InCognitus Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 On 12/10/2019 at 9:03 AM, theplains said: Early church leaders, one being President Heber J. Grant in General Conference, taught that the Hill Cumorah (where the great battle took place) was located in New York State (April 1928 GC, pages 8, 10, 13, 15, 22, 96, 100, and 107. Do you believe this? I don’t believe what you said above about President Grant at the April 1928 General Conference, no. President Grant conducted some of the sessions, but he gave only two talks at that conference. The first talk spans pages 2 through the top of page 10, the second talk runs from page 120 to 121. Of all the page numbers you reference, only page 8 intersects with one of President Grant’s talks, and on that page he discusses the Church’s (then recent) purchase of the Hill Cumorah where Joseph recovered the plates, but he doesn’t say anything about a great battle taking place there like you said he did above. But even if that was the case, I would take his comments on such things (as I do with the leaders that actually said such things) the same as I do with the apostle Paul in the Bible indicating that the second coming would happen during his own lifetime. God reveals some things clearly, but not all things are revealed. In areas where God’s revelations are silent, the apostles and prophets can have opinions about how to interpret those things just like everyone else, and their opinions may or may not always be right. 1
Meadowchik Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 15 hours ago, alter idem said: No, you did not. But IMO, you implied it. In one of your earlier responses to me, you quoted this from B.H. Roberts--and you bolded this portion. Notice the elipses right before this statement that you bolded. Sometimes elipses can be a problem. But, this portion that you bolded, taken out of the context of Robert's writings, makes it sound like he is giving his own personal belief that Joseph Smith was the creator of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites, etc. And why shouldn't I come to the conclusion that you are supporting that notion, since as you presented it, offering no explanation or background, it would seem you were suggesting it stand alone and speak for itself. I had to look up the source material which was published as; 'Book of Mormon Studies' by B.H. Roberts and read a lot of other information about it to figure out that his writings have been misrepresented and used by critics (namely James Spencer) to make the assertion that B. H. Roberts had lost his testimony in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. If you did not want to support this assertion, you probably should not have presented in the manner you did. I honestly don't know his conclusive beliefs about the Book of Mormon, especially not his testimony of it in the way testimony is spoken in LDS culture. I think it is possible for Roberts to have a professional historical opinion about the quality of the Book of Mormon which diverges from his religious belief. The point to me is that Roberts was saying that the Book of Mormon appears to be the product of someone naively attempted to write something that looks historical. Even if he was playing Devil's Advocate at the moment, the point is that he anticipates it as a reasonable argument. If you feel you found something in the larger context that reverses that characterisation, please post what you think supports that.
Meadowchik Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 14 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: In my view, mental plans are far less important than, say, pre-written notes, outlines, or preliminary drafts, and especially the ability to make revisions. So I don't think it is really that relevant of a point. If someone wants to assume that Joseph Smith was one of those rare individuals with essentially total mental recall, and that he could apply his unusually gifted memory to his creative imaginings, and that his creative imagination of the text included tons of data-rich nuances, they are free to do so. They just need to realize how rare (and in this specific type of circumstance, probably unprecedented) that type of creative memorization would be, and also to account for the fact that those around Joseph never mentioned him manifesting such creativity/memorization skills in other relevant contexts. For a culture that largely does depend on oratorical communication, I would think it's reasonable to say that unwritten notes and plans can take on a larger role than we are accostomed to seeing today. 14 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: No, I have never scientifically or systematically compared the Book of Mormon to other complex texts. I don't think anyone has, at least not in a holistic way. There is so much data in so many fields to wade through that it would be a very difficult project. It usually takes years of careful research to become passingly familiar with the nature of the Book of Mormon's complexity. And to compare all of that with multiple other texts on all the relevant levels would be a monumental task. But I am familiar with a variety of complex texts other than the Book of Mormon, and feel that I am at least somewhat qualified to reach preliminary conclusions about their comparative complexity. As for sources, you might start with Grant Hardy's, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide. I actually disagree, at least with the nuances, of a lot of Hardy's analysis, at least when he gets into speculative mind-reading about motivations. But overall, I think his book identifies numerous consistencies and patterns in editorial choices, the use of source texts, and narrative complexities. I could flood you with dozens of other sources, but that is a good place to start. I think that to examine the impossibility of a human production of the Book of Mormon, don't you have to also examine the complexity of other human works? Included would be factors which you've already claimed to be important: length, education level, time to produce, rhetorical and plot elements, and any other objectively-measurable characteristics. If you don't measure the Book of Mormon with its assumed conditions of production against other works and theirs, then I don't think that an objective conclusion about its human impossibility can be drawn. Thanks for the Grant Hardy reference.
Meadowchik Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 14 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Yes, I am familiar with Ramanujan. A very impressive individual. But I don't think he is really that analogous. And I think what you mean to say is that a very small portion of humans can do extraordinary things. Most of our abilities are rather ordinary. So, in context, very few humans are truly amazing. And, in the case of Joseph Smith's production of the Book of Mormon, his degree of amazing is to my knowledge unprecedented. I really do think all humans are amazing. Not everyone may be able to play the piano or speak a second language or dribble a basketball, but human beings have tremendous faculty. Sometimes people are less proven by life experiences, potential left untested or applied in intelligent ways that are less discernible. Human beings are also collectively amazing, too. And I think that when a person's opportunities to apply their abilities are limited but need to do so is desperate or urgent, they can do amazing things. I would say that anyone has the potential to surprise us, given the right conditions and motivations.
Meadowchik Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 3 hours ago, InCognitus said: Yet most any mother would know if her child was apt to make up and tell stories, or if the child was just good at remembering and recounting events that actually happened in his or her life. The point here is that the very source that everyone uses to try to claim that Joseph was a mere “storyteller” is one that explicitly states that he was only recounting the things that were shown to him from the Lord. A person can choose to disbelieve that the revelations and visions happened, but then they need some way to explain away the things that he said happened to him. One of the ways to do that is to say he just made it all up. But that line of thinking gets more problematic as more and more witnesses participate in the visions and revelations as time goes on. She says she believed the Lord told him, but she does not know the Lord told him. Joseph's family also practiced magical rituals. I think we can say they might have liberally interpreted many things as supernatural, like was not that unusual in their community. 3 hours ago, InCognitus said: Again, the point here is that the unlikely use of Alma as a male name turned out to be historically accurate based on archaeological discoveries made decades later. The same for the phrase “land of Jerusalem”. Why not just say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem like any child would have easily known in the early 19th-century? What are the chances of just happening to use an odd phrase in that context that turns out to be a historically accurate usage from the 600 BC time period? How did he get so lucky on so many things? What are the chances, indeed? The chances may be much higher than you estimate. And language lends itself to connections. 4 hours ago, InCognitus said: But there is a reason that he would need to do extensive research, or at least that’s what many critics say that Joseph must have done. Otherwise, how did he get all of the old world geography right, including the exact location of the place called Nahom, and some things not known in 1829? (See: Evidences of the Book of Mormon: Old World Geography: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yjKSaegLJg This video is concise and makes the point quite well). And how did he know about and execute some of the best examples of chiasmus ever discovered? "As evidence of Book of Mormon authorship, the discovery of biblical-style chiasms in the Book of Mormon strongly tends to reduce the probability that Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries could have written the book." (See: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-is-the-presence-of-chiasmus-in-the-book-of-mormon-significant). Some have suggested that he got these ideas from reading the Bible, but his mother described him (in the quote I posted previously) as a boy “who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.” If Joseph had written the Book of Mormon, why didn’t he promote these features of the book as evidence of its authenticity? There’s so much more that could be said about this. I don't know that intentional research would have been necessary for Joseph Smith to be exposed to much more information about Old World Geography, or places or names. For generations before his birth, people were speculating about native Americans being the Lost Tribes. An enormous topic of Joseph's day was the New Jerusalem, which would have naturally perpetuated a fascination in "Old" Jerusalem and its surrounding environs. People were fascinated by it, people were talking about it. That said, from what I have read, the Nahom-NHM-Naham-Nehhm connection you are describing is not convincingly strong. 5 hours ago, InCognitus said: But the assumption that Joseph got his ideas about war from his 19th-century environment also works against your claims. Several articles have been written on the type of warfare depicted in the Book of Mormon, and it’s nothing like anything that Joseph would have known. See a summary here: Is the Book of Mormon's Depiction of Guerrilla Warfare Realistic? ( https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/is-the-book-of-mormons-depiction-of-guerrilla-warfare-realistic). One can hardly classify all the warfare in the Book of Mormon as guerilla warfare. Come on, now. 5 hours ago, InCognitus said: But this inconsistency between what Joseph dictated and what he said invalidates the claim that Joseph wrote the book himself, and also eliminates your need to hold on to the myths about the story telling abilities of Joseph Smith, doesn’t it? Why would it? You're saying that inconsistency you percieve between what the Book of Mormon implies and what Joseph said about it mean he could not have produced it? I don't think so. It would not be surprising to me that a person writes something without being aware of all the implications of what they write. That said, I think those perceived implications are just that, and not necessarily the only way to read the book.
Ryan Dahle Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: 20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: In my view, mental plans are far less important than, say, pre-written notes, outlines, or preliminary drafts, and especially the ability to make revisions. So I don't think it is really that relevant of a point. If someone wants to assume that Joseph Smith was one of those rare individuals with essentially total mental recall, and that he could apply his unusually gifted memory to his creative imaginings, and that his creative imagination of the text included tons of data-rich nuances, they are free to do so. They just need to realize how rare (and in this specific type of circumstance, probably unprecedented) that type of creative memorization would be, and also to account for the fact that those around Joseph never mentioned him manifesting such creativity/memorization skills in other relevant contexts. For a culture that largely does depend on oratorical communication, I would think it's reasonable to say that unwritten notes and plans can take on a larger role than we are accostomed to seeing today. Actually, the transition into widespread literacy was already well underway. It had been centuries since the printing press was invented. Books, periodicals, tracts, and other written media were in high supply and regularly consumed by Americans. It likely wasn't anything like the primarily oral cultures found among ancient societies. Yes oral discourse was still alive and well in 1829, as it is today. But the idea that Joseph had some sort of culturally inherited storytelling ability akin to the bards and story tellers of ancient or medieval times seems to be unfounded. Besides, as far as I'm aware, such stories were fairly formulaic and low on diverse data sets. So, again, not really comparable or sufficiently explanatory. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I think that to examine the impossibility of a human production of the Book of Mormon, don't you have to also examine the complexity of other human works? Included would be factors which you've already claimed to be important: length, education level, time to produce, rhetorical and plot elements, and any other objectively-measurable characteristics. If you don't measure the Book of Mormon with its assumed conditions of production against other works and theirs, then I don't think that an objective conclusion about its human impossibility can be drawn. Thanks for the Grant Hardy reference. Like I said before, no one can prove the production of the text was humanly impossible, just like no one can prove that it is impossible to run a mile in under 4 minutes while juggling 10 balls or more. It is simply unprecedented, and by all reasonable inferences, highly implausible that Joseph could have produced the text. Just for clarification, I never meant to imply that there hadn't been any objective studies on the Book of Mormon or that such evaluations can't be made on some levels. For instance, we already have a fairly objective grounds to start with: (1) the author's age, (2) the author's formal education, (3) the author's prior literary experience, (4) the length of the text, (5) the author's rate of production, (6) the author's revision and editing process, (7) the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials, and (8) the author's mode of storytelling (dictation, pen and ink, typewriter, computer, etc.). Some initial research has already been conducted on these types of criteria. While some authors match Joseph Smith in multiple categories, he appears to be unique when all relevant factors are included. For example, see: Brian C. Hales, "Curiously Unique: Joseph Smith as Author of the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 31 (2019): 151-190. Hales followed up and added to this research in his FairMormon presentation this year, entitled "Supernatural or Supernormal? Scrutinizing Secular Sources for the Book of Mormon." Unfortunately, neither a transcript nor a video of the presentation is currently available (to my knowledge), at least not for free (you might be able to purchase the video; I don't know). There are also some other studies comparing the production of the Book of Mormon with fairly contemporary authors: Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 1–16. Robert A. Rees, “John Milton, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2015): 6–18. Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (2002): 83–112. And then there are other linguistic studies that are fairly objective. For instance, these articles summarize some stylometric research on the Book of Mormon. One of them demonstrates, on fairly objective linguistic grounds, that the Book of Mormon's voice diversity is greater than that achieved by the combined efforts of eight prominent contemporary authors: Book of Mormon Central, “What Can Stylometry Tell Us about Book of Mormon Authorship? (Jacob 4:4),” KnoWhy 389 (December 12, 2017). Book of Mormon Central, “Is It Possible That a Single Author Wrote the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:13),” KnoWhy 399 (January 16, 2018). And then there is all of the Early Modern English data I mentioned before. I have personally conducted experiments that aim to assess how difficult it is for an author to mimic archaic language that isn't part of his or her working vocabulary. It turns out, that for those I tested, it was quite difficult, even though they were familiar with the archaic features from years of reading the Book of Mormon and Bible. So the diverse body of biblical and especially the extrabiblical archaic lexis, grammar, and syntax needs to be collectively accounted for by anyone assessing whether or not Joseph Smith was likely responsible for the English wording of the text. IMO, this alone strongly rules out Joseph Smith as the author. Then there is the pervasive intertextuality. The Book of Mormon quotes multiple consecutive chapters from both the Old and New Testaments (nearly verbatim) and allusions to both texts (and also internally to other Book of Mormon texts) are pervasive. I have an internal document we use at work and I believe we have counted over 900 allusions to the Old and New Testaments (not counting internal allusions). And I have, in my own research, come across many more examples that the initial research missed. These allusions come from all over the Bible, and sometimes are blended in complex ways or in contexts that make brilliant sense. When these are combined with internal textual allusions, the weight of intertextuality becomes staggering. If Joseph Smith authored the text, he would have needed an impressively deep familiarity with both the Bible and with the range of texts that he himself was producing. Remember, no looking back at what so an so said. No revisions to make the language closer. He has to have this all in his head and spout it off from memory in his first take. Then add all of the poetic structures. They are more varied and prolific than anything I have personally seen in any other 19th century text. And, by the estimation of a number of scholars (some not Latter-day Saints), they are impressive for their literary brilliance. In other words, not just the arranging of words, but the rhetorical functions of those arrangements. Sure, some examples of chiasmus or literary rounds or other parallelisms can be found in the 17th-19th centuries. But, to my knowledge, nothing even comes close to the Book of Mormon, except for the Bible and other ancient texts. So, as far as form or structure goes, the Book of Mormon is highly poetic, and such organization adds another layer of complexity. If you think you can find another text that is comparable in variety, quantity, and quality, please point it out to me. And then of course, you would need to compare the production circumstances of that text with the production circumstances of the Book of Mormon. Have you ever tried to create a 4 or 5 level chiasm? How about 3- or 4-level antithetical parallelism? Ever come up with ten or more layers of gradation? People can talk all day about how such things are just natural to 19th century authors, that it was part of their natural speech patterns or oration or something, but I've never seen any actual evidence of that. If you have any evidence that 19th century preachers or politicians or writers were copiously peppering their texts or speeches with lengthy chiasms or other parallelisms that are truly comparable to those found in the Book of Mormon, I would be interested to see it. Then add in the frequent references to calendar dates, locations, directions, characters, events, records, etc. Then look at the editorial complexity of the book. Then look at the doctrinal complexity of the book. Then look at its narrative complexity, including its flashback sequences (one section even has a flashback within a flashback). Then look at all of the editorial promises and the prophecies that need to be fulfilled. And so on and so forth. Those are things that can be appreciated and accounted for, but that are difficult to systematically compare with other texts. I'm not saying it can't be done, but just that hasn't been done yet. If you feel there is another text that truly might be comparable in the range of its complexity, and that at the outset is comparable to the reported details of the Book of Mormon's production--meaning (1) the author's age, (2) the author's formal education, (3) the author's prior literary experience, (4) the length of the text, (5) the author's rate of production, (6) the author's revision and editing process, (7) the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials, and (8) the author's mode of storytelling--then by all means point us to that text. Until then, I think that it is more than reasonable to assume the Book of Mormon is uniquely amazing in ways that other texts aren't. This will probably be my last comment on this topic, unless you can come up with texts that you feel are truly comparable. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in trying to push back against rather vague arguments that people are just amazing. If they are amazing in ways that are truly analogous, then demonstrate it. If not, then I don't think there is much else to discuss on the matter. 3
mfbukowski Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 There are no facts, only interpretations and this thread is a perfect illustration of that principle as well as a wonderful illustration of the importance of hermeneutics. What historic figure can we psychoanalyze next? Oh wait. First we have to Define our terms and what hermeneutic theory we are using! Oh well too much work I guess. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: Like I said before, no one can prove the production of the text was humanly impossible, just like no one can prove that it is impossible to run a mile in under 4 minutes while juggling 10 balls or more. It is simply unprecedented, and by all reasonable inferences, highly implausible that Joseph could have produced the text. Just for clarification, I never meant to imply that there hadn't been any objective studies on the Book of Mormon or that such evaluations can't be made on some levels. For instance, we already have a fairly objective grounds to start with: (1) the author's age, (2) the author's formal education, (3) the author's prior literary experience, (4) the length of the text, (5) the author's rate of production, (6) the author's revision and editing process, (7) the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials, and (8) the author's mode of storytelling (dictation, pen and ink, typewriter, computer, etc.). Some initial research has already been conducted on these types of criteria. While some authors match Joseph Smith in multiple categories, he appears to be unique when all relevant factors are included. For example, see: Brian C. Hales, "Curiously Unique: Joseph Smith as Author of the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 31 (2019): 151-190. Hales followed up and added to this research in his FairMormon presentation this year, entitled "Supernatural or Supernormal? Scrutinizing Secular Sources for the Book of Mormon." Unfortunately, neither a transcript nor a video of the presentation is currently available (to my knowledge), at least not for free (you might be able to purchase the video; I don't know). There are also some other studies comparing the production of the Book of Mormon with fairly contemporary authors: Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 1–16. Robert A. Rees, “John Milton, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2015): 6–18. Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (2002): 83–112. And then there are other linguistic studies that are fairly objective. For instance, these articles summarize some stylometric research on the Book of Mormon. One of them demonstrates, on fairly objective linguistic grounds, that the Book of Mormon's voice diversity is greater than that achieved by the combined efforts of eight prominent contemporary authors: Book of Mormon Central, “What Can Stylometry Tell Us about Book of Mormon Authorship? (Jacob 4:4),” KnoWhy 389 (December 12, 2017). Book of Mormon Central, “Is It Possible That a Single Author Wrote the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:13),” KnoWhy 399 (January 16, 2018). And then there is all of the Early Modern English data I mentioned before. I have personally conducted experiments that aim to assess how difficult it is for an author to mimic archaic language that isn't part of his or her working vocabulary. It turns out, that for those I tested, it was quite difficult, even though they were familiar with the archaic features from years of reading the Book of Mormon and Bible. So the diverse body of biblical and especially the extrabiblical archaic lexis, grammar, and syntax needs to be collectively accounted for by anyone assessing whether or not Joseph Smith was likely responsible for the English wording of the text. IMO, this alone strongly rules out Joseph Smith as the author. Then there is the pervasive intertextuality. The Book of Mormon quotes multiple consecutive chapters from both the Old and New Testaments (nearly verbatim) and allusions to both texts (and also internally to other Book of Mormon texts) are pervasive. I have an internal document we use at work and I believe we have counted over 900 allusions to the Old and New Testaments (not counting internal allusions). And I have, in my own research, come across many more examples that the initial research missed. These allusions come from all over the Bible, and sometimes are blended in complex ways or in contexts that make brilliant sense. When these are combined with internal textual allusions, the weight of intertextuality becomes staggering. If Joseph Smith authored the text, he would have needed an impressively deep familiarity with both the Bible and with the range of texts that he himself was producing. Remember, no looking back at what so an so said. No revisions to make the language closer. He has to have this all in his head and spout it off from memory in his first take. Then add all of the poetic structures. They are more varied and prolific than anything I have personally seen in any other 19th century text. And, by the estimation of a number of scholars (some not Latter-day Saints), they are impressive for their literary brilliance. In other words, not just the arranging of words, but the rhetorical functions of those arrangements. Sure, some examples of chiasmus or literary rounds or other parallelisms can be found in the 17th-19th centuries. But, to my knowledge, nothing even comes close to the Book of Mormon, except for the Bible and other ancient texts. So, as far as form or structure goes, the Book of Mormon is highly poetic, and such organization adds another layer of complexity. If you think you can find another text that is comparable in variety, quantity, and quality, please point it out to me. And then of course, you would need to compare the production circumstances of that text with the production circumstances of the Book of Mormon. Have you ever tried to create a 4 or 5 level chiasm? How about 3- or 4-level antithetical parallelism? Ever come up with ten or more layers of gradation? People can talk all day about how such things are just natural to 19th century authors, that it was part of their natural speech patterns or oration or something, but I've never seen any actual evidence of that. If you have any evidence that 19th century preachers or politicians or writers were copiously peppering their texts or speeches with lengthy chiasms or other parallelisms that are truly comparable to those found in the Book of Mormon, I would be interested to see it. Then add in the frequent references to calendar dates, locations, directions, characters, events, records, etc. Then look at the editorial complexity of the book. Then look at the doctrinal complexity of the book. Then look at its narrative complexity, including its flashback sequences (one section even has a flashback within a flashback). Then look at all of the editorial promises and the prophecies that need to be fulfilled. And so on and so forth. Those are things that can be appreciated and accounted for, but that are difficult to systematically compare with other texts. I'm not saying it can't be done, but just that hasn't been done yet. If you feel there is another text that truly might be comparable in the range of its complexity, and that at the outset is comparable to the reported details of the Book of Mormon's production--meaning (1) the author's age, (2) the author's formal education, (3) the author's prior literary experience, (4) the length of the text, (5) the author's rate of production, (6) the author's revision and editing process, (7) the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials, and (8) the author's mode of storytelling--then by all means point us to that text. Until then, I think that it is more than reasonable to assume the Book of Mormon is uniquely amazing in ways that other texts aren't. This will probably be my last comment on this topic, unless you can come up with texts that you feel are truly comparable. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in trying to push back against rather vague arguments that people are just amazing. If they are amazing in ways that are truly analogous, then demonstrate it. If not, then I don't think there is much else to discuss on the matter. Hmmmm. Seems like a few variables there. Exactly what are the statistical chances of finding out the "truth" with those variables? After all if we don't have objective evidence we have nothing. Any positivist can tell you that. All this talk is spiffy fun, but the bottom line is still that only the spirit can tell you that the Book of Mormon is scripture. Edited December 14, 2019 by mfbukowski
Ryan Dahle Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Hmmmm. Seems like a few variables there. Exactly what are the statistical chances of finding out the "truth" with those variables? After all if we don't have objective evidence we have nothing. Any positivist can tell you that. I use "objective" in ways that others can relate to, even though I am well aware of the underlying epistemic concerns. In the end, it all circles back anyways, so that conversations will be essentially the same, just with more nuanced qualifications. I just find it to be a rather pedantic exercise to try to change people's epistemic worldview before having conversations with them.
InCognitus Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 7 hours ago, Meadowchik said: 12 hours ago, InCognitus said: But that line of thinking gets more problematic as more and more witnesses participate in the visions and revelations as time goes on. She says she believed the Lord told him, but she does not know the Lord told him. Joseph's family also practiced magical rituals. I think we can say they might have liberally interpreted many things as supernatural, like was not that unusual in their community. None of this explains the fact that there were more and more witnesses to these visions and revelations as time went on. Oliver Cowdery and the priesthood restoration, the three witnesses to the angel and the plates, and eight witnesses to the plates, Sidney Rigdon with Joseph Smith seeing in vision the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father and the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, and more and more and more. If Joseph was just making all of this up for the sake of the Book of Mormon then he was quite thorough about it and biblically consistent in doing so. 7 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I don't know that intentional research would have been necessary for Joseph Smith to be exposed to much more information about Old World Geography, or places or names. For generations before his birth, people were speculating about native Americans being the Lost Tribes. An enormous topic of Joseph's day was the New Jerusalem, which would have naturally perpetuated a fascination in "Old" Jerusalem and its surrounding environs. People were fascinated by it, people were talking about it. There are reasons that people would be speculating about such things. If I went to a new and uncharted land in that day and age, I would wonder about such things. But the Book of Mormon doesn't really answer the question about the "lost tribes" (other than pointing out that the Lord has not forgotten them and making more prophesies of their gathering again). It is primarily only about one of them (Manasseh ). But the fact that people in the 19th-century speculated about such things doesn't prove that Joseph wrote the book. 7 hours ago, Meadowchik said: That said, from what I have read, the Nahom-NHM-Naham-Nehhm connection you are describing is not convincingly strong. Did you watch the video? (Watch the video!) People have tried to explain away the Nahom connection, but it is located exactly where it is supposed to be in their route, after the Valley of Lemuel (Wadi Tayyib Al Ism) and Shazer (Wadi Sharma), then though the "more fertile parts" of the land down to Nahom (exactly where it should be), then nearly eastward to the place they called Bountiful (Khor Kharfot), that matched the description given in the Book of Mormon perfectly. Joseph couldn't have possibly guessed this. How did he know this stuff if he's the one that wrote the book? 7 hours ago, Meadowchik said: One can hardly classify all the warfare in the Book of Mormon as guerilla warfare. Come on, now. Did I say "all" the warfare? No. Dictionary.com: guerrilla warfare "the use of hit-and-run tactics by small, mobile groups of irregular forces operating in territory controlled by a hostile, regular force." Wikipedia: Guerrilla warfare: "Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which small groups of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility, to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military." This is exactly the type of warfare described in the Book of Mormon carried out by the Gadianton robbers, and it is nothing like any kind of warfare known in Joseph Smith's day. Come on now indeed! 7 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Why would it? You're saying that inconsistency you percieve between what the Book of Mormon implies and what Joseph said about it mean he could not have produced it? I don't think so. It would not be surprising to me that a person writes something without being aware of all the implications of what they write. That said, I think those perceived implications are just that, and not necessarily the only way to read the book. We are not talking about implications, we're talking about a specific measured and consistent geography within the text that he had to keep straight in his head as he wrote the text (if he wrote it himself). Are you saying that Joseph wrote a book with consistent and measured geographical distances between specified locations, maintaining the integrity of that geography throughout the entire text of a 500 page book, and then after the book is published he totally forgot all of the measured distances that he had to keep straight in his mind and assumed that the book covered a vastly larger area of land? In other words, Joseph was a really intelligent guy with amnesia? This is ridiculous. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said: I just find it to be a rather pedantic exercise to try to change people's epistemic worldview before having conversations with them. Interesting. So then they don't "know" what they think they know and have no intellectually examined basis in the meaning of the word, and get confused when people say "You can't possibly know that!" , and then leave the church over a conversation which remains logically unexamined. All for the horrible risk of being called "pedantic". An unexamined life.... oh well. To each his own I suppose. Edited December 14, 2019 by mfbukowski
esodije Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 I don’t think Joseph Smith could have succeeded as the leader of a religious movement unless he was both charismatic and intelligent. I had a stake president who was gifted in both of those attributes, and I’ve often thought about how much he was like “Brother Joseph.” Brigham Young was the same way; I always thought it was ironic that Hollywood (cf. Brigham Young, starring Dean Jagger) portrayed BY as a shrinking violet who assumed leadership only with great reluctance.
alter idem Posted December 14, 2019 Posted December 14, 2019 9 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I honestly don't know his conclusive beliefs about the Book of Mormon, especially not his testimony of it in the way testimony is spoken in LDS culture. I think it is possible for Roberts to have a professional historical opinion about the quality of the Book of Mormon which diverges from his religious belief. The point to me is that Roberts was saying that the Book of Mormon appears to be the product of someone naively attempted to write something that looks historical. Even if he was playing Devil's Advocate at the moment, the point is that he anticipates it as a reasonable argument. If you feel you found something in the larger context that reverses that characterisation, please post what you think supports that. But, that's the problem,. The point I'm trying to get through to you is that BH Roberts did not believe that a naive person tried to write something that looked historical. If you think that, you've been misinformed. I'm happy to post the evidence once again, and maybe if you care, you'll read it. It will change your mind, since it clearly indicates that B.H. Roberts believed no such thing. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1326&context=msr https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/evasive-ignorance-anti-mormon-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony From the article, which I posted earlier: If you don't read anything I've linked to, maybe you will read this: Quote Taken as a whole, the evidence does not support the assertion that B.H. Roberts lost his faith in the divine origins and translation of the Book of Mormon. In fact, examining all of the evidence in context exposes those who have sought to capitalize on this issue as either irresponsibly ignorant of key elements of the controversy, or purposely evasive and deceptive in concealing evidence harmful to this claim. Hopefully, this paper will equip people with the information and sources necessary to challenge this claim. Hopefully, it will also encourage those who continue to claim that Elder B.H. Roberts lost his testimony of the Book of Mormon to reevaluate their failure (intentionally or ignorantly) to disclose vital information related to the question. Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often simply ignore responses to their arguments without dealing with them, as if the responses had never been made, but this ceases to be practical or wise for them once the responses receive wide circulation and awareness. The “B.H. Roberts Question” is a good example of a claim that probably would never be made if it were confined to an honest examination of the facts.46 I am being emphatic about this, and that is because I think B.H. Roberts deserves to have his testimony defended--just like he was known as 'the defender of the faith' all his life. His character and his firm testimony should not be maligned by anti-mormons who've tried to ruin his legacy, suggesting he was in later years, a closet disbeliever and liar in public. 4
mrmarklin Posted December 15, 2019 Posted December 15, 2019 7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Like I said before, no one can prove the production of the text was humanly impossible, just like no one can prove that it is impossible to run a mile in under 4 minutes while juggling 10 balls or more. It is simply unprecedented, and by all reasonable inferences, highly implausible that Joseph could have produced the text. Just for clarification, I never meant to imply that there hadn't been any objective studies on the Book of Mormon or that such evaluations can't be made on some levels. For instance, we already have a fairly objective grounds to start with: (1) the author's age, (2) the author's formal education, (3) the author's prior literary experience, (4) the length of the text, (5) the author's rate of production, (6) the author's revision and editing process, (7) the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials, and (8) the author's mode of storytelling (dictation, pen and ink, typewriter, computer, etc.). Some initial research has already been conducted on these types of criteria. While some authors match Joseph Smith in multiple categories, he appears to be unique when all relevant factors are included. For example, see: Brian C. Hales, "Curiously Unique: Joseph Smith as Author of the Book of Mormon," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 31 (2019): 151-190. Hales followed up and added to this research in his FairMormon presentation this year, entitled "Supernatural or Supernormal? Scrutinizing Secular Sources for the Book of Mormon." Unfortunately, neither a transcript nor a video of the presentation is currently available (to my knowledge), at least not for free (you might be able to purchase the video; I don't know). There are also some other studies comparing the production of the Book of Mormon with fairly contemporary authors: Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance: An Update,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19 (2016): 1–16. Robert A. Rees, “John Milton, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2015): 6–18. Robert A. Rees, “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the American Renaissance,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (2002): 83–112. And then there are other linguistic studies that are fairly objective. For instance, these articles summarize some stylometric research on the Book of Mormon. One of them demonstrates, on fairly objective linguistic grounds, that the Book of Mormon's voice diversity is greater than that achieved by the combined efforts of eight prominent contemporary authors: Book of Mormon Central, “What Can Stylometry Tell Us about Book of Mormon Authorship? (Jacob 4:4),” KnoWhy 389 (December 12, 2017). Book of Mormon Central, “Is It Possible That a Single Author Wrote the Book of Mormon? (2 Nephi 27:13),” KnoWhy 399 (January 16, 2018). And then there is all of the Early Modern English data I mentioned before. I have personally conducted experiments that aim to assess how difficult it is for an author to mimic archaic language that isn't part of his or her working vocabulary. It turns out, that for those I tested, it was quite difficult, even though they were familiar with the archaic features from years of reading the Book of Mormon and Bible. So the diverse body of biblical and especially the extrabiblical archaic lexis, grammar, and syntax needs to be collectively accounted for by anyone assessing whether or not Joseph Smith was likely responsible for the English wording of the text. IMO, this alone strongly rules out Joseph Smith as the author. Then there is the pervasive intertextuality. The Book of Mormon quotes multiple consecutive chapters from both the Old and New Testaments (nearly verbatim) and allusions to both texts (and also internally to other Book of Mormon texts) are pervasive. I have an internal document we use at work and I believe we have counted over 900 allusions to the Old and New Testaments (not counting internal allusions). And I have, in my own research, come across many more examples that the initial research missed. These allusions come from all over the Bible, and sometimes are blended in complex ways or in contexts that make brilliant sense. When these are combined with internal textual allusions, the weight of intertextuality becomes staggering. If Joseph Smith authored the text, he would have needed an impressively deep familiarity with both the Bible and with the range of texts that he himself was producing. Remember, no looking back at what so an so said. No revisions to make the language closer. He has to have this all in his head and spout it off from memory in his first take. Then add all of the poetic structures. They are more varied and prolific than anything I have personally seen in any other 19th century text. And, by the estimation of a number of scholars (some not Latter-day Saints), they are impressive for their literary brilliance. In other words, not just the arranging of words, but the rhetorical functions of those arrangements. Sure, some examples of chiasmus or literary rounds or other parallelisms can be found in the 17th-19th centuries. But, to my knowledge, nothing even comes close to the Book of Mormon, except for the Bible and other ancient texts. So, as far as form or structure goes, the Book of Mormon is highly poetic, and such organization adds another layer of complexity. If you think you can find another text that is comparable in variety, quantity, and quality, please point it out to me. And then of course, you would need to compare the production circumstances of that text with the production circumstances of the Book of Mormon. Have you ever tried to create a 4 or 5 level chiasm? How about 3- or 4-level antithetical parallelism? Ever come up with ten or more layers of gradation? People can talk all day about how such things are just natural to 19th century authors, that it was part of their natural speech patterns or oration or something, but I've never seen any actual evidence of that. If you have any evidence that 19th century preachers or politicians or writers were copiously peppering their texts or speeches with lengthy chiasms or other parallelisms that are truly comparable to those found in the Book of Mormon, I would be interested to see it. Then add in the frequent references to calendar dates, locations, directions, characters, events, records, etc. Then look at the editorial complexity of the book. Then look at the doctrinal complexity of the book. Then look at its narrative complexity, including its flashback sequences (one section even has a flashback within a flashback). Then look at all of the editorial promises and the prophecies that need to be fulfilled. And so on and so forth. Those are things that can be appreciated and accounted for, but that are difficult to systematically compare with other texts. I'm not saying it can't be done, but just that hasn't been done yet. If you feel there is another text that truly might be comparable in the range of its complexity, and that at the outset is comparable to the reported details of the Book of Mormon's production--meaning (1) the author's age, (2) the author's formal education, (3) the author's prior literary experience, (4) the length of the text, (5) the author's rate of production, (6) the author's revision and editing process, (7) the author's access to notes, outlines, or reference materials, and (8) the author's mode of storytelling--then by all means point us to that text. Until then, I think that it is more than reasonable to assume the Book of Mormon is uniquely amazing in ways that other texts aren't. This will probably be my last comment on this topic, unless you can come up with texts that you feel are truly comparable. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in trying to push back against rather vague arguments that people are just amazing. If they are amazing in ways that are truly analogous, then demonstrate it. If not, then I don't think there is much else to discuss on the matter. Thread...........😲
mfbukowski Posted December 15, 2019 Posted December 15, 2019 2 hours ago, mrmarklin said: Thread...........😲 You mean "tapestry" don't you?
champatsch Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 This topic comes up periodically. Joseph's degree of intelligence is irrelevant. Beyond the most important spiritual evidence, the temporal evidence to look at is the syntax (extensive, objective). It is axiomatic that native speakers produce the vast majority of their syntax subconsciously. We can compare the syntax of the Book of Mormon with what is found in Joseph's early writings, in pseudobiblical texts, in the King James Bible, and with late modern and early modern patterns. Various comparative studies indicate that Joseph didn't author the Book of Mormon. The strongest evidence in this regard may be the following: personal relative pronoun selection (that, which, who(m)), complex verb complementation (with embedded clauses), periphrastic did, modal shall, subordinate that. 3
stemelbow Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 51 minutes ago, champatsch said: This topic comes up periodically. Joseph's degree of intelligence is irrelevant. Beyond the most important spiritual evidence, the temporal evidence to look at is the syntax (extensive, objective). It is axiomatic that native speakers produce the vast majority of their syntax subconsciously. We can compare the syntax of the Book of Mormon with what is found in Joseph's early writings, in pseudobiblical texts, in the King James Bible, and with late modern and early modern patterns. Various comparative studies indicate that Joseph didn't author the Book of Mormon. The strongest evidence in this regard may be the following: personal relative pronoun selection (that, which, who(m)), complex verb complementation (with embedded clauses), periphrastic did, modal shall, subordinate that. If it were that simple. All we know is there was no book, and then Joseph buried hid face in a hat churned our phrases and some time later we have a book. If it didn't come from Joseph's consciousness then where did it come from? God? The problem is we have no reason for God to begin with. We call something magic because we want it to be, not because whatever is happening is really defying reality. Magic performers don't just transport themselves out of the cage. They do some silly tricks and sneak out. "there's no way that could have happened" is really just the cry of the credulous. What can anyone say? When it happens it happens. That may mean it really wasn't Joseph writing it, in the end, but it also doesn't suggest it was magic. It doesn't mean God put thoughts in Joseph's head. What if the thoughts in Joseph's head were really just thoughts in Joseph's head? Or were memories of his imaginative borrowing? Perhaps that means his work was unprecedented ,but again, no magic. People have done seemingly miraculous things forever. There is no objectivity in saying Joseph didn't write it. THe best we have is there is room to believe Joseph didn't write it. That is to say if you want to believe it is inspired then imagine--Joseph likely could not have been the author because the syntax found therein would be foreign to him. With that said.. If God did it why did he write with a syntax foreign to Joseph Smith? God is supposed to work within the framework of the person with whom he's working upon. Why put in Joseph's mind's eye phrases that were obsolete? To toy with humanity? If we assume there's no way Joseph could have done it, based on syntax, then I suppose we're equally free to assume God wouldn't have done it that way. It's just too unlikely.
Meadowchik Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 On 12/14/2019 at 7:00 PM, Ryan Dahle said: Until then, I think that it is more than reasonable to assume the Book of Mormon is uniquely amazing in ways that other texts aren't. This will probably be my last comment on this topic, unless you can come up with texts that you feel are truly comparable. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in trying to push back against rather vague arguments that people are just amazing. If they are amazing in ways that are truly analogous, then demonstrate it. If not, then I don't think there is much else to discuss on the matter. 1. Do you think that Joseph neglected Bible reading during the translation period? 2. Did Joseph Smith acknowledge the use of Adam Clarke's commentary in the JST of the Bible? 3. To your question of comparison, how many other books were introduced in the 19th century and claimed as divine, with generations of followers keenly interested in preserving the narrative of it as divine? You've obviously invested tremendously in BOM analysis and I appreciate your contributions. We've only scratched the surface of the overall topic, but I do think any attempts at scientific analysis of complexity will lack validity without comparable analysis of other texts. The genius we know of individuals, combined with the esoteric nature and witnesses of the production of the BOM satisfy me that it could be man-made. It is uniquely amazing, yes, but imo not in the ways you mean. There are other books which I find are also uniquely amazing, more moral, and more instructive. I think the BOM suffers from some grave errors which betray any premise that a good God brought it to humanity, but that is a subject for another tapestry. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: 1. Do you think that Joseph neglected Bible reading during the translation period? I think, as Calm already pointed out on this thread, that there is good reason to assume Joseph Smith didn't have a Bible during the translation. None of the witnesses claimed he used a Bible and several of them claimed he didn't use any notes or Bible. See, for example, https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_own_a_Bible_at_the_time_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation%3F See also, John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd edition (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017), 143, 168; Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor's Introduction—Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account,” FARMS Review 17, no. 2 (2005): xiii–xvi; Royal Skousen, “How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1998): 24. We also have good reason to believe that even though Joseph wasn't entirely ignorant of the Bible, he also wasn't well-versed in it. He apparently didn't know that Jerusalem was a walled city. And his mother reported that, at 18 years of age, he had "never read the Bible through in his life" (see Lavina F. Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001), 344. And a variety of individuals described Joseph Smith as relatively ignorant at the time, including Joseph Smith himself. In addition, comparative textual analysis suggests that the long quotations of biblical passages in the Bible weren't copied from a Bible (ask champatsch about that if you want to know more). So, all in all, quite a bit of evidence points away from him using a Bible during the translation. 2
Ryan Dahle Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: 2. Did Joseph Smith acknowledge the use of Adam Clarke's commentary in the JST of the Bible? Apples and oranges, for a variety of reasons, the biggest being that we have way more documentation for the process of the Book of Mormon's translation. As well as the evidence against his use of the Bible, as I mentioned in the previous post. In other words, Joseph Smith's lack of mentioning Adam Clarke's commentary isn't truly analogous to the question of whether he had a Bible or was well-versed in the Bible during or before the period of the Book of Mormon's translation. I'm guessing that was your point.
Ryan Dahle Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: 3. To your question of comparison, how many other books were introduced in the 19th century and claimed as divine, with generations of followers keenly interested in preserving the narrative of it as divine? This seems pretty tangential. Not sure what the point is here.
Meadowchik Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I think, as Calm already pointed out on this thread, that there is good reason to assume Joseph Smith didn't have a Bible during the translation. None of the witnesses claimed he used a Bible and several of them claimed he didn't use any notes or Bible. See, for example, https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_own_a_Bible_at_the_time_of_the_Book_of_Mormon_translation%3F See also, John W. Welch, “The Miraculous Timing of the Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd edition (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2017), 143, 168; Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor's Introduction—Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account,” FARMS Review 17, no. 2 (2005): xiii–xvi; Royal Skousen, “How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1998): 24. We also have good reason to believe that even though Joseph wasn't entirely ignorant of the Bible, he also wasn't well-versed in it. He apparently didn't know that Jerusalem was a walled city. And his mother reported that, at 18 years of age, he had "never read the Bible through in his life" (see Lavina F. Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001), 344. And a variety of individuals described Joseph Smith as relatively ignorant at the time, including Joseph Smith himself. In addition, comparative textual analysis suggests that the long quotations of biblical passages in the Bible weren't copied from a Bible (ask champatsch about that if you want to know more). So, all in all, quite a bit of evidence points away from him using a Bible during the translation. I didn't ask if he used the Bible during the translation. I'm asking if you think he didn't even read after he retired at night, or when he rose in the morning for a private devotional. I am talking about his use of the Bible on the days of translation but not while translating.
Calm Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I didn't ask if he used the Bible during the translation. I'm asking if you think he didn't even read after he retired at night, or when he rose in the morning for a private devotional. I am talking about his use of the Bible on the days of translation but not while translating. If he didn't have a bible to consult, how could he read one at night or morning?
Ryan Dahle Posted December 16, 2019 Posted December 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: You've obviously invested tremendously in BOM analysis and I appreciate your contributions. We've only scratched the surface of the overall topic, but I do think any attempts at scientific analysis of complexity will lack validity without comparable analysis of other texts. Which is my point. Surely there must be another text that you at least think is likely to be comparable, that can't be ruled out at the outset because of fundamental advantages in its mode of production and in the experience and education of its author.
Recommended Posts