Craig C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...those of us working at
> MormonLeaks view the work we are doing as a work
> in progress. We can expect the story to change as
> we learn more.
This approach is only logical, of course. But the current
format of material offered at the site necessarily will
"freeze in stone" the initial 8-episode presentation.
Any substantial attempts at changing the content will
"muddy the waters" for readers who enter upon studying
the material at various different times, over the years.
Some special strategy will be necessary, in order to
update/correct "Mormon Scriptures - Alternstive Accounts."
The primary authors (Criddle and friends) need a viable
way to make additions and to point out mistakes/problems,
without erasing the original reporting -- and outsiders
who become interested in the presentation(s) and have
useful facts and comments to share, will need a place
and a method that facilitates an open exchange of ideas.
As the site is now set up, I am concerned that these needs
will not be met.
Take, for example, the recent ponderings of "JT," an
interested and thoughtful observer, who has yet to find
a suitable method by which to interact with MormonLeaks:
>Dan Vogel, a respected Mormon historian and
>Joseph Smith biographer, has built a strong
>Joseph-as-sole-author case based on three lines
>of evidence... The first is the presence of
>autobiographical elements in the Book of Mormon
>narrative. The second is Joseph’s access to other
>potential source material that can be linked to
>the Book of Mormon by textual analysis. The third
>is his fair assessment of Joseph’s powerful
>imagination and native intellect, which became
>more apparent over time.
>
>In addition to this, I acknowledge the inherent
>prior-probabilistic difficulties associated with
>conspiracy theories, which John Hamer presented
>in a rheortically effective article, “The Spalding
>Fable” [at bycommonconsent.com]. Indeed, conspiracy
>theories make special evidential demands that leave
>me terribly self-conscious about listing in that
>direction. However, one must keep in mind that
>Criddle’s Multiple Authorship Theory" isn’t an
>“either Joseph or someone else” proposition.
>Criddle includes Joseph Smith as a contributor or
>redactor. His is not a Spalding-as-sole-author proposition.
http://jturnonmormonism.wordpress.com/2013/07/Suppose that an external observer, such as "JT," came
upon new evidence linking Hyrum Smith to Book of Mormon
authorship, but was so overwhelmed by "conspiracy
theories making special evidential demands," that he
decided not to get involved in religious controversies.
Adding Hyrum's writing efforts to the already overcrowded
Gold Bible Company might well be a last straw that would
break the back of even the most hopeful literary conspiracy
advocate.
What I'm trying to say, is that there is a probable
paradox developing, in which the discovery/communication
of supporting evidence could well make the limitations
of MormonLeaks its greatest opponent.
Some new ideas for exploration, discovery, reporting
and sharing are greatly needed at this point. The site,
as presently designed, may not meet these needs, even
though it has dedicated (and largely empty) sub-areas
in place where sharing can occur.
The name "MormonLeaks" hints at possibilities beyond
just the investigation of LDS scriptural origins. It
seems to invite anonymous donors to send in massive
collections of Church leaders' private documents, or
evidence of behind-the-scenes ecclesiastical crimes.
Perhaps something like that will actually develop in
the future, and we'll be reading sensitive, leaked
Q12 meeting minutes there. I don't know.
In the meanwhile, some additional thought probably
should be devoted to MormonLeaks limitations (and
what I should be doing with my wonderful new Hyrum
Smith at Dartmouth diaries discoveries).
UD