It is currently Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:25 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:10 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 28305
Location: Off the Deep End
Water Dog wrote:
Has anybody on this thread taken the time to read some of these wordprint papers? The disparity between the apologetic papers and the non-LDS ones is enlightening. This paper here is a classic example of dishonest apologetics.

Yes, I have. Including previewing Jockers et al (2008).

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 28305
Location: Off the Deep End
grindael wrote:
I think it is all silly stuff and a waste of time.

That's ironic. I think that you are silly stuff and a waste of time.

:wink:

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:50 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
mikwut wrote:
Hello MG,

First, stylometry is used in conjunction with the historical evidence and authors thought to have written the piece in question. For example, one of the reasons the Jocker's study is problematic is because Sidney Rigdon's supposed wordprint doesn't match his theology. The portions of the wordprint attributed to him in Jocker's study also attribute to him theology that is literal when his Campbellite theology was figurative. This dissonance is problematic for wordprint analysis which is secondary to known historical fact. Therefore, if DNA (known historical fact) demonstrates the Book of Mormon false this supersedes wordprint analysis not the other way around as your attempting to do. This seems obvious to most, hence the harsh criticism you have received on this thread. This is fairly elementary. Kishkumen makes the valuable point that there is no verification for the Book of Mormon so the falsification isn't even necessary. Your attempting to provide minimal verifying evidence but ignore that DNA evidence is a falsifier and that supersedes verifying type evidences. This is so in this case of the Book of Mormon because if shown to be fiction minimal verifications are not relevant.

Themis' points are well taken. If the Book of Mormon were true there is a translator/editor of Mormon and Moroni and then translator of Joseph Smith and then editing of the manuscript. This is a problem in able to attribute what is translator and what is translator and what is author and what is editing. "It is only when translations of the same author are compared is there any hope for stylometric machine-learning methods to tell translator from translator (Rybicki 2012) http://www.dh2012.uni-hamburg.de/confer ... ion.1.html. If we can't tell who is Mormon, Moroni and/or Joseph Smith are because we can't compare translations because we don't have them we certainly can't have confidence in independent authors. John Hilton's BYU article on wordprints only controlled for one translator. http://davies-linguistics.BYU.edu/ling4 ... Hilton.pdf.

The Hebrew/Egyptian language that is unknown, and that we have no evidence for its existence, that was apparently used in the Book of Mormon is a problem. As one of the church's most prominent apologists Kevin Barney says, "I have always felt that the basic assumptions underlying Book of Mormon wordprint studies are faulty. I concur with the assessment of John Tvedtnes, who points out that (1) an English translation should reflect the language of the translator rather than the original author, and (2) the particles used in wordprint studies (such as "of") are often non-existent in Hebrew, which tends to use syntax to express the meaning of English particles."

The phrase "and it came to pass" is problematic with the Book of Mormon word print analysis, BYU even agrees with this. http://davies-linguistics.BYU.edu/ling4 ... Hilton.pdf. This phrase is just shelved in word print studies. But if it is a translation then the phrase is translating some non-contextual words that were used often enough to help attribute authorship, shelving it is a problem and muddies the analysis. Since your using verifying evidence counter evidence applies. The phrase is more strongly evidence of plagarism from for example The Late War because of the abundance of evidence of 19th century origin that would bolster it as evidence for that.

The use of King James Elizabethan language is problematic because we know Joseph Smith, a possible Nephi - Alma etc. never spoke or wrote in this style. It includes non-contextual words that would confuse analysis particularly without original writings. We don't have authorship in Elizabethan tongue of the possible authors.

We don't know what Moroni/Mormon edited or how they edited, and we know Joseph Smith's work was edited from pretty elementary mistakes.
The influence is unknown and erodes confidence that you are trying to give.

The critic position towards Joseph Smith includes plagarism. This would effect the word print analysis to the degree of the plagarism. This is word substitution of the highest magnitude and so is definitional of a problem for word print analysis. It would also provide an output in analysis of multiple authors. Occam's razor would also swing in this direction.

We know anachronisms exist in the Book of Mormon, how far and how deep is unknown so the effect on word print studies is also unknown but is also a problem.

It is well known that even with computer technology inherent problems with stylometry itself still exists. I am unaware of any wordprint that is immune from James Croft's confession back in 1981 from Book Of Mormon "Wordprints" Reexamined by D. James Croft, Sunstone, March 1981, Vol. 6:2, p. 15-22, "Close scrutiny of the methodology of the BYU authorship study reveals several areas which seem vulnerable to criticism."

That kind, depth and amount of criticism just doesn't exist when it comes to DNA and the Book of Mormon. It is not possible to say that the Asian migration is just wrong through several criticisms. So with all do respect the criticisms you have received on this thread are more than appropriate, your position on a weak piece of evidence as somehow countervailing or balancing a very strong piece of evidence is just inappropriate and misplaced.

mikwut

Hi mikwut,

As you look at BofM authorship, do see it as a 'one author' construction/narrative or multiple authors working together?

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15539
Aaaaaaand that's what you get when you attempt a sincere response to MG. Mikwut's post was thoughtful and in depth, and it's beyond clear our resident turd monster didn't read it beyond his usual scans-for-keywords thing he does.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:13 pm 
Nursery
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:12 pm
Posts: 35
mentalgymnast wrote:
Hi mikwut,

As you look at BofM authorship, do see it as a 'one author' construction/narrative or multiple authors working together?

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast, do you want to be a force for good in the world? Why not find an unkempt lawn in your neighborhood and go mow it this afternoon? That is what I've been prompting you to do rather than worry about whether there were Nephites or not. Do something good to better your neighborhood. When you come home, put your feet up, have a cold drink and know that you've made someone's life a bit easier. You will feel better. That is My comforting inspiration to you.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:20 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
Jersey Girl wrote:
grindael wrote:
I think it is all silly stuff and a waste of time.


That's ironic. I think that you are silly stuff and a waste of time.

:wink:


O.K. I've certainly been silly and have wasted people's time on occasion. :twisted: I've got my opinions, and I'm certainly not right all the time. Ironically, I don't think it's a waste of time to read your comments. :wink: And though I'd never call you silly, I did think of you when I saw this silly (but cool) movie...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6542108/

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Aaaaaaand that's what you get when you attempt a sincere response to MG.

- Doc


Seems like a reasonable question I've asked him to answer/clarify. Obviously I appreciate his taking time to present his views.

You can chime in too. One author or multiple authors?

by the way, I can't think of the number of times I've attempted sincere responses and received less than civil answers.

And for what it's worth, I've always appreciated what mikwut has to say.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:26 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
Holy Ghost wrote:
. That is My comforting inspiration to you.


Blasphemy against the HG.

Sick.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:24 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12463
mentalgymnast wrote:
As you look at BofM authorship, do see it as a 'one author' construction/narrative or multiple authors working together?

Regards,
MG


We don't know many of the details of the Book of Mormon's construction. If Joseph made it up with or without help he, as expected, keep it secret. If the Book of Mormon is historical, you have many involved in it's eventual production, but you would still not see people like Nephi or Alma's authorship through word print studies for reasons already given. Word print studies are not good science, and that is even using it the way it is intended, which they did not, and can not, do with the Book of Mormon. That means we just dismiss those studies as the pseudo science they are and look for some good science to inform us about the Book of Mormon.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:17 pm 
Nursery
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:12 pm
Posts: 35
mentalgymnast wrote:
Holy Ghost wrote:
. That is My comforting inspiration to you.

Blasphemy against the HG.

Sick.

You prefer it when I remain obtuse and just give you a warm feeling that you can misconstrue?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:49 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalgymnast wrote:
Holy Ghost wrote:
. That is My comforting inspiration to you.


Blasphemy against the HG.

Sick.


Oh please. Do you even know what the Mormon definition is of "Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost"? Obviously not. Plus, you are making assumptions about an anonymous person. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have made this comment. But that's what you get from an ignorant cut and paste artist.

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:23 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
grindael wrote:
Oh please. Do you even know what the Mormon definition is of "Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost"? Obviously not. Plus, you are making assumptions about an anonymous person. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have made this comment. But that's what you get from an ignorant cut and paste artist.

Hi grindael,

As always, when you respond it brightens my day. :smile:

I'll have to hand this one to you, partially anyway. It may have been more appropriate to use the word mockery rather than blasphemy. Although I suppose I was thinking more along these lines:

Quote:
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”.

The term blasphemy may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” The term can be applied to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to God.
https://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html

My feeling is that the poster I responded to is mocking the HG. Or at the very least showing a sort of willful "defiant irreverence" and/or degradation of those things which are of God.

Your viewpoint is appreciated.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:51 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 6693
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I'm quoting that because it deserves a thoughtful answer by MG.

- Doc

It does, doesn't It? Given how urgent the topic seemed to be and how often it was inserted into other discussions before the threads were split, it seems odd that there has been no response from the opening post.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 2:58 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5702
Location: The Land of Lorn
In Mormonism, it is something different, that's why you had to go to an outside (LDS) source for your link. :rolleyes: Ency. of Mormonism:

Quote:
The gravest of all sins is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. One may speak even against Jesus Christ in ignorance and, upon repentance, be forgiven, but knowingly to sin against the Holy Ghost by denying its influence after having received it is unpardonable (Matt. 12:31-32; Jacob 7:19; Alma 39:6), and the consequences are inescapable. Such denial dooms the perpetrator to the hell of the second spiritual death (TPJS, p. 361). This extreme judgment comes because the person sins knowingly against the light, thereby severing himself from the redeeming grace of Christ. He is numbered with the sons of perdition (D&C 76:43).

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "No man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost" (TPJS, p. 357). To commit the unpardonable sin, a person "must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him…. he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened to him, and to deny the Plan of Salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it" (TPJS, p. 358; cf. Heb. 10:26-29).

If people have such knowledge and willfully turn altogether away, it is a sin against light, a sin against the Holy Ghost, and figuratively "they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame" (Heb. 6:4-6; D&C 76:35). Such remain as though there were no Atonement, except that they shall be resurrected from the dead (Alma 11:41). RODNEY TURNER


Smith actually references the scripture you used, in connection with the "unpardonable sin", as they do here: https://www.LDS.org/manual/teachings-jo ... 8?lang=eng

To accuse a totally anonymous person who you have no knowledge of personally of blasphemy and calling it "sick" is simply posturing and incredibly dumb.

And you did a google search for "blasphemy against the holy spirit/ghost"? :lol:

_________________
I stand in a high place
Humanity an empty face
Futile gestures and illusory grace:
Trying to understand this world;
But I cast at swine all my pearls,
I cast at swine all my pearls.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:44 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
Lemmie wrote:
Given how urgent the topic seemed to be and how often it was inserted into other discussions before the threads were split, it seems odd that there has been no response from the opening post.

Earlier:

MG wrote:
I appreciate his taking time to present his views.

I've always appreciated what mikwut has to say.

I think it was to grindael that I mentioned that getting into the nuts and bolts of Stylometric Analysis Studies is a bit above my pay grade...as I'm sure it is his.

I also enjoyed Water Dog's comments. A lot of food for thought.

One can take away various conclusions from these studies. Are they definitive? No.

But they do add to the mix as we approach the full range of arguments pro and con in regards to BofM historicity.

And there is no question that the various methods/means that different folks used to perform the WP analysis presented dilemmas/challenges that couldn't be fully overcome.

Quote:
The Brigham Young team made two initial assumptions: firstly that each of the major engravers of the plates and those sources they quoted were distinct individuals, and secondly that the writers of each verse in the Book of Mormon could be identified according to the information given in the text. There are four major engravers of the plates. Mormon engraved 174610 words or 65.1% of the book, Nephi 54688 words (20.4%), Moroni 26270 words (9.8%) and Jacob 9103 words (3.4%). Larsen and his collaborators found very little ambiguity about who wrote which sections, but stressed that careful scrutiny of each verse was required since authorship or source shifted about 2000 times in the text. Some of these changes were extremely rapid, taking place within fewer than 10 words.

https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Scie ... metric.pdf

Some of these dilemmas have been pointed out in this thread. It's not as though WPS are the smoking gun that proves the BofM to be a historical record. But I think it does show that there are some rather complex compositional things going on there and we have to ask ourselves, "Did Joseph write the BofM?" My point in the original thread that ended up being split up was that we ought to look inside the BofM along with looking at the outside. And that was pretty much all I was suggesting.

But that seemed to create a bit of a stir. I feel bad that Shades and others had to spend their time getting things resolved.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:46 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
grindael wrote:
In Mormonism, it is something different...


I know. Thanks for the heads up though.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:53 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 7074
grindael wrote:
To accuse a totally anonymous person who you have no knowledge of personally of blasphemy and calling it "sick" is simply posturing and incredibly dumb.

I'm also referring to the other thread that the poster who calls himself/herself "Holy Ghost" started.

I think it is "sick"...the tone of that thread and the thread starter's contributions to a thread that in essence was/is mocking the third member of the Godhead.

Regards,
MG


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 2226
mentalgymnast wrote:
I think it is "sick"...the tone of that thread and the thread starter's contributions to a thread that in essence was/is mocking the third member of the Godhead.

Who?? Loki? Vishnu? one of these guys?:

Image

Which godhead?

Dude, the pearl clutching is a bit much. You are Mormon, people mock you and your beliefs everyday all around the world (for good reason).

_________________
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents
"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10469
Location: Multiverse
mentalgymnast wrote:
grindael wrote:
To accuse a totally anonymous person who you have no knowledge of personally of blasphemy and calling it "sick" is simply posturing and incredibly dumb.

I'm also referring to the other thread that the poster who calls himself/herself "Holy Ghost" started.

I think it is "sick"...the tone of that thread and the thread starter's contributions to a thread that in essence was/is mocking the third member of the Godhead.

Regards,
MG

Give us a list of things we aren't allowed to mock. Please. :lol:

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:24 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 6693
Quote:
[mikwut's brilliant response to the opening post]
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
I'm quoting that because it deserves a thoughtful answer by MG.
- Doc
Lemmie wrote:
It does, doesn't it? Given how urgent the topic seemed to be and how often it was inserted into other discussions before the threads were split, it seems odd that there has been no response from the opening post.
mentalgymnast wrote:
...One can take away various conclusions from these studies. Are they definitive? No.
And there is no question that the various methods-slash-means that different folks used to perform the WP analysis presented dilemmas-slash-challenges that couldn't be fully overcome....

So, no response to mikwut's detailed post, addressing multiple issues the opening post brought up multiple times, before the threads were split.
mentalgymnast wrote:
But they do add to the mix as we approach the full range of arguments pro and con in regards to BofM historicity.

"Add to the mix." That was DCP's justification last week, for a particularly weak piece. Kishkumen addressed that particular type of argument in an excerpt that, with a few minor adaptions, fits the opening post non-response here like a glove. He was referring to blogging but given the sheer number of times the opening post has posted the identical thoughts without any discussion, I think it applies equally well to this discussion:

Kishkumen wrote:
... but, I ask, when does it get better? When does he offer a reasoned analysis of the relative merits of different pieces of evidence? When does he concede that a particular [idea] may not be as valuable as others, for reasons apparent to any responsible [scientist]?

The [post] cannot simply be a dodge. If he engages in no scholarly analysis of the evidence anywhere, then his drive-by [posting] stands in stark contrast with that silence. He wants to say, "I offered the evidence," without ever submitting it to a sustained historical investigation.

For someone who spends as much time as he does defending Smith, you would think he also had the time for making sure his position really stands up to scrutiny and then demonstrating how it does.

viewtopic.php?p=1129345#p1129345


Last edited by Lemmie on Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: From Nephi: A can do kinda guy (Internal textual eviden
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:00 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12463
mentalgymnast wrote:
My point in the original thread that ended up being split up was that we ought to look inside the BofM along with looking at the outside. And that was pretty much all I was suggesting.

But you were never willing to when I went into some detail about it, and now that Mikwit has given you even more, you take the cowards way out. If you really were honest you would do as you want everyone else to and engage the subject and answer the questions asked you in our posts. In particular Mikwut's which really goes into some detail of the issues. Maybe you could learn something, but knowing your history I won't bet on it.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group