RFM takes a new look at the question of whether the Book of Mormon quotes Shakespeare and, in the process, reveals a new methodology for debunking a major field of Mormon Apologetics.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Is Shakespeare in the Book of Mormon? A Key to Unlocking Book of Mormon Apologetics! : RFM: 370
So maybe another way to say it, or a way to speak in support of your “silver bullet”:
Having had access to a text increases the likelihood that Joseph used it as a source (particularly when similar ideas or verbiage is found in both the text and the BoM).
NOT having had access to a text reduces the likelihood that Joseph used it as a source (regardless of any similarities between the text and the BoM).
But doesn’t your silver bullet presuppose that Joseph wasn’t inspired of God? Or does it still apply if God inspired Joseph?
Love your brain, RFM. You’re onto something with the ‘silver bullet’ argument. But I’m worried it may not be as universally applicable as that phrase implies. The example you provided assumed two scenarios—both with low levels of supporting evidence. The first might cast JS in a favorable light as prophetic, the second might show him unfavorably, only influenced by other human sources. If I understand it, the silver bullet theory says that church critics and proponents must treat both scenarios with similar levels of either skepticism or conviction. If the critic hears the favorable scenario skeptically, he must also hear the unfavorable scenario skeptically, because the level of evidence is low in both. And vice versa, the church proponent must accept the unfavorable scenario as just as likely as the favorable scenario because the quality of the evidence in both is similarly low.
This seems sound when comparing scenarios of equally low evidential quality. The problem is that in real-world analysis the evidence for claims is of varying degrees of quality. The more compelling the evidence is—either favorable or unfavorable to prophetic claims—the less compelled a person should feel to give “equal time” to the inverse argument. For instance, if a church critic were arguing that the KJV was the inspiration for much of the BoM (a claim with lots of supporting evidence), that critic should not feel compelled to accept as also given that JS saw the words appear on a rock in a hat (a claim with very poor supporting evidence).