century content and linguistics to an ancient text.  The EmodE theory makes more sense if you subscribe to a loose control model in my opinion.  

Why is 16th century content to be expected in a document supposedly authored by Joseph Smith, a person with no known contact with 16th century ideas and thoughts. Then, there are things that should not be in a ninteenth century text such as the Early Modern English and many of the names found in the Book of Mormon. That is something that opponents of the EmodE theory (which is not a theory by the way) fail to come to ghrips with.

Glenn

[churchistrue]

14 hours ago, champatsch said:

Tight and loose control refer to the the nature of the revelation, not the nature of the translation. Tight control means that words were delivered, loose control that ideas and names were delivered.

For the translation, it's helpful to use the adjectives literal and non-literal. A translation that combines both, as the Book of Mormon, could be called a dynamic or complex translation.  A creative translation is another label that could be used.

So the Book of Mormon appears to have been a dynamic translation whose delivery was tightly controlled.  If that fits the expansion theory, which I haven't studied, then they are in alignment in this respect.

Loose = Nephi to the 17c text

Tight = from the 17c text to Joseph

Is that what you mean?

Using your theory, I call the loose part the translation and the tight part the dictation. I don't believe in the 17c thing or that the BOM is historical, but I make sense of the evidence of dictation as that the loose translation was Joseph in his brain. And the tight dictation was Joseph's brain to his mouth via the seerstone.

 

[Glenn101]

13 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Loose = Nephi to the 17c text

Tight = from the 17c text to Joseph

Is that what you mean?

Using your theory, I call the loose part the translation and the tight part the dictation. I don't believe in the 17c thing or that the BOM is historical, but I make sense of the evidence of dictation as that the loose translation was Joseph in his brain. And the tight dictation was Joseph's brain to his mouth via the seerstone.

 

What happened with the 16th century text?

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

Before freemasonry there was Rosicrucianism. From wikipedia:

The term "secret combination" was used at this time in the same way as it is used in the Book of Mormon as we can see from this snippet from a 1623 book about the history of England.

What does this have to do with flaxen cords?

There have been secret societies throughout history.

One could simply hold that that verse was a 19th century intrusion into a 16th century text, but you were dogmatic that there were NO such intrusions. Clearly there are.

So as not to link to anti Mormon or Masonic sites:

https://www.amazon.com/Koch-5560415-48-Feet-Braided-Mason/dp/B004Y75N7K

But this IS an exception I think to your point quoted here, flaxen cords in masonry can't be dated prior to 1650.

"Actually I don't know of anything in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated to before about 1650 (with the exception of the first sentence of 2 Nephi 3:15 which I theorize was added by Joseph or Oliver). I've issued this challenge and I will again here: I'd like someone to find me something in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated prior to about 1650."

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Why is 16th century content to be expected in a document supposedly authored by Joseph Smith, a person with no known contact with 16th century ideas and thoughts. Then, there are things that should not be in a ninteenth century text such as the Early Modern English and many of the names found in the Book of Mormon. That is something that opponents of the EmodE theory (which is not a theory by the way) fail to come to ghrips with.

Glenn

Champatsch was distinguishing between content (Ideas and concepts) and language & grammar (EmodE).  I'm talking about content, and with respect to content, we have a lot of ideas that last for many generations, especially in religion.  We frequently talk about 19th century ideas in the 21st century in Mormonism.  Its to be expected that 16th and 17th century theology would still exist in the 19th century.  The opposite is not true, we would not expect to see uniquely 19th century theology to be found in a 16th century book.  That's the question I'm asking is how do people explain that, using their dynamic translation model.

[churchistrue]

38 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

What happened with the 16th century text?

Glenn

You asking me? If so, I don't understand the question.

[churchistrue]

Also, is it 16c or 17c? I thought we were targeting the time period after the finalizing of the KJV in early 1600's?

[jkwilliams]

16 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

As I explained, it is only an overstatement if you misunderstand the meaning of the statement. The statement isn't claiming there is no possible way that someone could interpret "secret combinations" as evidence in support of the BofM being a 19th century work of fiction. It's just saying that there is nothing at all compelling about this piece of evidence. It can be "fully dismissed" as a stumbling block to one's faith.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the fact that the phrase "secret combinations" and its association with 19th century Masonry has been seen as a supposedly noteworthy piece of evidence in favor of the BofM being 19th century fiction. I'm not sure how you would miss that, though, considering it was the premise of the KnoWhy I referenced. Maybe you have something else in mind, here.

I'm quite familiar with that argument, and I read the information you linked to. My point is that there is a correlation between the use of "secret combination" both as a phrase and as a concept around the time of the emergence of the Book of Mormon. You seem to believe that's merely coincidental. Fair enough.