Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_MCB]

In Catholic experience, one good example of automatic writing was St. Faustina's re-creation of the life of Jesus. But, again, she had a strong background in the subject.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I have seen Dan nearly agreeing that there is something to S/R.
...

Really? I hadn't noticed.

The typical critic of our investigations begins by telling us that
the eight witness statements published by Howe in 1834 are
unreliable -- and then, by quick deduction, that all evidence in
support of multiple authorship is unreliable and should not be
introduced into reputable early Mormon history.

Mormons themselves pay lip-service to multiple authorship
evidence -- just so long as it does not interfere with their
preColumbian Christian Nephites, etc. But I see the Mormons
tacitly supporting the Brodieites in their reluctance to uncover
and evaluate evidence for Book of Mormon multiple authorship.

What if very compelling evidence could be brought forth, showing
that Lucy Mack Smith or Oliver Cowdery actually contributed
some text to the Book of Mormon manuscript? How would a
modern Brodieite handle that discovery?

My guess is that he/she would dismiss it altogether, without any
real attempt to verify the discovery. Such critics might indeed
agree (theoretically speaking) that "there is something to" the
claim for multiple 19th century authorship -- but they would
never take the trouble to carry out a rigorous investigation
themselves. At least this has been my experience for many years.

For the Brodieites to admit even a sentence of the Nephite record
having originated with Hyrum Smith or Porter Rockwell -- or any
early Mormon other than Joseph Smith, Jr. opens up the messy
can of worms called "conspiracy" and "coverup."

In their eyes, the only "conspiracy" and "coverup" involved, was
Joe Junior covering up the fact that he had no golden plates. All
other early Mormons were unaware of Joe's lies, deceptions,
frauds and duplicitous manipulations.

In 1890 Utah was granted statehood and the Mormons suddenly
became respectable. It is no coincidence that claims for multiple
19th century authorship of the Book of Mormon faded from the
public awareness shortly thereafter. When you have LDS members
of Congress and LDS members of the Administration and Judiciary
at the national level, nobody wishes to accuse their leaders back
in Salt Lake City of engaging in secret conspiracies of any sort --
it does not make for good politics.

By 1890 the original eyewitnesses to the birth of Mormonism
were either all dead or practically on their deathbeds. It is no
coincidence that speculative pop psychology began to replace
witness testimony, in deducing Mormon origins, by the beginning
of the 20th century. We are still victims of that process today.

Once the original witnesses were dead and buried, most anything
could be charged against their veracity and reliability. There was
no standard set for our knowing when to accept their testimony
and when to reject it. Fawn Brodie famously accepted part of the
1833 D.P. Hurlbut collection of witness statements, and rejected
another part (collected in Ohio and Pennsylvania) out of hand.
What was her standard, by which she judged this testimony?

I ask the same question of modern students of the subject. Why
should we accept Parley P. Pratt's autobiography as reliable? Is
the answer to my question going to be "Because he was honest!"
or -- "Because we have no reason to doubt it!" ???

My view is that we still possess insufficient evidence of Mormon
origins, upon which to construct a rock-solid explanation of how
those events unfolded. Competing explanations should thus be
allowable, and we should continue to uncover additional evidence.

The eye-witnesses are long gone, of course. Our modern hopes
for new evidence discoveries are mostly limited to documents,
public records, contemporary publications, etc. But that should
not keep us from carrying on the investigative task.

What new historical discoveries have the Brodieites presented to
us in the last fifty years? What evidence have they uncovered
to help convince us that Smith wrote his book all on his own?
What arguments can they present, to convince us that, really,
"there is something to" their own set-in-stone claims?

???

UD

[Guest]

Such critics might indeed
agree (theoretically speaking) that "there is something to" the
claim for multiple 19th century authorship -- but they would
never take the trouble to carry out a rigorous investigation
themselves. At least this has been my experience for many years.

Dan has a TBM-ish block against doing such an investigation himself, despite his access to research materials that only equals yours (although both are still less than the LDS church records vaults). I suppose that the possibility that he might be wrong is intimidating. Humility and humiliation are two totally different things.

Some of his yielding comments may have more to do with the fact that we are allies with disagreements among ourselves. He therefore is constrained to respect those differing beliefs.

[Guest]

Some of his yielding comments may have more to do with the fact that we are allies with disagreements among ourselves. He therefore is constrained to respect those differing beliefs.

Can you give what you have in mind...when you say "yielding comments". I haven't seen one myself and that's okay I don't expect that he should have to yield at all, but I'm curious about what you see and why you perceive Smith alone and S/R theorists as allies.

Also out of curiousity..when you say the word Mormonish what does that mean. Words are used to communicate to an audience and if I was your intended audience when you said I was Mormonish..the communication failed. Now you are using it again and I still don't know what you mean. Does the meaning vary within the context of a sentence or paragraph? Is it a word only you know what it means and you don't necessarily intend others to know. Are people supposed to know what it means without you having to explain. I don't get it.

[_marg]

The S/R theory requires several ad hoc theories to explain away conflicting evidence.

And so Glenn is it your understanding that ad hoc is always fallacious reasoning? What do you see is the problem with ad hoc.

Do you see the explanation that God helped or guided Smith to translate ancient plates, as an ad hoc explanation to how the Book of Mormon was written?

How would you determine when ad hocs should be treated as fallacious..that is how do you identify a fallacious ad hoc from one not fallacious?

(I won't be back on computer during the day today.)

[_GlennThigpen]

In Catholic experience, one good example of automatic writing was St. Faustina's re-creation of the life of Jesus. But, again, she had a strong background in the subject.

How about the case of Pearl Curran and Patience Worth. Pearl was supposedly a nominally educated housewife who began receiving messages via a Ouija board from a person who identified herself as a Patience worth who had lived in England and the Americas in the 1600's.
Eventually Pearl no longer needed the Ouija board and supposedly receved communications from Patience directly into her mind. Over a period of years Pearl and Patience collaborated on many poems, books, and plays, often in archaic language an describing customs and items belonging to an era long before the early 1900's. Things that supposedly Pearl could not have known, especially about some of the things in England.
I do not know if this was a hoax perpetuated by Curran or if the automatic writing was legit. I am not actually positing it as the way Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon. But the automatic writing theory would seem to be a better fit in light of the Pearl Curran case than the S/R theory.

Glenn

Oh, by the way, you can read about Pearl at
http://www.prairieghosts.com/pearl.html

[_GlennThigpen]

The S/R theory requires several ad hoc theories to explain away conflicting evidence.

And so Glenn is it your understanding that ad hoc is always fallacious reasoning? What do you see is the problem with ad hoc.

Do you see the explanation that God helped or guided Smith to translate ancient plates, as an ad hoc explanation to how the Book of Mormon was written?

How would you determine when ad hocs should be treated as fallacious..that is how do you identify a fallacious ad hoc from one not fallacious?

(I won't be back on computer during the day today.)

ad hoc reasoning is an after the fact explanation designed to explain away contrary evidence. The Book of Mormon is not the result of ad hoc reasoning. The story of the Book of Mormon unfolds in a logical sequence. Joseph receives his first vision. Later he is visited by the angel Moroni or some type of halluciantion. Moroni shows Joseph the plates. He is not allowed to retrieve them immediately, but continues to receive instructions and information during the next four years.
Eventually he is allowed to retrieve the plates, and after one false start is able to complete the translation in the manner described by the different witnesses to the dictation process. A total of twelve witnesses (including Joseph) testify that they saw the plates.

All of the theories that have sprung up afterwards are really ad hoc in many reapects because none of them come close to accounting for all of the events surrounding the Book of Mormon and the content of that book.


Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Do you see the explanation that God helped or guided Smith to translate ancient plates, as an ad hoc explanation to how the Book of Mormon was written?

No. It’s the initial claim, not a defense against adverse evidence. Statements like that make me doubt you know what an ad hoc is.

The Limited Geography Theory is an ad hoc hypothesis against problems in the text of rapid population growth and unrealistic distances travel. This has other ad hocs to support it. Tilting the map 45 degrees, so that orientation is more north and south, rather than east and west, as required by the Book of Mormon. The Isthmus of Tehauntepec is not narrow enough, so that those passing through it are aware of the sea on the east and west. This is resolved by explaining that the “narrow pass” is a feature of the “neck of land”, a ridge at the north end of Tehuantepec that floods in the rainy season on both sides.

Those who explain the lack of DNA evidence linking Amerindians to Israel by saying when God changed their skin color it changed their DNA.

Those who explain “horse” in the Book of Mormon is really a deer or tapir.

From these examples, I hope you learn what an ad hoc hypothesis is. It’s not every reference to God.

Ad hoc hypothesis. An auxilliary hypothesis that lacks independent support which is adopted to save a theory from refutation. Such hypotheses are bad because any theory can be rescued from refutation in this way. Auxilliary hypotheses should be justified by independent evidence.

[_marg]

ad hoc reasoning is an after the fact explanation designed to explain away contrary evidence. The Book of Mormon is not the result of ad hoc reasoning. The story of the Book of Mormon unfolds in a logical sequence. Joseph receives his first vision. Later he is visited by the angel Moroni or some type of halluciantion. Moroni shows Joseph the plates. He is not allowed to retrieve them immediately, but continues to receive instructions and information during the next four years.
Eventually he is allowed to retrieve the plates, and after one false start is able to complete the translation in the manner described by the different witnesses to the dictation process. A total of twelve witnesses (including Joseph) testify that they saw the plates.

All of the theories that have sprung up afterwards are really ad hoc in many reapects because none of them come close to accounting for all of the events surrounding the Book of Mormon and the content of that book.

So Glenn, you think that the Divine Smith theory has been factually explained..and theories which follow are ad hoc fallacies, including Smith alone...correct? That's Dan's approach actually, only he thinks the Smith alone theory has been factually explained and theories which follow as they develop in time with new information and reasoning are ad hoc fallacies..but he's willing to leave the Divine Smith theory alone. So which of you is right or are you both wrong? You can't both be right..right? One of you has to be reasoning incorrectly you both can't be right. So what do you suggest is the problem?

Isn't it possible that Smith did as Dan said and simply dictated the Book of Mormon? If that's the case, then why add complexity of God for which there is no evidence and it relies on the say so of individuals all connected to the enterprise, all with a vested interest? Aren't you really adding an ad hoc justification to the Smith alone theory which accounts rationally for the evidence without the need for God that is with no need for unverifiable extraordinary claims (ignoring for discussion purposes the S/R theory).

You say :"ad hoc reasoning is an after the fact explanation designed to explain away contrary evidence". If that's true what contrary evidence does Smith alone theory explain away?

Aaron Wright's reaction when he was presented with the actual manuscript that Solomon actually wrote is a classic ad hoc invention. A completely unsupported report by a man already dead.

However Glenn witnesses did state before Hurlbut obtained MSCC that Spalding had other manuscripts. I believe in Howe's book he mentions a number of witnesses were shown MSCC and said that wasn't the one, that Spalding had another one. And the evidence from the other witnesses' statements of a Spalding manuscript written in biblical style is consistent with another manuscript to MSCC. So Aaron Wright's statement in the draft letter is consistent with other evidence in support of it.

So basically you've illustrated that after the fact evidence and reasoning is not necessarily fallacious..but if one is too eager to apply fallacy labels without a good understanding or a misunderstanding, their reasoning/justification for rejection of evidence or a critical reinterpretation of the evidence.. goes awry.

(Dan I'll respond to you on monday)

[_GlennThigpen]

So Glenn, you think that the Divine Smith theory has been factually explained..and theories which follow are ad hoc fallacies, including Smith alone...correct? That's Dan's approach actually, only he thinks the Smith alone theory has been factually explained and theories which follow as they develop in time with new information and reasoning are ad hoc fallacies..but he's willing to leave the Divine Smith theory alone. So which of you is right or are you both wrong? You can't both be right..right? One of you has to be reasoning incorrectly you both can't be right. So what do you suggest is the problem?

Yes, I think that the divine Smith story has been factually explained. That does not mean that it has been established as fact, or we would not be having this conversation.

Isn't it possible that Smith did as Dan said and simply dictated the Book of Mormon? If that's the case, then why add complexity of God for which there is no evidence and it relies on the say so of individuals all connected to the enterprise, all with a vested interest? Aren't you really adding an ad hoc justification to the Smith alone theory which accounts rationally for the evidence without the need for God that is with no need for unverifiable extraordinary claims (ignoring for discussion purposes the S/R theory).

Dan's theory is one of the theories that arose to attempt to account for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in naturalistic terms because he and others did not and do not accept the divine providence story. I am not adding any ad hoc justification to the Book of Mormon story. God and revelation are an integral part of the original Book of Mormon story. They were not added in as an after thought as explanations.

You say :"ad hoc reasoning is an after the fact explanation designed to explain away contrary evidence". If that's true what contrary evidence does Smith alone theory explain away?

By Smith alone, do you mean Smith alone without revelation? If so, it tries to explain how the Book of Mormon came into being through the dictations of a very lightly. at the time, educated farm boy, by endowing him with a vivid imagination and raw genius.

Aaron Wright's reaction when he was presented with the actual manuscript that Solomon actually wrote is a classic ad hoc invention. A completely unsupported report by a man already dead.

However Glenn witnesses did state before Hurlbut obtained MSCC that Spalding had other manuscripts. I believe in Howe's book he mentions a number of witnesses were shown MSCC and said that wasn't the one, that Spalding had another one. And the evidence from the other witnesses' statements of a Spalding manuscript written in biblical style is consistent with another manuscript to MSCC. So Aaron Wright's statement in the draft letter is consistent with other evidence in support of it.

Yes. Solomon's daughter said that there were sermons and short stories that her father had written for her in the trunk also. That is not ad hoc. It is a statement by a witness.
Howe makes an unsupported assertion that he went back anc checked with some of the people who had made the statements and showed them the manuscript. This is another ad hoc statement trying to retrieve some credibility. But that statement is even less credible than the Benjamin Winchester statement. Winchester talks about a man named Jackson who did not sign a Hurlbut affidavit becaue he had read the manuscript and it was a Roman story. But Winchester does not give a first name for this Jackson witness and provides little new information than can be found in Howe's book. Thus Winchester's witness can be considered ad hoc. Aaron Wright's statement is consistent with some other ad hoc statements, but not all. The statements have no evidentiary support.

So basically you've illustrated that after the fact evidence and reasoning is not necessarily fallacious..but if one is too eager to apply fallacy labels without a good understanding or a misunderstanding, their reasoning/justification for rejection of evidence or a critical reinterpretation of the evidence.. goes awry.

(Dan I'll respond to you on monday)

I think you misunderstand the nature of ad hoc statements and reasoning. Ad hoc statements are "brainstorming" to try to explain away contrary evidence. The statements that Howe and Wright made are completely unsupported by any evidence other than the statements by Howe and either Wright or Hurlbut. The Wright letter is unsigned and in what appears to be Hurlbut's handwriting. Parts may have been dictated, and parts may have been put in by Hurlbut.

Glenn