2thinkForums
Honest Intellectual Inquiry: Science, Religion, Philosophy, Ethics, Politics, and Literature
Discussion Forum for 2think.org and lds-mormon.com
Home | Contact admin | View Archives from Old Forum
 New Topic  |  Go to Top  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Log In   Previous Message  |  Next Message 
 Re: This post is ready for you, Dale
Author: Uncle Dale 
Date:   02-03-10 21:34

>Dale,
>
>I *know* that you don't understand what Martin is saying. It took
>me approx. 3 days to first, get over the fact that it was coming out
>of Martin with whom I have a *long* history here (most of it akin to
>a nuclear attack between warring nations), and then be willing to read
>his posts, reflect on them.

I've read most of the contributions -- but the information communicated
there is scattered and disjointed. Which is why I offered to republish
the entire set of messages on a web-page. But that was refused.

>I could have easily, based on history, met him with the same tone and
>in the same fashion as marg. She probably expected me to and I didn't.
>At some point here, I got interested enough in what he was saying
>to examine his posts and then I believed that I finally *got* what he
>was saying.
>
>And I think that something important could be going on here. I don't
>know if it is important, but it's only until now that I just realized what
>Martin has been saying and until you realize it too (what his point is),
>you won't be able to determine how important it might be to your work.

Perhaps so -- I've asked that "his point" be re-stated, concisely -- but
only get referred back to a mass of disjointed postings.

>Dale, I teach. I ask questions for a reason. Not for fun and games,
>but with purpose. I posed the question "how do you know" with
>intentionality. I wanted to see if your answer would line up with
>what Martin was saying and it HAS.
>
>You are saying that you know that Rigdon added to Spalding, that
>Rigdon cooperated with Smith...

I cannot know with precision -- but the textual evidence and some
of the temporal evidence leads me to those conclusions. In historical
research a "conclusion" is generally open to correction, if compelling
additional evidence can be obtained.

>on account of the signals for each author and where they are placed
>in the BoM according to the wordprint study.

Yes -- proximity, and strength of "signal," and sub-patterns of language
use within BoM chapters. There is a logical way to determine probable
associations and probable reliance between the word-printed writers.

>You can see the "interaction" between the authors just by the test
>results. If ALL YOU HAD were the results, you could then go and
>research the history behind it to see if it lined up.

These results have yet to be confirmed, by additional, external studies.
We might call them "compelling provisional authorship results."

>But, because all of this began in the reverse order, the test results
>are supporting the history. That's a good thing!

Craig informs me that the Stanford researchers agreed in advance to
publish their results -- even if they did not support any particular
authorship theory.I think that's important to keep in mind. But it's
also important to keep in mind WHY they included the writers they did.
There were historical reasons for their selection -- and those historical
reasons are based, in part, upon previously reported evidence.

>But, what Martin is saying is that the history piece doesn't need to
>include Manuscript Found because the test results ALREADY indicate
>Spalding authorship (presumably by proxy) using the Oberlin Manuscript
>and that because...

Or -- perhaps what he is saying is that "the history piece" absolutely
must not include a biblical-sounding precursor Spalding MS, because
there is only "anecdotal" reporting of such a possibility. ???

>the Oberlin Manuscript is EXTANT (we can see it, read it, feel it,
>identify the handwriting=reliable evidence) that the Oberlin
>Manuscript combined with the test results provides VERIFIABLE
>EVIDENCE where...
>
>Manuscript Found is NOT EXTANT ( we can't see it, read it, feel it,
>identify the handwriting=UNreliable evidence) and that the
>testimonies which constitute ANECTODAL evidence FALL SHORT
>of the Oberlin Manuscript as evidence. The Manuscript Found
>provides UNVERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.

I'd be very cautious in what we determine is UNVERIFIABLE. That is
what historical research is all about -- tracking down unverified reports
and discovering whether or not they can be confirmed. The confirming
evidence need not be limited to "anecdotes." The confirming evidence
can also include datable contemporary historical reporting, public
records information -- even such things as tombstone locations. As a
researcher, I'm very suspicious of any calls to eliminate certain lines
of investigation from the historical documentation process.

>Please tell me that it makes sense to you or I've spent 3 nights of my
>time for no good reason at all.

In a very limited application of logic, what you say makes sense. We
could even venture a step or two in Martin's direction, and admit that
for 99.9% of interested readers, the "biblical-sounding" source need
not be further investigated. We can even say that a pre-1830 contact
between Smith and Rigdon need not be investigated.

But -- if we extend that admission to 100% of interested persons, and
condemn ANYBODY in advance, who studies evidence for a biblical
sort of Spalding story, we are making a very, very bad mistake.

>Please read my post near the bottom here that begins with the
>words, "I'm *sorry*, and is directed to Martin. It falls just under
>this post.
>
>Please.

Yes -- I went back and looked at that.

>Until you see what Martin is saying, there is no way for you to
>determine if he is making a point significant to your work.

If he would re-offer his theory in a couple of concise sentences, then
we would all know what steps to take next, in order to test what
he has to say.

>Please, Dale, continue to make an effort to understand what he is
>saying or the point he is raising cannot ever be weighed.

It would help tremendously if he would simply re-state his Book of
Mormon origins theory, in light of all that has been said here recently.

>If there is any chance that it could help, it's worth understanding
>and weighing it.
>
>JG

As I see it, there are two possibilities for discussion from here on out:

1. The "Manuscript Found" accounts are unnecessary to contemporary
testing of BoM authorship, (except for the fact that they supply Spalding's
name as a potential contributor to the BoM text).

or...

2. The "Manuscript Found" is an idiotic idea from the get-go and should
be suppressed totally in any future investigation of Mormon origins.

I can live with option #1.

I will die fighting against option #2.

UD



Post Edited (02-03-10 21:38)
 Reply To This Message  |  Flat View   Newer Topic  |  Older Topic 

 Topics Author  Date
 BoM Authorship S/R Theory without Manuscript Found  new
Jersey Girl 01-31-10 16:22 
 What we lose  new
Jersey Girl 01-31-10 16:29 
 Is what we lose expendable?  new
Jersey Girl 01-31-10 16:37 
 Re: Is what we lose expendable?  new
marg 01-31-10 22:22 
 Re: Is what we lose expendable?  new
Uncle Dale 02-01-10 14:07 
 Dale & marg DEMAND I reverse the Burden of Proof!  new
Martin 02-02-10 07:12 
 Re: Dale & marg DEMAND I reverse the Burden of Proof!  new
Uncle Dale 02-02-10 11:38 
 Re: Dale & marg DEMAND I reverse the Burden of Proof!  new
Martin 02-03-10 03:39 
 Re: Dale & marg DEMAND I reverse the Burden of Proof!  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 04:35 
 Re: Dale & marg DEMAND I reverse the Burden of Proof!  new
marg 02-03-10 04:39 
 Nice job being Dale's, er, "tool", marg!  new
Martin 02-03-10 08:34 
 I agree with you Martin  new
marg 02-03-10 16:08 
 Re: I agree with you Martin  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 19:35 
 Dale yet again(!) DEMANDS me to provide an alternative!  new
Martin 02-03-10 04:43 
 Re: Dale yet again(!) DEMANDS me to provide an alternative!  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 05:21 
 I do NOT grant you persmission to repost my words anywhere.  new
Martin 02-03-10 08:43 
 Re: Dale & marg DEMAND I reverse the Burden of Proof!  new
hoplite 02-03-10 04:09 
 Thanks, hoplite  new
Martin 02-03-10 05:00 
 Re: Thanks, hoplite  new
marg 02-03-10 05:26 
 Putting this in amber, too  new
Martin 02-03-10 08:10 
 Is history scientific?  new
Martin 02-03-10 10:26 
 Re: Is history scientific?  new
marg 02-03-10 16:26 
 Why can't Marg read?  new
Martin 02-04-10 01:57 
 Re: Is history scientific?  new
Jersey Girl 02-04-10 21:06 
 Re: Is what we lose expendable?  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 01:16 
 Vicki you can't think worth shit and you never could  new
marg 02-03-10 04:23 
 marg keeps putting the "sub" into "sub-moron"!  new
Martin 02-03-10 05:23 
 Re: marg keeps putting the "sub" into "sub-moron"!  new
marg 02-03-10 05:42 
 Re: marg keeps putting the "sub" into "sub-moron"!  new
Martin 02-03-10 08:59 
 Martin why should I have animosity for you?  new
marg 02-03-10 16:40 
 Re: Martin why should I have animosity for you?  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 18:00 
 Re: marg keeps putting the "sub" into "sub-moron"!  new
aussieguy55 02-03-10 19:56 
 Re: marg keeps putting the "sub" into "sub-moron"!  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 20:11 
 Celebrate the real victory! Do not mourn the loss of harmful anecdotes!  new
Martin 02-04-10 01:13 
 The richness of metacognition  new
Jersey Girl 02-04-10 23:08 
 Re: marg keeps putting the "sub" into "sub-moron"!  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 21:39 
 vicki write on topic for a change instead of trying to create drama  new
marg 02-05-10 20:03 
 marg, *read* the thread instead of creating chaos  new
Jersey Girl 02-06-10 01:32 
 Martin has added nothing new that wasn't already appreciated.  new
marg 02-06-10 03:07 
 FYI lady  new
Jersey Girl 02-06-10 03:35 
 Re: FYI lady  new
marg 02-06-10 04:31 
 Marg, you couldn't argue yourself out of a mime's air box!  new
Martin 02-09-10 07:10 
 Re: Marg, you couldn't argue yourself out of a mime's air box!  new
marg 02-09-10 15:49 
 Re: marg, *read* the thread instead of creating chaos  new
marg 02-06-10 18:59 
 Still waging war, are ya?  new
Jersey Girl 02-04-10 00:10 
 THIS IS THE KEY: The main flaw in marg's and Broadhurst's "thinking"!  new
Martin 02-01-10 02:15 
 Re: THIS IS THE KEY: The main flaw in marg's and Broadhurst's "thinking"!  new
marg 02-01-10 02:35 
 Go ahead and pull up your chairs!  new
Martin 02-01-10 04:41 
 Re: Go ahead and pull up your chairs!  new
Uncle Dale 02-01-10 10:30 
 Dale asks "What evidence"?  new
Martin 02-02-10 07:33 
 Re: Dale asks "What evidence"?  new
Uncle Dale 02-02-10 11:41 
 Dale again DEMANDS me to provide an alternative!  new
Martin 02-03-10 04:31 
 Wait just a New York minute  new
Jersey Girl 02-02-10 21:20 
 Re: Wait just a New York minute  new
Martin 02-03-10 01:35 
 No, don't  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 01:42 
 Re: No, don't  new
Martin 02-03-10 03:43 
 Re: THIS IS THE KEY: The main flaw in marg's and Broadhurst's "thinking"!  new
Uncle Dale 02-01-10 10:28 
 Dale tries valiantly to save his life's work by reframing the debate  new
Martin 02-02-10 09:25 
 Re: Dale tries valiantly to save his life's work by reframing the debate  new
Uncle Dale 02-02-10 11:45 
 Re: Dale tries valiantly to save his life's work by reframing the debate  new
Martin 02-03-10 09:42 
 Re: Dale tries valiantly to save his life's work by reframing the debate  new
Jersey Girl 02-02-10 23:21 
 Re: THIS IS THE KEY: The main flaw in marg's and Broadhurst's "thinking"!  new
Jersey Girl 02-01-10 19:13 
 [lost response!]  new
Martin 02-02-10 11:10 
 Re: THIS IS THE KEY: The main flaw in marg's and Broadhurst's "thinking"!  new
marg 02-03-10 05:16 
 Re: Is what we lose expendable?  new
Uncle Dale 02-01-10 14:41 
 Re: BoM Authorship S/R Theory without Manuscript Found  new
marg 01-31-10 19:26 
 Repeating what I wrote elsewhere  new
Martin 02-01-10 04:40 
 Re: Repeating what I wrote elsewhere  new
Uncle Dale 02-01-10 10:36 
 Re: Repeating what I wrote elsewhere  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 00:35 
 Re: Repeating what I wrote elsewhere  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 00:49 
 Re: Repeating what I wrote elsewhere  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 01:02 
 Re: Repeating what I wrote elsewhere  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 02:05 
 This post is ready for you, Dale  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 19:51 
 Re: This post is ready for you, Dale  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 21:34 
 I'm going to answer you twice  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 21:46 
 Re: I'm going to answer you twice  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 22:00 
 Re: I'm going to answer you twice  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 22:06 
 Re: I'm going to answer you twice  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 22:40 
 JG asks a very insightful question  new
Martin 02-04-10 03:15 
 Re: JG asks a very insightful question  new
Jersey Girl 02-05-10 23:52 
 Re: I'm going to answer you twice  new
Uncle Dale 02-04-10 04:07 
 Re: This post is ready for you, Dale  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 21:57 
 Re: This post is ready for you, Dale  new
Uncle Dale 02-03-10 22:26 
 Re: This post is ready for you, Dale  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 22:29 
 Re: This post is ready for you, Dale  new
Uncle Dale 02-04-10 10:25 
 Re: This post is ready for you, Dale  new
Jersey Girl 02-05-10 23:24 
 Re: This post is ready for you, Dale  new
Uncle Dale 02-06-10 00:20 
 You are such a gentleman Dale.  new
marg 02-06-10 01:49 
 Re: You are such a gentleman Dale.  new
Uncle Dale 02-06-10 02:35 
 Re: You are such a gentleman Dale.  new
marg 02-06-10 04:08 
 *SPECIFIC QUESTION ANSWERED SPECIFICALLY!*  new
Martin 02-04-10 02:41 
 Re: *SPECIFIC QUESTION ANSWERED SPECIFICALLY!*  new
Uncle Dale 02-04-10 13:10 
 Constraints  new
Martin 02-05-10 03:18 
 Re: Constraints  new
Uncle Dale 02-05-10 11:09 
 Bravo! Bravo! A wise man indeed!  new
Martin 02-09-10 05:26 
 Re: Bravo! Bravo! A wise man indeed!  new
marg 02-09-10 15:10 
 my respect and admiration goes to Dale  new
marg 02-04-10 15:52 
 Re: my respect and admiration goes to Dale  new
Uncle Dale 02-04-10 16:17 
 Re: my respect and admiration goes to Dale  new
marg 02-04-10 17:31 
 Re: my respect and admiration goes to Dale  new
Uncle Dale 02-04-10 18:37 
 Re: my respect and admiration goes to Dale  new
marg 02-04-10 19:41 
 *Look, functioning intellects, at Marg's words and despair*  new
Martin 02-05-10 08:36 
 Broadhurst's deeply offensive allegation that I called for "SUPPRESSION"!  new
Martin 02-05-10 09:25 
 Re: Broadhurst's deeply offensive allegation that I called for "SUPPRESSION"!  new
marg 02-05-10 14:24 
 MARG DOTH BUT REPEAT THE OFFENSE!  new
Martin 02-09-10 07:19 
 I'm *sorry* that I hadn't read this earlier, Martin  new
Jersey Girl 02-03-10 00:31 
 Excellent! Spot on!  new
Martin 02-03-10 03:22 
 Stepping in again, Martin, please read this  new
Jersey Girl 02-04-10 20:08 
 Vision  new
Martin 02-05-10 05:50 
 Re: Vision and seeing the light  new
Jersey Girl 02-05-10 22:40 
 LOUD I am!  new
Martin 02-09-10 05:48 
 *** IN LITTLE WORDS, or at least in LITTLE SENTENCES *** PLEASE READ!  new
Martin 02-04-10 04:03 
 This was your best  new
Jersey Girl 02-05-10 23:37 
 mikwut has nothing to do with this discussion  new
marg 02-04-10 21:41 
 If mikwut has nothing to do with this discussion, then  new
Jersey Girl 02-04-10 21:57 
 Re: If mikwut has nothing to do with this discussion, then  new
marg 02-04-10 22:01 
 Re: If mikwut has nothing to do with this discussion, then  new
Jersey Girl 02-04-10 22:05 
 Re: If mikwut has nothing to do with this discussion, then  new
marg 02-05-10 13:02 
 Broadhurst, I ask that you not re-phrase or re-characterize my words  new
Martin 02-05-10 09:40 
 Re: Broadhurst, I ask that you not re-phrase or re-characterize my words  new
Uncle Dale 02-05-10 11:33 
 Re: Broadhurst, I ask that you not re-phrase or re-characterize my words  new
marg 02-05-10 14:49 


 Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.

phorum.org
Copyright 2thinkforums.org 2007 All Rights Reserved

The content of all posts is the reponsibility of the author.
2thinkforums, its hosters, and administrators take no responsibility for any of the content posted by 2thinkforums posters