Hales on Book of Mormon Authorship

[Kishkumen]

Hales is the equivelent of Mike Tannehill from the old Mormon expression podcast. Mike would get pummeled day in and day out from the panel members and remain completely unfazed. On a private Facebook group about Mormon historians Brian will engage in many historians like Vogel, Stephenson, Davis and others. He will ask a question (recently it has been a challenge for naturalists to explain how Joseph produced the words of the Book of Mormon) and get several answers but remain absolutely oblivious to the answers. Someone recently suggested he get his short term memory checked because he repeats the same question even though plausible answers have been given.

Yes, his participation in that Facebook Group is no credit to him. He should preface all of his posts with the words, “How, after all of your sincere efforts, do I still manage not to believe a word you say? Why do I keep coming back here with the same nonsense? Now, on to my next pointless post.”

[hauslern]

Has anyone of you statistics experts read the paper
Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification
Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, Craig S. Criddle
Literary and Linguistic Computing, Volume 23, Issue 4, December 2008, Pages 465–491, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn040
Published: 06 December 2008.

[hauslern]

Question Has NSC provd highly useful for authorship classification?

[hauslern]

A G-Bruce-Schaalje from BYU did a response but it seems it is not listed in his publicatons
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific ... 2067438566

[NorthboundZax]

Has anyone of you statistics experts read the paper
Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification
Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, Craig S. Criddle
Literary and Linguistic Computing, Volume 23, Issue 4, December 2008, Pages 465–491, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn040
Published: 06 December 2008.

There was a long thread on this when it first came out. It must be there if anyone can find it in the unsearchable archives.

[Philo Sofee]

Good points, Chap. Very good.

Brian Hales never ceases both to amaze and bore me at the same time. The impenetrability of his mind to evidence that contradicts his assumptions is the stuff of legend. He is, first and foremost, an apologist for LDS assumptions, not a scholar who is seeking to understand things on their own terms. He is continually asking people to dislodge him from his convictions but only so that he can heroically (in his own mind) stay stuck in them. Because, at the end of the day, this is performance art. This is an exercise in showing everyone that, yes, you too can look at all of the evidence and stay blind to what you are seeing. You too can come to new information and walk away without it having discomfited you in the least. You can stay in your comfortable bubble.

But why? Why should you want to? What fun is that? Hales is not about fun. He is about protecting status quo LDSism. And I have very little patience for that. It is not that I dislike people being LDS. It is that I dislike an obsessive, obdurate mind fixed on maintaining static boundaries, and teasing everyone else into wasting their time with this sadomasochistic game. Indeed, going so far as to attack others who lack this singular, confused mindset as though they are the ones with the problem. How dare you not come to the same, tired, anachronistic conclusions as Brian Hales? Well, you must be deluded, or you must have bad motives. Why do you hate the "truth"?

Very well said Kish. Yes, I have a gent in my comments section who is exactly like this. It's entertainment to be sure... for them. Oh they get some good swipes in and all that since it's not worth responding, and of course, in their minds, they appear invincible and therefore they possess the truth, so they strut and preen saying look how good I am! This is THE truth! etc., and etc. I have discovered that when one gets into a missionary kind of thing, seeking to convince everyone else of their views, they aren't all the certain about their views in the first place. Most especially with Mormons. I honestly just don't find it all that interesting...

[NorthboundZax]

Has anyone of you statistics experts read the paper
Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification
Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, Craig S. Criddle
Literary and Linguistic Computing, Volume 23, Issue 4, December 2008, Pages 465–491, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn040
Published: 06 December 2008.

There was a long thread on this when it first came out. It must be there if anyone can find it in the unsearchable archives.

Found it - all 188 pages.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=108100