Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:24 pm
Roger,
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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 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, 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.
I am not a mind reader and I don't know what arrogance you bring to be able speak of their exact intent. 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.
my best, 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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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, 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.
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. 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.
my best, mikwut