Folding like Darwin's House of Cards?

[_Dr Exiled]

Dr. Peterson ought to be ashamed of himself for promoting this nonsense for so long. I know he is incredibly quick to take offense at being called a liar but he must know how weak this Early Modern English crap is. Or, perhaps he is so desperate to find something, anything and perhaps Skousen and Carmack are too that they simply cannot see reality. Also, and I don't think they realize how the Streisand effect works and how it may apply here. Efforts to cover up bring more eyes to the issue. Likewise, silly arguments in support of a movement or religion bring too many investigative eyes to the issue and will lead questioning members away once they realize that Early Modern English is all that there is between something tangible and a full on fiction model.

[_Kishkumen]

I've asked this question a few times, too. Once I even asked Carmack. The answers haven't been encouraging.

I was hoping someone would clearly grasp the point of the question and decisively answer it by pointing me to extensive literature on what makes the difference between Old-English-level archaism and the "current" archaism of Shakespeare or Bunyan or the 1920s. Instead the few answers I've gotten have been of the form, "Archaic is archaic which means it's archaic, I see no problem here move along."

There seems to be no recognition that archaic expressions in the Book of Mormon only make it impossible for Joseph Smith to have written it ... if archaic expressions are impossible to write. But, well, are they impossible to write? Or are they merely unpopular because they seem quaint and silly? Carmack and Skousen do not seem to be able to look at this question; they just blink and look away.

This is an excellent question, Physics Guy. If archaic is something we are supposed to take as truly significance, it ought to have a firm definition and clear data associated with it. X is archaic because of A, B, or C. If we see X N number of times, then we can be confident this is truly archaic language. That ought to be doable, I should think, for historical linguists?

[_Physics Guy]

I’m pretty sure they could do that, yeah—and for a whole range of possible meanings of “archaic”. But even recognizing that there may be a range of meanings of “archaic”, only some of which would rule out Smith as a fraud, seems to be a step too far for Skousen and Carmack.

[_Philo Sofee]

For myself, I cannot fathom wasting my precious money on that paper fire starter when I know how to use flint and steel.......