mikwut:
I'll play along. I suppose I can use Vanick as the answer to my question regarding laying out the theory until you say differently.
Craig Criddle has also summarized it pretty well on the web. You've likely seen what I am referring to, since, I think you know Craig, correct?
1. Do you agree with everything Dan has said in defense of S/A? If not, what do you disagree with?
I have read through this entire thread, just off the top of my head I can't think of any disagreement. I am sure Dan and I have them, its just you, marg, and mcb are so woefully inadequate with simple logic and evidence it is hard not to agree with him so far. All he has done is relied on standard logic. That's it.
It's good to know that you are pretty much in agreement with Dan. It would be nice if you could drop the unnecessary personal attacks.
Do you agree that a Bible was used in Book of Mormon production? If so, how was it used?
I don't know. I can go either way, Joseph's prodigious memory or the innocuous and obviously benign use of the KJV that scarcely needed mentioning. The evidence is the obvious presence of it in the Book of Mormon and that lends itself to either explanation. That is all the evidence avails to us. But, which ever of those you utilize they are not evidence for anything else like imagining that a mysteriously missing manuscript from decades earlier was used when witnesses weren't looking, or the code for nuclear fusion slipped into each verse of the Book of Mormon because Oliver and Joseph were in cohoots with each other.
Cute. I appreciate your candor and willingness to admit you don't know. It's interesting, however, that right off the bat we stumble on an area of S/A that you can't explain, so you're forced to speculate. And yet, apparently, you can't decide on what is the best speculation. Is that a correct assessment so far?
It's also interesting that you use the phrase: "That is all the evidence avails to us." I agree. The evidence is rather spotty, no matter which Book of Mormon production theory one looks at. So the operative question, then, is which Book of Mormon production theory
best explains the evidence--or, stated another way, which Book of Mormon production theory has the greatest legitimate explanatory power. Yet when we confront this specific question of possible Bible use, what do we find? We find that no theory can answer with certainty but that use of the Bible fits best with S/R.
The fact is, as you say, "The evidence is the obvious presence of it in the Book of Mormon." I agree. All indications are that the Bible was used to produce certain portions of the Book of Mormon. This is particularly obvious when we notice King James mistakes being copied directly into the Book of Mormon. That fact works very aggressively against S/D. Or, stated another way, the fact that the Book of Mormon text contains errors identical to those found in the corresponding verses in the KJVB becomes adverse evidence for the S/D theory.
Is KJV plagiarism adverse evidence for S/R or S/A? Let's take a look....
Dan's version of S/A would have us believe that nothing was used to aid Joseph in his Book of Mormon production, with the exception of the Bible. How does Dan arrive at this conclusion? Essentially, it boils down to the fact that he wants to take the Book of Mormon witnesses at their word and none of them ever acknowledge that anything besides a Bible was ever used in Book of Mormon production. The problem, of course, for Dan, is that none of them ever mention a Bible either. As was pointed out, Knight says that the whole thing came from Smith's stone and the others strongly imply the same thing.
As my conversation with Dan revealed, he has to speculate that his honest dupes would certainly have acknowledged that a Bible was used
if only someone would have thought to ask them. He speculates that the use of a Bible would not have raised flags for honest dupes and, therefore, no one ever thought to mention it!
Hence, the choice you are left with, if you're going to advocate for S/A, is, as you have stated: "Joseph's prodigious memory or innocuous and obviously benign use of the KJV that scarcely needed mentioning." Both speculations
are responses to the obvious fact that the KJVB was plagiarized during Book of Mormon production. I think Dan probably prefers the latter since it doesn't require Joseph to be something of a wonder-kid with a photographic memory. The downside is that it is incredibly hard to believe that truly honest dupes would have thought nothing of the fact that whoever produced the Book of Mormon obviously copied from the Bible--especially when those dupes either stated directly (Knight) or strongly implied that every word came from the stone lest any man should boast.
Dan's version of S/A can't even afford to have the honest dupes
intentionally forget to mention a Bible, because such intent would be sinister--an obvious attempt to cover up a potentially damaging fact--which is what I argue. So, Dan is left with completely honest dupes who did not intentionally forget to mention the Bible, but instead the thought just never crossed their minds, despite the fact that a substantial amount of material was copied from the Bible. And, unfortunately (or conveniently depending on one's perspective), no one ever thought to ask them about it.
And although that is indeed an incredibly weak position to take, I would recommend that you go with that over your other choice--Joseph as a wonder-kid with a photographic memory. The reason is simple... if Joseph had such a great photographic memory that he could sit for hours on end with his head in a hat reciting the KJV nearly verbatim, mistakes and all, then he could surely do the same with a Rigdon supplied manuscript. Given that, you don't have much choice. Despite the weakness, Dan's honest dupes who never think to mention a Bible but would certainly have done so if only someone would have asked is probably your best bet. It has the added benefit of even allowing direct copying right out in the open and
still no one mentions it because it didn't raise any red flags. Of course, as we've seen, despite the fact that this is dangerously close to what S/R postulates, Dan concludes he's safe since the (honest) witnesses directly deny the use of a Spalding manuscript but they never deny the use of a Bible (since no one ever asked) so, he reasons, on that lack of contrary evidence, he can keep them honest.
Nevertheless, the question becomes: are these ad hoc responses to adverse evidence?
I have no doubt that neither Dan nor you would ever in a million years consider either choice you have laid out to be an ad hoc response to adverse evidence. And yet, in actuality, both are. Why? Because an essential element of your theory suggests that Joseph
had no need to borrow from
anything and that, therefore, he didn't. But, asks the S/A critic, what about the obvious KJVB plagiarism? Oh, says the S/A advocate, that's the
one exception! But, protests the S/A critic, I thought you said Joseph could put his head in his hat and rattle off sentence after sentence of meaningful narrative for hours on end? Sure, we did say that, but obviously Joseph got tired or ____ (fill in the blank) and needed to copy from the Bible, but, trust us(!) that's
all he copied from! But, protests the S/A critic even louder, that's an ad hoc response (you don't know that Joseph needed to borrow from the Bible because he got tired or ____ fill in the blank) to adverse evidence (Biblical plagiarism) that would otherwise radically change your theory! No, it isn't! Why not? I'll let you or Dan answer that one, mikwut.
Which leaves us with the question: is Biblical plagiarism adverse evidence for the S/R theory? And the answer, of course, is no, it isn't, since under S/R Rigdon, Smith and Cowdery would all have been comfortable borrowing material from outside sources and they all had opportunity to add religious content. And since the lost 116 pages needed to be replaced with filler material, the Biblical borrowing was stepped up a notch. One of the beauties of S/R is that Spalding's manuscript does not have to be the only extemporaneous material borrowed from.
So we see that while Biblical plagiarism is adverse to both S/D and S/A, advocates of which must then respond in an ad hoc manner, it is not adverse at all for S/R.
Do you agree that nothing other than a Bible was used to produce the Book of Mormon?
No, J.S. created the Book from his life experiences (found in the Book itself) and books that he had read, as well as his imagination, but they weren't used in a deliberately plagarized manner like the KJV portions. At least not that we can historical evidence.
So. Here we see confirmation that for the advocate of Dan's version of S/A, KJVB plagiarism is the
one exception--extensive, though it is.
They were rather in his own mind. The extensive use of the KJV besides the major Isaiah and Malachi sections, like the incorporation of Paul into's Nephi's Psalm, the charity portion in Moroni, the beatitudes, and the many small quotes like, "his grace is sufficient for you" interspersed throughout show a deep dependence on the language, ambiance, wording and phrases from the Bible all through the Book of Mormon and this pattern stays into the D&C and Book of Abraham and Moses and the revised Bible.
So then from this, it appears safe to conclude that whoever was producing this content was not only directly plagiarizing the KJVB for the longer quotes, but was also "incorporating" and "interspersing" KJVB content within the overall Book of Mormon narrative. Is that correct?
You don't think Rigdon smuggled a manuscript of Swedenborg when he wrote D&C 76:89 do you? This shows the nature of his use of the Bible to be dependent on his writing. If you remove all that you have a rather dull yankee dialect - that isn't so for Solomon Spalding who had a Dartmouth education and his influences, that are readily seen in his writing, don't reflect such a dependence or dialect.
This may surprise you but I think you raise an interesting question here. Dale has contended for decades that certain portions of the Book of Mormon strongly resemble Spalding's language. He zeros in on certain Alma chapters to demonstrate this. I think he's correct in that observation. However, I will agree that overall, the style of the Book of Mormon is much drier, more redundant and stuffy than what appears to be Spalding's natural style in MSCC. But the S/R witnesses tell us he deliberately changed his style in order to make it appear more ancient. If that is true, then something like the later chapters in Alma is what we would expect.
Is there any possibility that Oliver Cowdery produced some of the Book of Mormon content?
This is a good example of the different discussion your having and your failure to recognize a historical discussion from musings. Dan is having the discussion based on the modern tools of historiography, what best explains all of the evidence for the origin of the Book of Mormon. S/A clearly wins that battle. That has been born out by professionals not just disagreement between you and I.
So... none of that answers the question. You must have realized that since you add:
So, in the light of historical evidence is there a possibility that Oliver Cowdery produced some of the Book of Mormon? I am not aware of any - none, and I would love to write an article if there were some. But, from your perspective of simple "possibilities" - sure it is possible, so is the Government being involved, so is an angel giving it to him, so is he found the recipe for Ayahuasca and it came to him on a trip, so is he an Emma made it up together, or many other possibilities.
Well there's a non-answer if I ever saw one. The question is intentionally pretty easy, milkwut. Is there any possibility that Oliver Cowdery produced some of the Book of Mormon content? I think it's so easy a caveman could answer. And yet you come back with a paradox... "I am not aware of any - none" vs "sure it is possible." Well which is it? I don't want to put words in your mouth. It sounds like you don't want to admit that it's possible, but you think you have no other choice?
Do you agree that the main intent of the Book of Mormon witness statements is to convey the idea that God was providing a translation to Joseph that he otherwise was not capable of doing on his own?
I am not a mind reader and I don't know what arrogance you bring to be able speak of their exact intent.
So because I read examples like the following:
I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of
Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of
the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift
and power of God, by the means of the Urim and
Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy
Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled
with my hands, the gold plates from which it was
transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled
with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is
true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came
forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the
revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel
come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every
nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains
principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will
walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be
saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom
of God on high. - Oliver Cowdery
or
I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. . One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English." Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." - David Whitmer
..and from that and similar assertions conclude that these (and other) witnesses
want me to believe that God was providing a translation to Joseph that he otherwise was not capable of doing on his own... that's arrogant? Really?!
The testimony is descriptive of what they saw and it is concluded credible (not in the sense of getting in their heads like you want to do) by its independent nature. That's how historians work not by mind reading.
So Harris and Whitmer really did see words appearing in a stone? They really did see and handle plates? They really did see angels? I think we might have just stumbled on where you and Dan part company.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.