Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
mentalgymnast: "I know. I read it. When he asked you, however, if you had read the whole Book of Mormon from start to finish, you seemed to be a bit fuzzy/non-committal in your response."
I'd already mentioned previously in the thread that I'd read the Book of Mormon. Someone else had already used that comment previously to DCP. In all cases it's been from people I'm not discussing with who have spent very little time involved in the discussion and their main purpose is to attack and discourage my further involvement..you are the 3rd person.
If we critique you, while you may have read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, that is no indication that your experience gives you the ability or expertise to critically evaluate how they were written and why. So to participate MG, you need to offer your critical thinking on how and why the Book of Mormon was written, I'm irrelevant to that issue which is under discussion.
I'd already mentioned previously in the thread that I'd read the Book of Mormon. Someone else had already used that comment previously to DCP. In all cases it's been from people I'm not discussing with who have spent very little time involved in the discussion and their main purpose is to attack and discourage my further involvement..you are the 3rd person.
If we critique you, while you may have read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, that is no indication that your experience gives you the ability or expertise to critically evaluate how they were written and why. So to participate MG, you need to offer your critical thinking on how and why the Book of Mormon was written, I'm irrelevant to that issue which is under discussion.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
GlennThigpen wrote:
How do I counter an ad hoc explanation for which there is no evidence?
I think there has been a problem injected into this discussion by Dan accusing the S/R theory of being full of ad hoc fallacies. How is it you dismiss S/R and Smith alone theories/explanations as fallacious ad hocs. Dan dismisses explanations within S/R theory as ad hoc fallacies. I point out your counter argument to the Smith alone theory, 'that Smith couldn't do it as he didn't have the knowledge and therefore God must have been involved' is ad hoc fallacious.
So this is my take. Every explanation/hypothesis is automatically ad hoc. It's explaining something, antecedent to the explanation. So if we want to use ad hoc fallacy as effective critical reasoning...under what conditions should that be? It seems to me it's not simply whether or not there is "evidence" for a phenomenon but rather whether the explanation for that phenomenon (which is automatically ad hoc) fits in to other explanations connected to a theory, some of which are substantiated. In other words what needs to be considered is whether there is an interconnectedness of the data and reasoning of that hypothesis to other data which is related and part of a larger theory which is well warranted.
Only those explanations which have no explanatory link to the theory under consideration, that is the explanation is solely meant for the anomaly without any link to the theory..then it is potentially ad hoc fallacy. That is it's simply an explanation to save a theory as opposed to being an explanation with some support via its connection to the theory.
Any complex theory to explain a phenomenon is going to have more ad hoc explanations than any simpler theory for the same phenomenon. That doesn't make the ad hoc's fallacious, nor does simplicity make the theory the correct or best fit theory of the data and evidence.
What Dan did in a previous post is list a number of S/R explanations and say they were ad hoc. Yes, all explanations are ad hoc. But that doesn't make them fallacious. If the explanations relate to the theory, even if they don't have direct evidence, if they are supported and link to other explanations some of which are warranted with evidence..then they aren't fallacious. They aren't simply out of the blue explanations with no connection to the phenomenon under consideration.
So let me take a shot at your question Glenn and I say shot because I'm thinking this through as I type ..so I'm essentially brainstorming. If there is no direct evidence you need to offer reasoning which links to evidence which can be substantiated or if not likely to be substantiated then offer an explanation which warrants why that evidence likely exists/existed. So if there is absolutely no direct evidence you need to make an inductive argument why that evidence likely exists or existed and your argument should be consistent with related evidence and reasoning not necessarily employed in that particular argument. The pieces of reasoning and evidence and the sub arguments need to fit together into a big picture explanation.
by the way, I'm not going to address your post(link to above post) to me in which you counter my response to Dan on his list of S/R ad hocs. All those S/R explanations relate to the larger theory and fit within the theory...they aren't simply non connected explanations to a theory without any warrants for the sole purpose of saving a theory from being falsified.
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 10, 2011 9:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1605
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:20 am
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
Marg,
How can S/R be the "best fit theory" when it doesn't fit so many evidential circumstances at all?
It doesn't fit the historical data, it doesn't fit the empirical data, it doesn't fit the theological data:
Doesn't fit Historically:
1. It doesn't offer a coherent historical narrative to begin with, that does't provide for a "good fit" right off the bat.
2. It can't even tell us basic factors like what does a historical romance novel redacted over tens of years into a religious scripture that includes contemporary to it being published historical data and Smith biographical inclusions look like that the witnesses could identify it? What kind of fit is that?
3. It just dismisses the independent dictation witnesses that falsify the S/R theory. It doesn't "fit" that data.
4. It doesn't fit the historical data of J.S. reciting stories of the indians years before the Book of Mormon.
5. It doesn't fit the historical data regarding any connection between Rigdon and Smith when necessary nor connection between Rigdon and Spalding or his work.
6. It doesn't fit the historical data of Pratt's genuine missionary excursion where he met Rigdon and gave him the Book of Mormon.
7. It doesn't fit the Conneaut witnesses themselves sometimes, like the ten tribes issue, or Jackson's statement that accurately described the real MS discovered before its discovery.
8. It doesn't fit the 116 pages of the lost manuscript historical data which evidences he wasn't using a manuscript.
9. It doesn't fit the historical data of Solomon Spalding working on the manuscript right up until moving to Pittsburg.
10. It doesn't fit the historical data of the Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, Inspired Version of the Bible and the Doctrine & Covenants.
11. No second manuscript and strong historical data that there wasn't one at all (Martha's daughter had handled it and knew it to be in the trunk).
Doesn't fit Empirically:
1. The Jocker's paper has been shown to be evidence against the theory.
2. The Book of Mormon contains evidence of authorship by J.S. such as his autobiographical inclusions, the poor grammar and syntax, the historical and present context of when he dictated certain parts.
3. The manuscript evidence bears out and confirms the eyewitness testimony that it was dictated.
4. It doesn't fit the Brent Metcalfe's wherefore/therefore shift. This occurs throughout the Book of Mormon and D&C revelations that are contextually concurrent providing strong indication of Joseph's dictation and not the use of a manuscript.
5. The dialect, syntax, monotonous droning style and the poor grammar are apparent in the Book of Mormon indicating Joseph Smith and not the use of a manuscript from a Dartmouth educated Spalding and redacted and worked on for years by Rigdon.
6. Timely historical insertions that don't correspond in any way to Spalding and dictation context.
Doesn't fit theologically:
1. The very concept of deity in the Book of Mormon is not compatible with Rigdon as a Campbellite and not being converted this doesn't fit.
2. The corporeality of deity presented by Christ's finger for example doesn't fit.
3. The fall upwards doesn't fit.
4. The pre-existence doesn't fit.
5. Gods in embryo doesn't fit.
6. Polygamy doesn't fit.
7. Literal gathering of Israel in the latter days and the literal prognostications of the latter days doesn't fit.
This is just off the top of my head, but how on earth are your claiming best fit theory with these and other don't fit at all facts.
my regards, mikwut
How can S/R be the "best fit theory" when it doesn't fit so many evidential circumstances at all?
It doesn't fit the historical data, it doesn't fit the empirical data, it doesn't fit the theological data:
Doesn't fit Historically:
1. It doesn't offer a coherent historical narrative to begin with, that does't provide for a "good fit" right off the bat.
2. It can't even tell us basic factors like what does a historical romance novel redacted over tens of years into a religious scripture that includes contemporary to it being published historical data and Smith biographical inclusions look like that the witnesses could identify it? What kind of fit is that?
3. It just dismisses the independent dictation witnesses that falsify the S/R theory. It doesn't "fit" that data.
4. It doesn't fit the historical data of J.S. reciting stories of the indians years before the Book of Mormon.
5. It doesn't fit the historical data regarding any connection between Rigdon and Smith when necessary nor connection between Rigdon and Spalding or his work.
6. It doesn't fit the historical data of Pratt's genuine missionary excursion where he met Rigdon and gave him the Book of Mormon.
7. It doesn't fit the Conneaut witnesses themselves sometimes, like the ten tribes issue, or Jackson's statement that accurately described the real MS discovered before its discovery.
8. It doesn't fit the 116 pages of the lost manuscript historical data which evidences he wasn't using a manuscript.
9. It doesn't fit the historical data of Solomon Spalding working on the manuscript right up until moving to Pittsburg.
10. It doesn't fit the historical data of the Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, Inspired Version of the Bible and the Doctrine & Covenants.
11. No second manuscript and strong historical data that there wasn't one at all (Martha's daughter had handled it and knew it to be in the trunk).
Doesn't fit Empirically:
1. The Jocker's paper has been shown to be evidence against the theory.
2. The Book of Mormon contains evidence of authorship by J.S. such as his autobiographical inclusions, the poor grammar and syntax, the historical and present context of when he dictated certain parts.
3. The manuscript evidence bears out and confirms the eyewitness testimony that it was dictated.
4. It doesn't fit the Brent Metcalfe's wherefore/therefore shift. This occurs throughout the Book of Mormon and D&C revelations that are contextually concurrent providing strong indication of Joseph's dictation and not the use of a manuscript.
5. The dialect, syntax, monotonous droning style and the poor grammar are apparent in the Book of Mormon indicating Joseph Smith and not the use of a manuscript from a Dartmouth educated Spalding and redacted and worked on for years by Rigdon.
6. Timely historical insertions that don't correspond in any way to Spalding and dictation context.
Doesn't fit theologically:
1. The very concept of deity in the Book of Mormon is not compatible with Rigdon as a Campbellite and not being converted this doesn't fit.
2. The corporeality of deity presented by Christ's finger for example doesn't fit.
3. The fall upwards doesn't fit.
4. The pre-existence doesn't fit.
5. Gods in embryo doesn't fit.
6. Polygamy doesn't fit.
7. Literal gathering of Israel in the latter days and the literal prognostications of the latter days doesn't fit.
This is just off the top of my head, but how on earth are your claiming best fit theory with these and other don't fit at all facts.
my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
-Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
mikwut wrote:Marg,
How can S/R be the "best fit theory" when it doesn't fit so many evidential circumstances at all?
It doesn't fit the historical data, it doesn't fit the empirical data, it doesn't fit the theological data:
LOL..not you again...your posts are too long and wordy for me. For health reasons I need to restrict the time I spend at the computer. But I'll try to put aside the time later to read your post. Perhaps Roger or someone else will respond..I'm out of time at this point.
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
marg wrote:mentalgymnast: "I know. I read it. When he asked you, however, if you had read the whole Book of Mormon from start to finish, you seemed to be a bit fuzzy/non-committal in your response."
I'd already mentioned previously in the thread that I'd read the Book of Mormon. Someone else had already used that comment previously to DCP. In all cases it's been from people I'm not discussing with who have spent very little time involved in the discussion and their main purpose is to attack and discourage my further involvement..you are the 3rd person.
I just got into reading the discussion/thread (parts of it anyway, it's too long!) a couple of days ago. I'm no expert. Just a regular guy trying to make sense out of things. I am in no way trying to attack or discourage your further involvement. I enjoy your contributions to the discussion. It is important, in my opinion, that those that are discussing Book of Mormon origins have actually read it in depth. Not a cursory run through. So I will assume that you have read it in depth.
marg wrote:If we critique you, while you may have read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, that is no indication that your experience gives you the ability or expertise to critically evaluate how they were written and why. So to participate MG, you need to offer your critical thinking on how and why the Book of Mormon was written, I'm irrelevant to that issue which is under discussion.
Like I said marg, I'm a pretty much regular kind of guy who has an interest in things Mormon. I weigh in the balance what I read from those that are supposed to be experts in the field and then develop an opinion or tentative conclusion. I think that experience with the Book of Mormon separate from any outside influence of scholarly study is important too. Why? Simply because there's a promise given within the covers of the book promising that God will verify the contents of the book to be true, or not, through the Holy Ghost. The evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is experiential as one reads between the lines in between the covers of the book itself. It can come no other way. You will continue to move around in circles as you try to use purely/exclusively intellectual and/or critical means to prove the Book of Mormon false. Same thing with trying to prove it true, although the list that Thigpen put up
1. Hebraic and Egyptian literary structures. Scholars have identified many of those pesky little anomalies in the Book of Mormon. Structures that are ungrammatical in English, but fit well in a semitic genre. No one has shown that Smith, Rigdon, or Solomon Spalding were educated in Biblical Hebrew and especially Egyptian.
2. The Book of Mormon names. Especially the ones that are of Egyptian origin. Knowledge of the Egyptian language was in its infancy at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated. As already noted, the usual suspects had not the necessary education to come up with those names. No one has uncovered any document available to any of those suspects that had those names therein, except the Book of Mormon.
3. Archaic language from the fifteen hundreds and sixteen hundreds English rather than the the 1800's. Some of the expressions and words are not found in the Bible either. No one has shown that any of the suspects were sufficiently versed in the English of the 1500's and 1600's to write in that genre. Especially with words and phrases not found in the Bible.
4. Yes, and NHM. But not just NHM, but the Valley of Laman and Bountiful.
5. The Smith alone theory provides for only one author. The S/R theory posits maybe four collaborators. But wordprint studies have identified something like twenty-four different authors.
6. Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon. The S/R theorists have no clue about them. Dan Vogel has at least attempted to explain those variants, but the explanation is ad hoc. Some of the variants follow the Masoretic text, some follow the Septuagint. And some follow neither. John Tvedtnes has done some work in this area. Is available on the Maxwell Institute web site.
provides some interesting things to chew on. I won't intrude on the discussion at this point. Just some observations from an interested bystander who looks at both sides of an argument.
Regards,
MG
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 pm
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
GlennThigpen wrote:
How do I counter an ad hoc explanation for which there is no evidence?
marg wrote:I think there has been a problem injected into this discussion by Dan accusing the S/R theory of being full of ad hoc fallacies. How is it you dismiss S/R and Smith alone theories/explanations as fallacious ad hocs. Dan dismisses explanations within S/R theory as ad hoc fallacies. I point out your counter argument to the Smith alone theory, 'that Smith couldn't do it as he didn't have the knowledge and therefore God must have been involved' is ad hoc fallacious.
marge, I have not even been discussing the Book of Mormon as a product of divine revelation theory. I started out with the OP of this thread and it slanted off into a discussion of the Spalding witnesses because none of the S/R theorists seemed to want to deal with the implications of the Schaalje, et al study. Then the thread devolved into a parallel thread debating the merits of the Smith alone theory versus the S/R theory, which is an exercise in futility because each theory has to stand or fall on its own merits.
marge wrote:So this is my take. Every explanation/hypothesis is automatically ad hoc. It's explaining something, antecedent to the explanation. So if we want to use ad hoc fallacy as effective critical reasoning...under what conditions should that be? It seems to me it's not simply whether or not there is "evidence" for a phenomenon but rather whether the explanation for that phenomenon (which is automatically ad hoc) fits in to other explanations connected to a theory, some of which are substantiated. In other words what needs to be considered is whether there is an interconnectedness of the data and reasoning of that hypothesis to other data which is related and part of a larger theory which is well warranted.
But then you are redefining ad hoc reasoning. All theories are not automatically ad hoc.
RationalWiki wrote:In argumentation, an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying sense or logical framework. Because of this haste and lack of a consistent frame-work, the explanation is likely to contradict existing thought or other arguments. Usually it happens if someone is put on the spot to explain something - they can either deal with it in a consistent manner (meaning that their arguments are consistent for all eventualities so far), change their consistent beliefs to match, or produce an ad hoc explanation off-the-cuff to dismiss it.
The Book of Mormon was produced and the producers gave their explanation of how it was produced. That is not ad hoc. Witnesses testified that they saw the plates. Witnesses testified that they saw Joseph dictate in a certain manner. Joseph provided his own story as to how he came up with the plates and translated the Book of Mormon.
When it was produced, there were many who did not believe the story Joseph told, nor the stories of the witnesses. Yet, there was and is the Book of Mormon, and it quickly became an object of intense interest, even before the translation and printing process was complete. It seems that many who did not believe felt compelled to provide a naturalistic explanation and over the years, several theories have been floated in an attempt to provide that explanation.
The Spalding/Rigdon theory has been ad hoc almost from the start. The funny thing about it is that, while Hurlbut may not have actually started that theory, he was the one that pushed it into the limelight, but also was one of the first to give up on it when he found that the manuscript he recovered did not read like the Book of Mormon.
marge wrote:So let me take a shot at your question Glenn and I say shot because I'm thinking this through as I type ..so I'm essentially brainstorming. If there is no direct evidence you need to offer reasoning which links to evidence which can be substantiated or if not likely to be substantiated then offer an explanation which warrants why that evidence likely exists/existed. So if there is absolutely no direct evidence you need to make an inductive argument why that evidence likely exists or existed and your argument should be consistent with related evidence and reasoning not necessarily employed in that particular argument. The pieces of reasoning and evidence and the sub arguments need to fit together into a big picture explanation.
And that is where ad hoc reasoning can come in. It is not in relation to a scenario where there is no direct evidence. It comes into play when direct evidence has been introduced that is contrary to a particular theory.
You exhibited this in the case of the lost tribes. That evidence ran counter to what is in the Book of Mormon. So you posited a scenario where Solomon wrote a story about a small group of people who were of one of those tribes and called it a lost tribes story. That falls right into this from the RationalWiki, "Because of this haste and lack of a consistent frame-work, the explanation is likely to contradict existing thought or other arguments."
Your proposed explanation runs counter to the evidence produced by the witnesses themselves and counter to the established thought of the era. You provided no evidence to back up that explanation.
A second rather obvious case of ad hoc reasoning was the first Redick McKee statement when he talks about a story bases in Canaan before the Israelites invaded the land after their forty year sojourn in the wilderness. That statement contradicts all of the other witnesses who said that the story happened in the Americas.
Your answer was that no one had proven that Solomon could not have gone back further in time and started in pre-Israel Canaan. But that idea has absolutely no support from any witness or any documentary evidence. It is just an ad hoc explanation to try to counter contrary evidence.
marge wrote:by the way, I'm not going to address your post(link to above post) to me in which you counter my response to Dan on his list of S/R ad hocs. All those S/R explanations relate to the larger theory and fit within the theory...they aren't simply non connected explanations to a theory without any warrants for the sole purpose of saving a theory from being falsified.
It is okay if you do not try to deal with the evidence of contradictions I produced and the issues that the Book of Mormon raises that the S/R theory does not deal with.
For any theory to be tenable, it must be able to cover the gaps adequately. If the S/R theory cannot account for the things I presented in my post, along with a host of others, it fails. That is the larger picture.
Glenn
In order to give character to their lies, they dress them up with a great deal of piety; for a pious lie, you know, has a good deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one. Hence their lies came signed by the pious wife of a pious deceased priest. Sidney Rigdon QW J8-39
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
Marg,
Comments on your May 10 response to Glenn:
You still don’t know what an ad hoc explanation is. When I countered the S/R theory with evidence from witnesses who said there was no MS in the room when Joseph Smith dictated with head in hat—that was not ad hoc. It was based on testimony. However, when you countered that with your trick-hat hypothesis, it was ad hoc because you were protecting your theory with something you made up without any supportive evidence.
Often, the inventers of ad hoc explanations are just as clever in connecting them (artificially) to the main theory. However, I view your hat-trick theory and “lost tribes” explanation was examples of ad hoc apologetic.
Somewhat true, but a theory which grows in ad hocs and gets weighed down will eventually be abandoned.
No, all explanations aren’t ad hoc. Your hat-trick theory is out of the blue and has no connection to anything. Your explanation of “lost tribes” was of the same order.
Your hat-trick theory, for example, has no independent reason to exist, you invented it on the spot because you need it. On the other hand, the testimony that Joseph Smith used at hat exists independent of any theory and has incidental relevanc
Comments on your May 10 response to Glenn:
So this is my take. Every explanation/hypothesis is automatically ad hoc. It's explaining something, antecedent to the explanation. So if we want to use ad hoc fallacy as effective critical reasoning...under what conditions should that be? It seems to me it's not simply whether or not there is "evidence" for a phenomenon but rather whether the explanation for that phenomenon (which is automatically ad hoc) fits in to other explanations connected to a theory, some of which are substantiated. In other words what needs to be considered is whether there is an interconnectedness of the data and reasoning of that hypothesis to other data which is related and part of a larger theory which is well warranted.
You still don’t know what an ad hoc explanation is. When I countered the S/R theory with evidence from witnesses who said there was no MS in the room when Joseph Smith dictated with head in hat—that was not ad hoc. It was based on testimony. However, when you countered that with your trick-hat hypothesis, it was ad hoc because you were protecting your theory with something you made up without any supportive evidence.
Only those explanations which have no explanatory link to the theory under consideration, that is the explanation is solely meant for the anomaly without any link to the theory..then it is potentially ad hoc fallacy. That is it's simply an explanation to save a theory as opposed to being an explanation with some support via its connection to the theory.
Often, the inventers of ad hoc explanations are just as clever in connecting them (artificially) to the main theory. However, I view your hat-trick theory and “lost tribes” explanation was examples of ad hoc apologetic.
Any complex theory to explain a phenomenon is going to have more ad hoc explanations than any simpler theory for the same phenomenon. That doesn't make the ad hoc's fallacious, nor does simplicity make the theory the correct or best fit theory of the data and evidence.
Somewhat true, but a theory which grows in ad hocs and gets weighed down will eventually be abandoned.
What Dan did in a previous post is list a number of S/R explanations and say they were ad hoc. Yes, all explanations are ad hoc. But that doesn't make them fallacious. If the explanations relate to the theory, even if they don't have direct evidence, if they are supported and link to other explanations some of which are warranted with evidence..then they aren't fallacious. They aren't simply out of the blue explanations with no connection to the phenomenon under consideration.
No, all explanations aren’t ad hoc. Your hat-trick theory is out of the blue and has no connection to anything. Your explanation of “lost tribes” was of the same order.
In general any hypothesis can be maintained in the face of seemingly adverse beliefs. Consequently, no hypothesis can be conclusively confuted. This does not mean however, that every hypothesis is as good as every other. Although no amount of evidence logically compels us to reject a hypothesis, maintaining a hypothesis in the face of adverse evidence can be manifestly unreasonable. So even if we cannot conclusively say that a hypothesis is false, we can conclusively say that it’s unreasonable. …
[A] popular method for shielding hypotheses from adverse evidence: constructing ad hoc hypotheses. A hypothesis threatened by recalcitrant data can often be saved by postulating entities or properties that account for the data. Such a move is legitimate if there’s an independent means of verifying their existence. If there is no such means, the hypothesis is ad hoc.
Ad hoc literally means “for this case only.” But it’s not simply that a hypothesis is designed to account for a particular phenomenon that makes it ad hoc (if that were the cace, all hypotheses would be ad hoc). What makes a hypothesis ad hoc is that if can’t be verified independently of the phenomenon it’s supposed to explain. …
When a scientific theory starts relying on ad hoc hypotheses to be saved from adverse data, it becomes unreasonable to maintain belief in that theory. … (Theodore Schick, Jr., and Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age [Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1999], 156-58).
Your hat-trick theory, for example, has no independent reason to exist, you invented it on the spot because you need it. On the other hand, the testimony that Joseph Smith used at hat exists independent of any theory and has incidental relevanc
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
Glenn,
Most of your list is far from conclusive. It’s circular to assume what you see in the text was intentionally placed there, and then declare Joseph Smith couldn’t have intentionally put it there. Each of these is a thread in itself, so I will give brief reactions to them.
Most of these bits of data are in Joseph Smith’s revelations, which aren’t Hebraic or Egyptian either. This ignores the sea of bad grammar and redundancies that have no correspondence to ancient writing. In this regard I would point you to the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or emphasizing the successes and disregarding the failures. See Edward H. Ashment, “’A Record in the Language of My Father’: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon).
The name game is a very weak way to find evidence. Nibley’s discussion of Deseret, for example, is very problematic and thoroughly discussed.
One reason might be that Joseph Smith was exposed to Quaker-speak, revival language, Puritan literature, prayer books, hymnals, etc. This ignores inconsistent and improper uses of this type of English. Wes Walter’s in his thesis concluded that it was artificially employed.
NHM is not necessarily Nahom of the Book of Mormon, and Morse’s geography mentions places like Bountiful along the coast. Correlation is not always causation. There is no solid evidence backing up the assumed correspondence. NHM is only generally where the Book of Mormon has it.
I don’t think these studies are conclusive at all. Word frequencies of very short samples of a supposed translation, of a text supposedly written in abbreviated Egyptian, of a supposedly Hebrew speaking prophet, seems problematic to me.
I believe David Wright showed that the Isaiah variants are in fact responses to the 1611 English text and often disruptive to the underlying Hebrew (see “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in American Apocrypha). A few coincidental hits that Mormon apologists exploit hardly make up for the majority of misses. Apologetic responses to those are usually ad hoc.
The burden is on the Mormon apologists to make their case in the first place, which I don’t believe they can.
Most of your list is far from conclusive. It’s circular to assume what you see in the text was intentionally placed there, and then declare Joseph Smith couldn’t have intentionally put it there. Each of these is a thread in itself, so I will give brief reactions to them.
1. Hebraic and Egyptian literary structures. Scholars have identified many of those pesky little anomalies in the Book of Mormon. Structures that are ungrammatical in English, but fit well in a semitic genre. No one has shown that Smith, Rigdon, or Solomon Spalding were educated in Biblical Hebrew and especially Egyptian.
Most of these bits of data are in Joseph Smith’s revelations, which aren’t Hebraic or Egyptian either. This ignores the sea of bad grammar and redundancies that have no correspondence to ancient writing. In this regard I would point you to the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or emphasizing the successes and disregarding the failures. See Edward H. Ashment, “’A Record in the Language of My Father’: Evidence of Ancient Egyptian and Hebrew in the Book of Mormon,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon).
2. The Book of Mormon names. Especially the ones that are of Egyptian origin. Knowledge of the Egyptian language was in its infancy at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated. As already noted, the usual suspects had not the necessary education to come up with those names. No one has uncovered any document available to any of those suspects that had those names therein, except the Book of Mormon.
The name game is a very weak way to find evidence. Nibley’s discussion of Deseret, for example, is very problematic and thoroughly discussed.
3. Archaic language from the fifteen hundreds and sixteen hundreds English rather than the the 1800's. Some of the expressions and words are not found in the Bible either. No one has shown that any of the suspects were sufficiently versed in the English of the 1500's and 1600's to write in that genre. Especially with words and phrases not found in the Bible.
One reason might be that Joseph Smith was exposed to Quaker-speak, revival language, Puritan literature, prayer books, hymnals, etc. This ignores inconsistent and improper uses of this type of English. Wes Walter’s in his thesis concluded that it was artificially employed.
4. Yes, and NHM. But not just NHM, but the Valley of Laman and Bountiful.
NHM is not necessarily Nahom of the Book of Mormon, and Morse’s geography mentions places like Bountiful along the coast. Correlation is not always causation. There is no solid evidence backing up the assumed correspondence. NHM is only generally where the Book of Mormon has it.
5. The Smith alone theory provides for only one author. The S/R theory posits maybe four collaborators. But wordprint studies have identified something like twenty-four different authors.
I don’t think these studies are conclusive at all. Word frequencies of very short samples of a supposed translation, of a text supposedly written in abbreviated Egyptian, of a supposedly Hebrew speaking prophet, seems problematic to me.
6. Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon. The S/R theorists have no clue about them. Dan Vogel has at least attempted to explain those variants, but the explanation is ad hoc. Some of the variants follow the Masoretic text, some follow the Septuagint. And some follow neither. John Tvedtnes has done some work in this area. Is available on the Maxwell Institute web site.
I believe David Wright showed that the Isaiah variants are in fact responses to the 1611 English text and often disruptive to the underlying Hebrew (see “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in American Apocrypha). A few coincidental hits that Mormon apologists exploit hardly make up for the majority of misses. Apologetic responses to those are usually ad hoc.
Those are just a few of the gaps that neither the S/R theory or the Smith alone theory cope with very well. There are more, but those I listed need to be taken care of first, but not with ad hoc reasoning without any evidentiary support.
The burden is on the Mormon apologists to make their case in the first place, which I don’t believe they can.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 pm
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
Dan Vogel wrote:Glenn,
Most of your list is far from conclusive. It’s circular to assume what you see in the text was intentionally placed there, and then declare Joseph Smith couldn’t have intentionally put it there. Each of these is a thread in itself, so I will give brief reactions to them.
Dan, I am not arguing anything about Joseph right now. I am only pointing out that the S/R theory does not deal at all with my points. The Smith alone theory deals with some of them. However, you are correct that each of the points would need its own thread. I will only comment on a couple of your points.
Dan Vogel wrote:The name game is a very weak way to find evidence. Nibley’s discussion of Deseret, for example, is very problematic and thoroughly discussed.
This is an area that the S/R theory deals with not at all. The Egyptian names are problematic for any of the suggested authors. This is not an attempt to prove the Book of Mormon true by the name game, but to show that the S/R theory does not account for any of them.
glenn wrote:3. Archaic language from the fifteen hundreds and sixteen hundreds English rather than the the 1800's. Some of the expressions and words are not found in the Bible either. No one has shown that any of the suspects were sufficiently versed in the English of the 1500's and 1600's to write in that genre. Especially with words and phrases not found in the Bible.
Dan Vogel wrote:One reason might be that Joseph Smith was exposed to Quaker-speak, revival language, Puritan literature, prayer books, hymnals, etc. This ignores inconsistent and improper uses of this type of English. Wes Walter’s in his thesis concluded that it was artificially employed.
Dan, isn't that ad hoc reasoning? Is there any evidence that Joseph was exposed to books, periodicals, hymnals, etc. with those elements? I have not read Wesley Walter's thesis, but I assume that you are familiar with Royal Skousen's take on the subject. Was Walter's aware of the provenance of English in the Book of Mormon?
Dan Vogel wrote:The burden is on the Mormon apologists to make their case in the first place, which I don’t believe they can.
That is an ongoing debate, is it not? But as of now, I am just working with how well the S/R theory deals with those points. I should have left the Smith alone theory out of the equation at this point just to keep the thread and post manageable.
Whatever the provenance of the Book of Mormon, there is nothing apparent in the educational background of the authors suggested by the S/R theory to account for the grammar, some of the names, etc. found in the Book of Mormon.
The burden is on the S/R theorists to make their case, and on the Smith alone theorists to make their case. And if there be any automatic writing theorists out there, they can add their input.
That is the whole point of the theories, to explain how the Book of Mormon came about, if there is no divine provenance.
Glenn
In order to give character to their lies, they dress them up with a great deal of piety; for a pious lie, you know, has a good deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one. Hence their lies came signed by the pious wife of a pious deceased priest. Sidney Rigdon QW J8-39
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am
Re: Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available
Glenn,
I don’t mind skipping discussion on this, but I thought you were arguing Smith-divine theory was superior to Smith-alone and S/R theory. I just wanted to give idea that such evidences aren’t iron clad.
S/R theory would account for them the same as Smith-alone. The burden is on those arguing for historicity, especially since they are the only ones potentially dealing with positive evidence. Those arguing against mostly rely on problematic negative evidence. Without direct proof of Nephite material culture, apologists must assume historicity and look for suggestive evidence, which can’t be seen in the text without making the assumption in the first place. It becomes a circular interpretation that cheery-picks evidence from the text.
No, it’s not ad hoc. There is an inherent problem with going back in English literature and claiming Joseph Smith could not know certain things—it’s vulnerable to the kind of evidence I mentioned. In fact, it begs that response. Obviously, it takes a great deal of time to conduct that kind of search, which I haven’t done. What follows is my brief assessment of the problematic nature of Skousen’s examples.
Skousen’s “The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon” is based on the assumption that Joseph Smith dictated words that were not part of his vocabulary, which implies that translation was mechanical rather than conceptual. This creates a larger problem when applied to quotes from the Bible that are incorrect and anachronistic, as well as revivalisms, which is one reason leading apologist Dan Peterson doesn’t support some of Skousen’s conclusions. I’m not sure what Skousen hope to prove, or rather what other apologists hope to prove by referencing him.
Your response is to insist that we prove Joseph Smith read a specific book with a specific example in it before we can question the apologists’ evidence. However, the apologists’ evidence rests on the assumption that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known certain archaic English words or phrases, something that can’t be demonstrated by them.
Skousen admits: “We should note that the text does not consistently use the archaic meaning for every instance of these words.” Thus the text as a whole isn’t archaic, but Skousen has found a few instances. When we consider these examples do not appear as habits of speech and that the Book of Mormon has poor grammar and word usage to begin with, how compelling is it that some of these problems show up in pre-1600 writings? What do we do with the vocabulary that appears after 1600 in revival settings? Skousen’s examples are:
To counsel, meaning 'to counsel with'
"counsel the Lord in all thy doings" (Alma 37:37)
A similar ambiguous example appears in D&C 1:19: “that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh.” Skousen has two (out of 11 possible) examples where “with” is missing, but can’t demonstrate that it was intentional.
But if, meaning 'unless'
Mosiah 3:19 reads "for the natural man is an enemy to God and has been from the fall of Adam and will be forever and ever but if he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit."
Skousen gives one example (out of 26 possible), again without the ability to show that it was intentional. Given that it was dictated impromptu (if not translated), it could have been an accidental incomplete sentence. There are instances of digressions where the main topic was never completed.
To depart, meaning 'to part, divide, separate'
Helaman 8:11, the text reads "God gave power unto one man even Moses to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea and they departed hither and thither."
Not clearly archaic since water can “depart” one way and the other—not necessarily meaning divide or separate. Not a clear example as Skousen gives: The 1557 Geneva Bible translates John 19:24 as "They departed my rayment among them." An uneducated person could confuse departed with parted, and there is no consistent or even a habit of use from which to infer intentionality.
Extinct, referring to an individual's death
Alma 44:7 reads "and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies that ye may become extinct."
However, Job 17:1: “My breath is corrupt, my days are extinct …” See also Isa. 43:17.
I haven’t spent a great deal of time studying Skousen’s proposal, but I don’t think these responses are ad hoc because they stem from the problematic nature of the evidence offered using a text that isn’t exactly stable. Rather, Skousen’s response to his use of exceptional examples—“ We cannot expect the text to have no variation at all”—is ad hoc.
Walters wasn’t aware of Skousen’s claims, having died before publication. However, Skousen’s examples can’t be used to change “the provenance of English in the Book of Mormon” from 1830—which included a fake KJV English mixed with revivalisms mixed with Yankeeisms—to 1500s-1600s.
Any naturalistic explanation is going to have similar responses. But I don’t want to impede what you are doing here, because I think you have made a significant contribution to this discussion.
This assumes that the Egyptian-Hebrew names were placed there intentionally and ignores the possible ingenuity of the researchers. Name comparisons are notoriously tricky business.
When it comes their turn to bear the burden, which is right after the original claim is set aside. Then there will be equal burden among the naturalists.
I won’t push too hard in this thread, but there is a tendency of apologists to exploit our inability to explain everything as a gap into which God can be inserted. That’s a non-sequitur. The debate should focus on Book of Mormon historicity. In absence of direct evidence linking the Book of Mormon to the real world—specifically ancient America—and the proliferation of ad hoc defenses (most notably the Limited Geography Theory and Limited Population Theory)—the most reasonable theory is the Smith-alone theory.
Dan, I am not arguing anything about Joseph right now. I am only pointing out that the S/R theory does not deal at all with my points. The Smith alone theory deals with some of them. However, you are correct that each of the points would need its own thread. I will only comment on a couple of your points.
I don’t mind skipping discussion on this, but I thought you were arguing Smith-divine theory was superior to Smith-alone and S/R theory. I just wanted to give idea that such evidences aren’t iron clad.
This is an area that the S/R theory deals with not at all. The Egyptian names are problematic for any of the suggested authors. This is not an attempt to prove the Book of Mormon true by the name game, but to show that the S/R theory does not account for any of them.
S/R theory would account for them the same as Smith-alone. The burden is on those arguing for historicity, especially since they are the only ones potentially dealing with positive evidence. Those arguing against mostly rely on problematic negative evidence. Without direct proof of Nephite material culture, apologists must assume historicity and look for suggestive evidence, which can’t be seen in the text without making the assumption in the first place. It becomes a circular interpretation that cheery-picks evidence from the text.
One reason might be that Joseph Smith was exposed to Quaker-speak, revival language, Puritan literature, prayer books, hymnals, etc. This ignores inconsistent and improper uses of this type of English. Wes Walter’s in his thesis concluded that it was artificially employed.
Dan, isn't that ad hoc reasoning? Is there any evidence that Joseph was exposed to books, periodicals, hymnals, etc. with those elements? I have not read Wesley Walter's thesis, but I assume that you are familiar with Royal Skousen's take on the subject. Was Walter's aware of the provenance of English in the Book of Mormon?
No, it’s not ad hoc. There is an inherent problem with going back in English literature and claiming Joseph Smith could not know certain things—it’s vulnerable to the kind of evidence I mentioned. In fact, it begs that response. Obviously, it takes a great deal of time to conduct that kind of search, which I haven’t done. What follows is my brief assessment of the problematic nature of Skousen’s examples.
Skousen’s “The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon” is based on the assumption that Joseph Smith dictated words that were not part of his vocabulary, which implies that translation was mechanical rather than conceptual. This creates a larger problem when applied to quotes from the Bible that are incorrect and anachronistic, as well as revivalisms, which is one reason leading apologist Dan Peterson doesn’t support some of Skousen’s conclusions. I’m not sure what Skousen hope to prove, or rather what other apologists hope to prove by referencing him.
Your response is to insist that we prove Joseph Smith read a specific book with a specific example in it before we can question the apologists’ evidence. However, the apologists’ evidence rests on the assumption that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known certain archaic English words or phrases, something that can’t be demonstrated by them.
Skousen admits: “We should note that the text does not consistently use the archaic meaning for every instance of these words.” Thus the text as a whole isn’t archaic, but Skousen has found a few instances. When we consider these examples do not appear as habits of speech and that the Book of Mormon has poor grammar and word usage to begin with, how compelling is it that some of these problems show up in pre-1600 writings? What do we do with the vocabulary that appears after 1600 in revival settings? Skousen’s examples are:
To counsel, meaning 'to counsel with'
"counsel the Lord in all thy doings" (Alma 37:37)
A similar ambiguous example appears in D&C 1:19: “that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh.” Skousen has two (out of 11 possible) examples where “with” is missing, but can’t demonstrate that it was intentional.
But if, meaning 'unless'
Mosiah 3:19 reads "for the natural man is an enemy to God and has been from the fall of Adam and will be forever and ever but if he yieldeth to the enticings of the Holy Spirit."
Skousen gives one example (out of 26 possible), again without the ability to show that it was intentional. Given that it was dictated impromptu (if not translated), it could have been an accidental incomplete sentence. There are instances of digressions where the main topic was never completed.
To depart, meaning 'to part, divide, separate'
Helaman 8:11, the text reads "God gave power unto one man even Moses to smite upon the waters of the Red Sea and they departed hither and thither."
Not clearly archaic since water can “depart” one way and the other—not necessarily meaning divide or separate. Not a clear example as Skousen gives: The 1557 Geneva Bible translates John 19:24 as "They departed my rayment among them." An uneducated person could confuse departed with parted, and there is no consistent or even a habit of use from which to infer intentionality.
Extinct, referring to an individual's death
Alma 44:7 reads "and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies that ye may become extinct."
However, Job 17:1: “My breath is corrupt, my days are extinct …” See also Isa. 43:17.
I haven’t spent a great deal of time studying Skousen’s proposal, but I don’t think these responses are ad hoc because they stem from the problematic nature of the evidence offered using a text that isn’t exactly stable. Rather, Skousen’s response to his use of exceptional examples—“ We cannot expect the text to have no variation at all”—is ad hoc.
Walters wasn’t aware of Skousen’s claims, having died before publication. However, Skousen’s examples can’t be used to change “the provenance of English in the Book of Mormon” from 1830—which included a fake KJV English mixed with revivalisms mixed with Yankeeisms—to 1500s-1600s.
The burden is on the Mormon apologists to make their case in the first place, which I don’t believe they can.
That is an ongoing debate, is it not? But as of now, I am just working with how well the S/R theory deals with those points. I should have left the Smith alone theory out of the equation at this point just to keep the thread and post manageable.
Any naturalistic explanation is going to have similar responses. But I don’t want to impede what you are doing here, because I think you have made a significant contribution to this discussion.
Whatever the provenance of the Book of Mormon, there is nothing apparent in the educational background of the authors suggested by the S/R theory to account for the grammar, some of the names, etc. found in the Book of Mormon.
This assumes that the Egyptian-Hebrew names were placed there intentionally and ignores the possible ingenuity of the researchers. Name comparisons are notoriously tricky business.
The burden is on the S/R theorists to make their case, and on the Smith alone theorists to make their case. And if there be any automatic writing theorists out there, they can add their input.
When it comes their turn to bear the burden, which is right after the original claim is set aside. Then there will be equal burden among the naturalists.
That is the whole point of the theories, to explain how the Book of Mormon came about, if there is no divine provenance.
I won’t push too hard in this thread, but there is a tendency of apologists to exploit our inability to explain everything as a gap into which God can be inserted. That’s a non-sequitur. The debate should focus on Book of Mormon historicity. In absence of direct evidence linking the Book of Mormon to the real world—specifically ancient America—and the proliferation of ad hoc defenses (most notably the Limited Geography Theory and Limited Population Theory)—the most reasonable theory is the Smith-alone theory.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)