The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

[MG 2.0]

The Berkeley group was composed of nonLDS folks.

The Berkeley Group was not composed of 'nonLDS folks'. It was composed of 'John Hilton and non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley'. As I understand it, John Hilton is LDS and had some non-Mormons help him input the data and run the numbers. I'd like to determine authorship, but can't locate a copy of the study itself.

Also peer reviewed.

According to the link, their methods have been peer reviewed. That does not mean this particular study was peer reviewed. Besides, peer reviewed does not mean 'valid' or 'accurate' or 'significant'. It means some others in the field have looked and haven't found obvious problems.




This last paragraph in your linked article is golden:

As John Hilton put the matter, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Joseph, Oliver, or Solomon Spaulding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.[6] The Book of Mormon also contains work written by more than one author. Critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon's production must therefore identify multiple authors for the text, and then explain how Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own.

For argument's sake, let's assume Hilton's study is valid. Why must critics identity the authors? Why do critics need to explain how 'Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own'. Indeed, why should critics even care?

The Jockers study was peer reviewed but ultimately didn’t fare so well. Word print studies aren’t the end all discussion/proof of Book of Mormon historicity. Most of the experts agree. But they are interesting and are generally supportive (with some exceptions) of multiple voices in the Book of Mormon.

Yes, Hilton was LDS. Those that worked along with him were not.

It would be interesting to know if any of these folks ended up in the church.

Whereas all we have from Joseph Smith is that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, we have to look elsewhere for any physical evidence. Word print studies along with other internal proof studies are pretty much all we have to go with at this point. Archaeology hasn’t panned out anything definitively so far except for little tidbits here and there. Fairly large bits if you go with Brant Gardner.

Elder Maxwell’s summarization still rules the day. Paraphrasing what he said, he said that there would be more and more evidence come forth to support the veracity of the Book of Mormon but that nothing definitive would prove the truthfulness of Book of Mormon other than a witness from God.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So you’re saying a prophet living in the pre Christian Era would not be plugged into knowledge of/from God?

This would be a great question for... Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainen, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Epharaim, Elias, Gad, Jeremy, Elihu, Moses, Joshua, Balaam, Samuel, Nathan, Gad...

*deep breathe*

...Aijah, Jahaziel, Elijah, Elisha, Job, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Oded, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Obadiah, Ezekial, Daniel, Zechariah, Haggai, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi.

Nephi?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

The Berkeley Group was not composed of 'nonLDS folks'. It was composed of 'John Hilton and non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley'. As I understand it, John Hilton is LDS and had some non-Mormons help him input the data and run the numbers. I'd like to determine authorship, but can't locate a copy of the study itself.



According to the link, their methods have been peer reviewed. That does not mean this particular study was peer reviewed. Besides, peer reviewed does not mean 'valid' or 'accurate' or 'significant'. It means some others in the field have looked and haven't found obvious problems.




This last paragraph in your linked article is golden:

As John Hilton put the matter, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Joseph, Oliver, or Solomon Spaulding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.[6] The Book of Mormon also contains work written by more than one author. Critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon's production must therefore identify multiple authors for the text, and then explain how Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own.

For argument's sake, let's assume Hilton's study is valid. Why must critics identity the authors? Why do critics need to explain how 'Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own'. Indeed, why should critics even care?

The Jockers study was peer reviewed but ultimately didn’t fare so well. Word print studies aren’t the end all discussion/proof of Book of Mormon historicity. Most of the experts agree. But they are interesting and are generally supportive (with some exceptions) of multiple voices in the Book of Mormon.

Yes, Hilton was LDS. Those that worked along with him were not.

It would be interesting to know if any of these folks ended up in the church.

Whereas all we have from Joseph Smith is that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, we have to look elsewhere for any physical evidence. Word print studies along with other internal proof studies are pretty much all we have to go with at this point. Archaeology hasn’t panned out anything definitively so far except for little tidbits here and there. Fairly large bits if you go with Brant Gardner.

Elder Maxwell’s summarization still rules the day. Paraphrasing what he said, he said that there would be more and more evidence come forth to support the veracity of the Book of Mormon but that nothing definitive would prove the truthfulness of Book of Mormon other than a witness from God.

Regards,
MG

Thank you for your testimony, MG, but I don't think it belongs on this thread.

[MG 2.0]

By the way, earlier I said:

The Jockers study was peer reviewed but ultimately didn’t fare so well.

This was a study that the critics wished would’ve panned out. They were totally on board with this particular word print study. Peer reviewed at all.

But then it bombed.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Please remember, MG, that I do not call the Book of Mormon "creative fiction." If you think that real history and creative fiction are the only two options, then you are trapped in a dead-end paradigm and don't know very much about the larger discussions regarding what the Bible is and what scripture is.

I think I have an inkling of what those larger discussions might generally consist of. I remember, back in the day, of keeping up with what the Jesus Seminar was doing. There have been many folks before and after Jesus Seminar that have been involved in scriptural exegesis and interpretive studies in regards to writings from the past.

At the end of the day, however, one either chooses fiction or nonfiction in regards to the Book of Mormon. I don’t see any way of beating around the bush.

you are missing kishkumen's point. Entirely. Nor have you kept up with the current discussions, as your "back in the day" references clearly note. try reading up on some contemporary analyses.

in the meantime:

The date of the Book of Mormon is not something that is simply a matter of personal ideological point of view. Real civilizations populated the Americas before the Europeans arrived. They had a real past, and we are unjust toward them when we maintain that their history is something other than the facts indicate. We are especially unjust toward them when we insist that their history is something that a 19th century European wrote for them. The only way around this problem, in my opinion, is to own up to the fact that the Book of Mormon is NOT a record of ancient Americans.

QFT. Let's admit defeat on historicity so we can stop deleting a real cultural history. Enough with the racist Lamanite appropriation.

[Rivendale]

By the way, earlier I said:

The Jockers study was peer reviewed but ultimately didn’t fare so well.

This was a study that the critics wished would’ve panned out. They were totally on board with this particular word print study. Peer reviewed at all.

But then it bombed.

Regards,
MG

Let us put this in perspective. In order to manifest a grand plan to save souls we have this painstaking attempt to record the life events of a human civilization. We do this with metal plates. This record will somehow course correct a millennia of religious claims that run contrary to it. And that one book is the keystone? With the percentage of Mormons being less than .2% I really wonder about that method.

[doubtingthomas]

The Berkeley group was composed of nonLDS folks.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/evi ... _of_Mormon

Also peer reviewed.

Regards,
MG

Even better MG. When is the study going to be sent to a respected peer-reviewed Journal?

As I said, multiple authors wouldn't prove anything, so please let us know when the studies get published in respected Journals.

[MG 2.0]

The Berkeley group was composed of nonLDS folks.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/evi ... _of_Mormon

Also peer reviewed.

Regards,
MG

Even better MG. When is the study going to be sent to a respected peer-reviewed Journal?

As I said, multiple authors wouldn't prove anything, so please let us know when the studies get published in respected Journals.

Even if Joseph Smith had been a skilled and experienced writer, in order to fabricate the Book of Mormon, he would have needed an ability to create distinct fictional voices that was beyond some of the greatest novelists of his day. Yet Joseph himself, and those who knew him best, all insisted that he was relatively uneducated.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... 10_7hpfwxz

Look at this study and compare Joseph with other authors of his day.

You are shrugging this off without investigation.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You are shrugging this off without investigation.

Regards,
MG

Your church protects baby rapists and you’re over here larping. Shameful.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

You are shrugging this off without investigation.

Regards,
MG

Your church protects baby rapists and you’re over here larping. Shameful.

- Doc

Now that’s a derail and troll like behavior I must say.

I’d suggest moderators ought to give this a look see.

Regards,
MG