Making a fair and thorough literary evaluation of Book of Mormon authorship

[ParkerD]

Well, it is at an undergrad level.

Which has nothing to do with your claim that they used an invalid statistical method. Still waiting for you to produce the evidence for this.

If their control selection is off, explain the statistical reasoning why, not just your “suspicions”.

RebeccaJ,
The reason a scientific study establishes a control and does so as objectively as possible, is so that the bias of the researcher will not bias the results.

The reasoning why their method was incomplete and inadequate for saying they arrived at valid controls, is as follows:

1. In the first place, they presented the wrong dates for Joel Barlow and the Columbiad. Barlow wrote the work (The Vision of Columbus, published in 1787) that he later used to make the Columbiad which he published in 1810. He died in 1812. The article says his work was written in 1825. This mistake shows the casual attitude these authors had in validating their controls.
2. In the second place, the authors took “fifty novels of the same era” (American novels) and clustered those novels for similar word use, versus the cluster they came up with for the potential authors they had selected, and for the Book of Mormon. The cluster for the Book of Mormon itself was in a similar cluster to Barlow and Longfellow, but dissimilar to any of the other authors in the largest cluster set they ran. So what did they do? They came up with fewer words as a cluster set that would place their selected authors and the Book of Mormon and Barlow and Longfellow into a similar cluster set. (See the following link:
   purl.stanford.edu/ir:rs276tc2764/index.html
3. By choosing to compare with “fifty novels of the same era”, they invalidated the idea of there being a control in their supposed “controls”, because they were now working with three different and distinct genres: the novel (they don’t describe which kind of novel, but most likely romance novels popular at the time); the epic poem; and a religious historical and personal essay narrative (The Book of Mormon).
4. The authors should have taken a step back when they found that Longfellow was the closest match to being the writer of several chapters of the Book of Mormon using their statistical approach. (This is what a control is supposed to do–help the “scientist” take a step back from their arrival at conclusions when a finding invalidates their preconceived conclusion. During this step back, a rigorous scientist should expand their control set to see if they really had an adequate control set to begin with, and to see if they need to include other considerations that they had not previously addressed in establishing their control set.)
5. Why no personal essay writers in their control set? Why no speeches in their control set, since the Book of Mormon presents a great number of “speeches” that are a genre in and of themselves (the closest other match being the personal essay)? This is why I suggested the use of Emerson and Thoreau, particularly Emerson.

 

[Returning_Home]

RH,I suppose you are aware that during the visions that John had that he recorded as the book of Revelation, he saw several angels, and some of them conversed with him at various times. One of those conversations happens in Revelation 19:10, wherein the angel with whom John is conversing responds to John’s expressed desire to “worship” the angel. The verse says John “fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

Satan can cite the Bible, too, but you’re still just dancing around the topic. The point is that I’m addressing the fictional Moroni becoming an angel. Please show me where this is mentioned anywhere in LDS works. Also address how Moroni was stiffed out of his exaltation, too.

RH,You may have some belief about the words “fellowservant” and “thy brethren” than I have, but I think it makes simple and complete sense that those words mean that angel was saying he had previously lived his life on the earth and was at that particular moment giving a message to John by assignment from Christ.

Actually, I don’t because we’re talking about Mormonism, not Christianity.

RH,The word “angel” usually means “messenger from God” as far as how that word is usually used in the Bible, unless specifically used with the word “fallen” as a modifier which then refers to either Satan or his rebellious followers. But there are instances when the word “angel” has other meanings, such as the one you evidently are referring to when the Savior told the Sadducees that their hypothetical brother Sadducees would be “as the angels”, meaning “not as sons of God”. The context of the word is what helps one figure out its specific meaning in the passage where it is used.

Moroni acted as a “messenger from God”, which does not mean he was not resurrected to be a “son of God” as Christ promised about those who fully comply with gospel covenant-making and keeping. It means he was sent to the earth with a message from Christ about the gospel of Jesus Christ. He fulfilled Revelation 14:6 with giving the world the message he delivered.

I agree with your Biblicly-based assesment of the nature and purpose of angels, but in this case, Moroni became an angel, something for which there’s no precedent that I can find. I’m simply asking you to cite chapter and verse where this is shown to be possible and how it affects exaltation. Since an angel isn’t a god, nor could be mistaken for one, what did Moroni do wrong so as to lose his exaltation and be reassigned to mere angelic status?

RH,
2) I don’t know how far you stretch the word “almost”, but if you really think that, then go ahead and write up a complete description of a “tree of life vision” using the Bible, and go ahead and write up a complete “tame and wild olive tree” allegory using the Bible, and go ahead and write up how the Bible presents the teaching that there must be “opposition in all things” and also as thorough a teaching about the atonement of Christ as the Book of Mormon provides to the world.

Now why would I do that? I don’t have to go any farther than the account of Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream to find the inspiration for that part of the BOM, some 19 years earlier. What you’ve failed to grasp throughout all of this is that the BOM was written in conjuction with the Bible and, with that as a starting point, Smith and subsequent leadership worked away from it as time went on. This is the reason that the BOM more-or-less agrees with the Bible but modern Moronism does not.

Yes, the BOM states that atonement is through the grace of Christ alone, but the modern church denies even that, adding an endless series of pointless works.

 

[Returning_Home]

RH,
I didn’t close the earlier thread. I don’t have the wherewithal to do that, nor am I policing threads.

Nor did I claim any such thing. The very fact that you stated this shows that you’re so used to being on the defensive that you seem paranoid, seeing accusations where there aren’t any.

I simply wasn’t able to respond to your claims in a timely matter before that thread was closed so, noting that they’re a perfect fit here, chose to do so now.

I’m going to be “intellectually honest” here. I feel no need to respond to this post. Your post here has reminded me that I need not feel any obligation to respond to someone with the built-in negativity already in their presentation. If you want more fuel for the fire of that negativity, then look for it somewhere else (or you may look for it right here when I don’t answer what I’ve already answered and you evidently didn’t understand).

Ah, thanks for the laugh, Parker, but you’ve blatantly contradicted yourself here, claiming that you’re going to be honest but that you had no intention of answering the questions put forth. You came to this forum and *you *started this thread, putting yourself in the position of defending the failth and now you’re going to run away from the hard questions? You started this and God has moved me to stand in the way of Mormonism’s lies and false claims. If that’s too hard for you to deal with, I’m sorry, but once again, this isn’t personal. I do what I do because I have to defend true Christianity against those who would usurp and pervert it for their own purposes. If you’re offended, perhaps it’s because you’re tired of defending the lies of your church and it’s beginning to take its toll. You’re in dire need of stepping back and taking a clear inventory of the pros and cons of Mormonism without its perceived benefits.

If you care to present your questions with at least some sense of a respectful way, then I’ll consider answering the questions.

Sadly, this is just you making an excuse to not answer the charges, putting on the air of the indignant and playing the role of the offended when, in reality, it’s Mormonism that’s offensive to God and Christianity. You can fool yourself but you can’t fool God and I hope that when you’re standing in judgement before Him not being exalted, learning for a fact that Joseph Smith lied for his own benefit and arrogance, you can somehow convince Him that you’re still a good person at heart who did the wrong thing for the right reason.

 

[ParkerD]

The point is that I’m addressing the fictional Moroni becoming an angel. Please show me where this is mentioned anywhere in LDS works. Also address how Moroni was stiffed out of his exaltation, too.

I agree with your Biblicly-based assesment of the nature and purpose of angels, but in this case, Moroni became an angel, something for which there’s no precedent that I can find. I’m simply asking you to cite chapter and verse where this is shown to be possible and how it affects exaltation. Since an angel isn’t a god, nor could be mistaken for one, what did Moroni do wrong so as to lose his exaltation and be reassigned to mere angelic status?

RH,
Maybe it will help you understand about “angels” if you were to draw a simple diagram with several circles in a row on a piece of paper.

At the far left, write “pre-mortal life–spirits in the presence of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost” inside the circle. Under this circle, write the words “righteous spirits can visit the earth as spirit angels, by special assignment from Christ”.

Next right, place the words “fallen angels (spirits)” inside that circle, and draw an arrow showing that those fallen angel spirits were cast down to the earth. (You could also draw an arrow from the first circle and bypassing this circle to show that the spirits from the first circle go to the earth.)

Next right, write “this earth and mortal life: spirits who chose to accept God’s plan of salvation (including God the Son, the Firstborn, Jesus Christ) have physical birth and gain a physical body.”

Next right, write inside the circle the words “spirit world–spirits awaiting resurrection”. Under this circle, write the words “can visit the earth as spirit angels”.

Next right, write inside the circle the words “resurrected and still helping humankind when assigned by Christ to visit the earth or gather records in heaven.” Under this circle, write the words “visit the earth as resurrected beings but not yet exalted to their final glory”.

Next right, write inside the circle the word “resurrected and assigned to a glory that makes them angels forever”.

Next right, write inside the circle the word “resurrected, exalted beings who inherit a joint throne with Christ and have finished their assignments on the earth.”

Moroni was resurrected when he visited Joseph Smith, but had not yet finished his assignment on the earth. This is not a “punishment”–it means he had a work to do that he desired to do and had been assigned to do, back on the earth. The use of the word “angel” means he was a “messenger sent by God to the earth” as I had previously noted, in the context where it is used when talking about the Angel Moroni. Peter and James would also be considered “angels” when they visited Joseph Smith and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood and keys, along with John who was still a translated being, in 1829. John the Baptist would also be considered an “angel” since he also visited Joseph Smith by assignment from Christ and had a resurrected body and placed his hands on the heads of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Here is a basic reference that includes talking about the “resurrected Moroni”:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=d8d3cb7a29c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD#

 

[SirThomasMore]

Nor did I claim any such thing. The very fact that you stated this shows that you’re so used to being on the defensive that you seem paranoid, seeing accusations where there aren’t any.

I simply wasn’t able to respond to your claims in a timely matter before that thread was closed so, noting that they’re a perfect fit here, chose to do so now.

Ah, thanks for the laugh, Parker, but you’ve blatantly contradicted yourself here, claiming that you’re going to be honest but that you had no intention of answering the questions put forth. You came to this forum and *you *started this thread, putting yourself in the position of defending the failth and now you’re going to run away from the hard questions? You started this and God has moved me to stand in the way of Mormonism’s lies and false claims. If that’s too hard for you to deal with, I’m sorry, but once again, this isn’t personal. I do what I do because I have to defend true Christianity against those who would usurp and pervert it for their own purposes. If you’re offended, perhaps it’s because you’re tired of defending the lies of your church and it’s beginning to take its toll. You’re in dire need of stepping back and taking a clear inventory of the pros and cons of Mormonism without its perceived benefits.

Sadly, this is just you making an excuse to not answer the charges, putting on the air of the indignant and playing the role of the offended when, in reality, it’s Mormonism that’s offensive to God and Christianity. You can fool yourself but you can’t fool God and I hope that when you’re standing in judgement before Him not being exalted, learning for a fact that Joseph Smith lied for his own benefit and arrogance, you can somehow convince Him that you’re still a good person at heart who did the wrong thing for the right reason.

I love how you have proven Parker wrong and, by extension, proven the BM is a farce

 

[ParkerD]

Nor did I claim any such thing.

RH,
When you used the words “unceremoniously closed for no reason” then it appeared to me that you thought I had had something to do with that. Now you have said you realized I didn’t. Fine.

You came to this forum and *you *started this thread, putting yourself in the position of defending the failth and now you’re going to run away from the hard questions?

No. I had no problem with answering your questions. They are not hard questions. What I deal with is that I have a responsibility, since I have chosen to participate on this forum, to lift the people in some way if I am going to respond to them. That is called following the Savior. That is what He sought to do–lift people.

I asked that you change behavior to a conversation showing respect. This is, at most, following the forum request that people use charity in their interaction, but in a case such as we often see from those responding to LDS, I don’t see such a thing as interacting with charity is very apt to be possible from some of those posting but I think everyone knows how to at least act respectfully, even if disagreeing.

I have never been offended by anything I have read that you posted on this forum. I don’t think in terms of being offended in this forum, at all. I do wish the people posting would learn to be more respectful, and have appreciated when the moderators have tried to help that become a reality.

There is another issue also. A person with so much bitterness in their heart, such that every time they post the bitterness shows, ought for their own health to just leave the subject alone. Out of the abundance of the heart their mouth (their written word) speaks. (Matthew 12:34). Since I am very much aware of those kinds of issues, then I saw a need to make the attempt to help change the tone of the conversation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD, you have some ideas as to what is wrong with the study, but have not provided the evidence that shows your ideas prove the study as invalid.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, you have some ideas as to what is wrong with the study, but have not provided the evidence that shows your ideas prove the study as invalid.

RebeccaJ,
Scientific inquiry, hypothesis formation, and testing of a hypothesis relies on a control as a very important part of the process, as I previously noted and we learn in science classes in school.

If the control is weak or invalid, then the conclusion reached by a study, particularly a comparison study such as that one was, is completely rendered biased by the biases introduced by the researchers.

I did show evidence, if you followed the link. They took fifty novels and showed first off that the words they selected matched the supposed potential Book of Mormon authors in their study to several novelists’ use of those words as to similar usage patterns, but did not match Longfellow’s epic poem, or Joel Barlow’s epic poem (neither of which was written in the time period the Book of Mormon was published), or the Book of Mormon. It is the first diagram in the link that was cited in note 28, if I remember correctly, in their study. I provided the link in my response to you. They then formulated shorter lists of words and found a close enough match to say they had validated their control. That is a biased way to validate what is supposed to bring an unbiased “control” to the research process.

I also explained that by saying that Longfellow was shown to be the most closely matched author to several chapters of the Book of Mormon, and yet do nothing with that give-away that their control was not working adequately, is again to re-introduce bias into their study and render the results completely biased.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
Scientific inquiry, hypothesis formation, and testing of a hypothesis relies on a control as a very important part of the process, as I previously noted and we learn in science classes in school.

If the control is weak or invalid, then the conclusion reached by a study, particularly a comparison study such as that one was, is completely rendered biased by the biases introduced by the researchers.

I did show evidence, if you followed the link. They took fifty novels and showed first off that the words they selected matched the supposed potential Book of Mormon authors in their study to several novelists’ use of those words as to similar usage patterns, but did not match Longfellow’s epic poem, or Joel Barlow’s epic poem (neither of which was written in the time period the Book of Mormon was published), or the Book of Mormon. It is the first diagram in the link that was cited in note 28, if I remember correctly, in their study. I provided the link in my response to you. They then formulated shorter lists of words and found a close enough match to say they had validated their control. That is a biased way to validate what is supposed to bring an unbiased “control” to the research process.

I also explained that by saying that Longfellow was shown to be the most closely matched author to several chapters of the Book of Mormon, and yet do nothing with that give-away that their control was not working adequately, is again to re-introduce bias into their study and render the results completely biased.

You don’t have evidence. Maybe, a hypothesis at best. Evidence would be refuting the study using your hypothesis.

 

[ParkerD]

You don’t have evidence. Maybe, a hypothesis at best. Evidence would be refuting the study using your hypothesis.

RebeccaJ,
You don’t seem to follow the trail of logic–their own evidence refuted their hypothesis. Their chosen control refuted their hypothesis. I have explained that.

 

[Catholic20064]

When I read the Book of Mormon, it is extremely difficult for me to accept it as an ancient text. I can read it and imagine it to be an inspired modern text. It does seem to me to be a valid warning to our own generation, especially those who live in the United States, of what will happen to us if we continue to disregard God’s commandments. I can understand how some people in the Latter-day Saint tradition regard it as God’s word without seeing it as the work of ancient Native Americans. I think those who insist that it be viewed as an ancient text should open their minds a little bit and consider that some people who are inspired by the Book of Mormon can be inspired without believing it to be a literal history of real people.

 

[LongJourney]

I also explained that by saying that Longfellow was shown to be the most closely matched author to several chapters of the Book of Mormon, and yet do nothing with that give-away that their control was not working adequately, is again to re-introduce bias into their study and render the results completely biased.

That Longfellow matched to several chapters is NOT evidence that invalidates the study. Number one: it could be due to chance. Number two: It may point to a common source of a compilation of Native legends. Number three: There may be a linguistic commonality in multiple compilations of Native legends. I examined that in my book, in my discussion of the Schoolcraft’s work, from which Longfellow derived the material for Hiawatha.

If I remember right, content analysis points to the first possibility.

 

[ParkerD]

That Longfellow matched to several chapters is NOT evidence that invalidates the study. Number one: it could be due to chance. Number two: It may point to a common source of a compilation of Native legends. Number three: There may be a linguistic commonality in multiple compilations of Native legends. I examined that in my book, in my discussion of the Schoolcraft’s work, from which Longfellow derived the material for Hiawatha.

If I remember right, content analysis points to the first possibility.

LJ,
The whole study can be demonstrated to be “due to chance”. That is my ultimate point about the study, so yes, that is correct.

A person looking at the lists of words that were the words counted in the study, could not possibly believe that those words came in a certain way from a “common source of a compilation of Native legends”.

So yes, the “first possibility”–that the whole study is “due to chance”, is correct.

 

[LongJourney]

If you choose to reject the whole study because it conflicts with your beliefs, that is your choice.

Have a good day.

 

[ParkerD]

If you choose to reject the whole study because it conflicts with your beliefs, that is your choice.

Have a good day.

LJ,
The study presents itself as a valid “scientific” study using a supposedly “scientific” approach, but biases the results and biases the controls, as I have demonstrated.

That is not science.

But I appreciate your wish that I have a good day, and I will–thanks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
You don’t seem to follow the trail of logic–their own evidence refuted their hypothesis.

No it doesn’t. That is only your assertion.

Their chosen control refuted their hypothesis. I have explained that.

If you want to prove it, then duplicate their work with the changes you think should happen.

 

[PaulDupre]

When I read the Book of Mormon, it is extremely difficult for me to accept it as an ancient text. I can read it and imagine it to be an inspired modern text. It does seem to me to be a valid warning to our own generation, especially those who live in the United States, of what will happen to us if we continue to disregard God’s commandments. I can understand how some people in the Latter-day Saint tradition regard it as God’s word without seeing it as the work of ancient Native Americans. I think those who insist that it be viewed as an ancient text should open their minds a little bit and consider that some people who are inspired by the Book of Mormon can be inspired without believing it to be a literal history of real people.

That is where the Community of Christ (formerly known as the RLDS church) is at. They no longer require their members to regard the Book of Mormon as historical. I see that the Brighamites will very shortly arrive at the same understanding. I suspect that many of them are already there.

 

[LongJourney]

I see that the Brighamites will very shortly arrive at the same understanding. I suspect that many of them are already there.

Those who are already there are easy to communicate with. Amazing what letting go of a dysfunctional belief will do to a person.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Those who are already there are easy to communicate with. Amazing what letting go of a dysfunctional belief will do to a person.

If the Book of Mormon had been given as just a doctrinal book…an inspired story, and Joe had not claimed to be a prophet, but an inspired teacher I might still be LDS

 

[Catholic20064]

If the Book of Mormon had been given as just a doctrinal book…an inspired story, and Joe had not claimed to be a prophet, but an inspired teacher I might still be LDS

I probably would still be LDS as well. I wouldn’t have felt it necessary to find another church. I enjoyed the LDS Church in many ways more than I do the Catholic Church, but could not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon.