Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl writes:

The Roman Story/Oberlin Manuscript WAS used for wordprint analysis. It produced signals for Solomon Spalding in the Book of Mormon demonstrated in the Jockers et all (2008) wordprint study.

No, it didn't do this. I think you have some misunderstandings about what the Jockers et al study was able to demonstrate.

Apologist tactic: You just don't understand.

Professor Criddle is a personal friend of many years on-going.
I saw the study when it began as computer study using Word.
I followed the study as it developed.
I was privy to the final round and outcome before you ever laid eyes on it.
Over the last few years, I've had more than ample opportunity to engage Professor Criddle as to the method, processes and outcomes of the study.

If you doubt Criddle's ability to teach, take it up with Stanford.

I understand full well what material was used, how it was used over the years and what the results of the study demonstrate. As I indicated in a previous post, there are people far more well equipped, working diligently to correct the errors that apologists have been transmitting as fact to members of their own church. I hope you're ready for the future as there is more to come.

[_wenglund]

Wade while the existing Spalding manuscript obviously was not plagiarized from to write the Book of Mormon that doesn't preclude using it for data which would pertain to the Spalding theory. Obviously if there is one author of 2 historical novels it would be likely that there might be some similarities especially if one was written for amusement purposes and the other for publication but they had similar themes..and there is good reason to believe that is the case.

For whatever reason you don't seem to be getting the important point, so let me try a different angle.

Why do you believe "the existing Spalding manuscript obviously was not plagiarized from to write the Book of Mormon"?

The discovery narrative of finding an ancient historical record makes for an interestng opening in a fictious novel. It makes for absurdity when presented as nonfiction.

So, let me see if I understand your reasoning. You believe that the discovery narrative for the Book of Mormon was plagerized from a hypothetical manuscript because it was absurd to do so?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

The Roman Story/Oberlin Manuscript WAS used for wordprint analysis. It produced signals for Solomon Spalding in the Book of Mormon demonstrated in the Jockers et all (2008) wordprint study.

The "approach" that I referred to WAS clearly not the wordprint analysis. Please try a little harder to follow what is actually being said. This is the second time in so many responses to my posts that you have significantly misread what I have said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Jersey Girl writes:

Apologist tactic: You just don't understand.

And your response is what? My own response to this study has been publicly available for months - was even mentioned in these forums. Has anyone been able to criticize my comments?

Professor Criddle is a personal friend of many years on-going.
I saw the study when it began as computer study using Word.
I followed the study as it developed. I was privy to the final round and outcome before you ever laid eyes on it.

This is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether or not I understand the problem. Having been involved in computer assisted analysis of texts for a long time, I am fairly well aware of the issues, and I disagree with your claims about the results.

I understand full well what material was used, how it was used over the years and what the results of the study demonstrate. As I indicated in a previous post, there are people far more well equipped, working diligently to correct the errors that apologists have been transmitting as fact to members of their own church. I hope you're ready for the future as there is more to come.

By all means. But this knife cuts both ways.

Now, if you want, I would be happy to start another thread where we can discuss the obvious issues with that stastitical modeling that Jockers, et al. presented.

[_marg]

The statements of the 3 witnesses would probably be evidence as to what they believed regarding the gold plates and the other events they discuss.

That's not the issue here, where we are talking about texts, comparing texts, and charges of plagiarism, etc.

I'm trying to get a sense of what you consider to be evidence, because your argument is that the data pertaining to Nehemiah King should not be used for the S/R theory.

According to an online dictionary the definition of evidence is: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

That is the sense I'm using the word evidence, when you question me asking whether any particular data I present do I consider it evidence.

Apparently there is no signed statement available of the 3 Book of Mormon witnesses for verification and now they are dead, so does that mean those statements can no longer be used as evidence of a reflection of what those 3 witnesses believed?

by the way ..I'm leaving this discussion for today, weather is too nice to be inside.

[_Jersey Girl]

The Roman Story/Oberlin Manuscript WAS used for wordprint analysis. It produced signals for Solomon Spalding in the Book of Mormon demonstrated in the Jockers et all (2008) wordprint study.

The "approach" that I referred to WAS clearly not the wordprint analysis. Please try a little harder to follow what is actually being said. This is the second time in so many responses to my posts that you have significantly misread what I have said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

and rather than using proven scholarly methods of textual critical analysis or even wordprint studies,

[ /merry-go-round]

[_Jersey Girl]

Now, if you want, I would be happy to start another thread where we can discuss the obvious issues with that stastitical modeling that Jockers, et al. presented.

Here you will find a 89 page thread posted by myself the day the study hit the internet and where the study was discussed at length. You are free to post your comments there or create a new thread for that purpose. I won't be joining you.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8100

[_Benjamin McGuire]

marg writes:

I'm trying to get a sense of what you consider to be evidence, because your argument is that the data pertaining to Nehemiah King should not be used for the S/R theory.

What data? We don't have any data from Nehemiah King. Not a thing. Not a word. Not a piece of evidence. This is quite a bit unlike your comparison to the three witnesess (or any of the others) who at least presumably participated, and for whom the documents were published and widely distributed during their lifetimes. So we might well call it evidence for what they believed (which certainly isn't necessarily evidence for a reality).

It is hard to take your suggestion that this is evidence for plagiarism seriously, though, because it is entirely different. Your claim deals with a second hand suggestion without evidence that N. King had ever read the Book of Mormon or the Spalding manuscript. That is, even putting the claim aside, what makes King an adequate specialist on the subject?

At the very best, you might assert that an account by N. King was evidence that N. King believed there was plagiarism - but unless that account is fairly specific, it doesn't have to mean that N. King came to that conclusion on his own, or that he actually knew enough about the subject to draw such a conclusion. And we don't even have this. We have a later statement likely influenced by those trying to destroy the Mormon faith. Which makes it even more distant. Yet here you are, willing to be more than charitable to such an account. Why? Do you think my skepticism is unwarranted? I certainly don't.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Jersey Girl writes:

Here you will find a 89 page thread posted by myself the day the study hit the internet and where the study was discussed at length. You are free to post your comments there or create a new thread for that purpose. I won't be joining you.

Suit yourself. I see that my comments were linked to and discussed on page 9 of that thread.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
It simply is another connection, another piece of data to be considered in developing a big picture theory.

agree

UD