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

[_MCB]

An ad hoc statement is an unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable statement intended to shore up a theory. Divine intervention is in itself an ad hoc argument, UNLESS there are NO other reasonable and ultimately provable alternatives. This is the basic reasoning behind Occam's razor.

It might be very interesting to study St. Faustina's writings, as a case-study in contrast to Joseph Smith's writings. There was extreme caution, even extending to the Index of Prohibited Books, pending review of her life and writings. Major contrast.

[_Uncle Dale]

An ad hoc statement is an unsubstantiated
and unsubstantiable statement intended to shore up a theory.
...

Here's my take on the matter.

Suppose that Person A theorizes that the moon is made of
green cheese, and actual on-the-moon investigations prove
that its surface is composed of rock. Person A might respond
by saying "Oh! but the moon itself it still made up of cheese --
it just has an outer coating of meteorite rocks..."

In my mind, THAT would be an "ad hoc" assertion.

Now let's look at another example.

Suppose that Dale Broadhurst says that he suspects that the
Book of Mormon is comprised of multiple sources, brought
together in conflated form by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1828-29.
Person A might respond by yelling out: "But the Conneaut
witnesses have been discredited! Your theory is bunk!"

To which Mr. Broadhurst responds -- "OK, perhaps some of
their professions are suspect -- let's continue to investigate
the multiple sources theory by various additional means."

And then Person A screams out, triumphantly: "That's an
ad hoc addition to the exploded S/R theory! You're an idiot
who engages in unprofessional, stupid, bad ad hominem
arguments! -- You're the same guy who will not believe
that the moon is made of green cheese, for goodness sake!"

At least it seems that way to me, here in these threads.

UD

[_MCB]

Dale, some of your posts really help me put his whole ludicrous mess into perspective. Thank you. Breaking for lunch.

[_Uncle Dale]

...whole ludicrous mess
...

Sandra Tanner has recently weighed in, and now says that perhaps
the reason that the Book of Mormon exhibits multiple literary voices,
is because Joe Smith changed his dictation style a bit, now and then,
depending upon which external influence was playing through his head
at the moment.

I'm not quite sure if this is an "ad hoc" argument, because I suppose
that it was understood as a possibility in the Smith-alone authorship
theories provided by Riley, Roberts, Brodie, etc. Those earlier writers
did not have access to computerized analysis of "word-prints," but
they probably noticed that the writing style evident in the book
varies a bit, from page to page.

Let's give Sandra the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that her
addition to the Smith-alone authorship theory is not an "ad hoc"
argument. How might we respond?

I do not feel that the argument merits a great deal of time and
effort in critical response. I say that we should take note of it and
move on, in additional investigations.

It has also been suggested that Joe Smith used a "prophetic voice"
in writing the Book of Mormon and his "revelations," which varies
significantly from his mundane utterances.

This sort of argument is more easily tested than is Sandra's theory.
A cursory inspection of Joe's private correspondence tells me that
he often tried to sound like a "prophet," even in those communications.
So perhaps it would be worthwhile to employ computer analysis in
examining the frequently-used non-contextual word patterns found
in Joe's letters and in those parts of LDS scripture attributed to his
creation by the Brodieites.

I do not see the Smith-alone crowd engaging in any sort of new
research. For them (like their Mormon cousins) the past is already
known and set-in-stone. There is no need to re-examine the old
events -- they already know all the pertinent facts.

So -- if for no other reason -- I commend the S/R advocates. At
least they show some interest in re-examining the past. At least
they do occasionally make new historical discoveries (such as
finding Solomon Spalding and Sidney Rigdon featured in the same
1816 Pittsburgh newspaper column).

As for the Mormons and the Brodieites -- I would not think of
distracting them from their current important studies of LDS
innovations in sugar beet production, 1910-1920 --- or whatever
other earth-shaking Mormon history topics they now are studying.

UD

[_marg]

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.

Well if we are looking at theories objectively and that should be our goal in this discussion we are seeking the best fit explanation of the data. If we ignore the S/R theory for the time being, and evaluate Smith alone versus the Smith Divine theory..the Smith alone theory adequately explains the data. The Smith Divine theory is unnecessarily complex and God and angels can easily be explained as the imaginations of Smith. There are no objective individuals who are not connected to the enterprise, who have no vested interest ..who can vouch for any of the extraordinary claims. A few hostile witnesses observing Smith dictating in a hat on a temporary basis is not extraordinary...that's something within Smith's control to manipulate and do temporarily. Sure the Smith Divine theory came first..but it isn't successful in meeting it's burden of proof to those who are objective. So the Smith alone theory overturns the Smith Divine ..and accounts for the evidence much better.

Whatever the motivations are of Dan or yourself are is irrelevant..we are looking for the best fit theory of data. So in effect since Smith alone can account for the data and since Smith Divine is unsuccessful in meeting a burden of proof for it's extraordinary claims...your counter that the Divine theory came first is irrelevant. Your theory has been overturned with a theory that meets a burden of proof to warrant the claims made by Smith & Co.

Both theories can not be correct. For you to argue the Smith Divine is the better theory, would require ad hoc justification added to the Smith alone to falsify the Smith alone.

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.

So you are arguing as a counter that the Smith alone theory uses as evidence that Smith had a vivid imagination and was a genius which is to explain away the evidence that he was a poorly educated farm boy. But you haven't countered the evidence ..Smith can still be imaginative and a genius while being poorly educated. You are adding ad hocs to try to prevent your Smith Divine theory from being overturned by the Smith alone theory. The Smith alone theory says there is no evidence for God and angels, and we can account for what happened..that it happened solely by Smith's imaginations.

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.

Howe is not offering an explanation Glenn to maintain a conclusion. He (or Hurlbut) is obtaining evidence.

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.

Whatever legitimate evidence is being sought, is not an explanation ..it is evidence. Ad hoc fallacy deals with explanations unsubstantiated.

Aaron Wright's statement is consistent with some other ad hoc statements, but not all. The statements have no evidentiary support.

Of course they have evidentiary support. With no Spalding manuscript available and no knowledge one would be available almost 20 years after Spalding's death, and despite Hurlbut not even thinking to question whether Spalding had other manuscripts..witnesses including Aron Wright mentioned he had others. They are offering evidence Glenn, they are not simply speculating that Spalding might have had other manuscripts, they stated they knew he had other manuscripts. The real ad hoc fallacy here is attempts to explain away the evidence that Spalding had a number of manuscripts and one which was written in biblical style.

I think you misunderstand the nature of ad hoc statements and reasoning. Ad hoc statements are "brainstorming" to try to explain away contrary evidence.

And that is exactly what you do. Rather than accept the many and varied (in time and place) S/R witnesses ..including the printer R. Patterson.. that the Spalding manuscript brought in was written in biblical style you try to explain away the evidence and say that because MF is not physically available, it must never have existed. But there were many people who say they saw it. Just because something can't be found, does not mean it never existed.

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.

Again you are attempting to explain away evidence rather than account for the evidence. A draft letter which shows up in a library in 1914 (I believe) is not exactly planted information meant to deceive. It's in Hurbut's writing, it matches up to Aron Wright's initial statement, it is consistent with Howe's book of 1834 in which he says a number of witnesses were shown MSCC and say that's not the one they referenced, that Spalding went back in time with another manuscript. On MSCC in Hurlbut's writing obtained in 1833 is written that MSCC had been shown to Oliver Smith, Aron Wright and Miller and others. Not exactly planted deceptive material. But your argument against this evidence in order to dismiss it is ad hoc. Your argument makes no sense and doesn't account for the evidence and your counter is unprovable. We could go on and on, with you never acknowledging the evidence as having any legitimacy.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Both theories can not be correct.
...

I have witnessed (in person) very high level Community of
Christ leaders attempt to reconcile the two explanations.

Their notion is that the book is "inspired fiction" sent from
God for mankind's benefit -- in much the same way that
some of the canonical biblical writings are fictional, but
yet godly and inspired.

It takes quite a stretch of our imaginations in order to
comprehend just what these RLDS tradition people are
trying to say -- but their message essentially arises out
of the decades-long RLDS rejection of Joe Smith's Book
of Abraham. In other words, the RLDS are used to the
conclusion that Smith wrote pseudo-historical latter day
"scripture." It is not a great evolution for them to see
the Book of Mormon in the same light of the Book of Abraham.

Of course the RLDS/CoC dismiss the Book of Abraham
as Joe's theological speculation, and thus not rising to
the lofty level of "scripture."

How then do the current CoC leaders deal with Joe's
own accounts of the coming forth of the Nephite record?

First of all, they do not canonize those accounts -- so
there is no "scriptural" PGP "History of Joseph Smith" to
contend with. Secondly (at least behind closed doors)
those same CoC leaders will admit that Joe occasionally
told lies, bedded women other than his wife, and acted
in a rather unsaintly manner at times.

Thirdly, the CoC "scholars" rely upon modern criticism of
the biblical texts, to show that "scripture" can be made
by imperfect human beings, telling lies, etc. So long as
God guides the scripture-writing process from afar, its
messy methodology can still result in godly revelation.

All of this results in a CoC viewpoint wherein Joe Smith
may have told lies -- and some of the early Mormon
witnesses may have also told lies (or at least were so
deluded that they unknowingly passed along Joe's lies).

The CoC leaders thus create for themselves approximately
the same wiggle-space as a Unitarian seminary teacher
who does not believe the "New Testament" to be true --
nor even of proper inspiration -- but nevertheless good
enough to guide members' lives, if they wish it so.

Early Mormonism had a parallel ethic -- that anything
leading to Christ (or to salvation) was godly and true,
even if realistically ungodly and untrue. It is possible
to interpret passages in the Book of Mormon along these
lines -- and RLDS/CoC leaders have often done so.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Early Mormonism had a parallel ethic
...

Thus we see that a quest for "ascertaining where money was deposited"
(in believers' pockets and bank accounts?) -- becomes, after much holy
reflection, "several visions and dreams" leading to the publication of a
peculiar book in 1830.

It does not matter that the promoter of this book was most noted for
his money-seeking schemes -- the book becomes holy, because it guides
believers away from the ungodly priestcraft rampant in 1830 Christian
congregations, and puts them squarely under the control of a new and
self-proclaimed "priesthood," still dedicated to "ascertaining where money
was deposited" ...

The more it changes, the more it stays the same.

The people called Mormons, arose some four or five years since, in Manchester,
about fifteen miles from my residence, through the instrumentality of a young
man by the name of Joseph Smith. -- Smith's father, I am informed, had for
many years been associated with a company of money-diggers in that
neighbourhood, and the son was frequently taken with them on those
nocturnal excursions. As it was thought the young man had a peculiar art of
ascertaining where money was deposited, he served as a sort of prophet or seer for
the company. This business, we understand, was pursued for many years; and
this was the school in which the young founder of the Mormons was educated.
But as they did not find so much money as their neighbours who dug
with the plow by the light of the sun, the project was abandoned, and the
company sunk in disgrace and poverty. In 1827, young Joseph had become nearly
twenty years of age; and though his father was discouraged in the enterprise,
and the company broken up, yet the young man was not discomfited, but put all
his wits together -- looked into the hat again upon the stone of enchantment;
and being aided by several visions and dreams, at length beholds the sacred plates
of gold deposited in a stone box, where they had rested undisturbed for many
thousands of years.
(Rev. Joseph Badger, Union Mills, NY, March 1833)

UD

[_Roger]

In response to Glenn, marg wrote:

I think you misunderstand the nature of ad hoc statements and reasoning. Ad hoc statements are "brainstorming" to try to explain away contrary evidence.

And that is exactly what you do. Rather than accept the many and varied (in time and place) S/R witnesses ..including the printer R. Patterson.. that the Spalding manuscript brought in was written in biblical style you try to explain away the evidence and say that because MF is not physically available, it must never have existed. But there were many people who say they saw it. Just because something can't be found, does not mean it never existed.

Well said. And it must also be kept in mind that there are valid reasons why it no longer exists. S/R does not postulate that either an angel or the devil removed it.

So once again the charges leveled against S/R can be--and appropriately are--turned around and applied to S/R critics.

I have often stated that the weakest component of the S/R thesis is that it postulates a manuscript that no longer exists. And yet, contrary to what the critics claim, there is reasonable evidence from which to draw the rational conclusion that it likely did exist, as opposed to simply being an on-the-spot, last-ditch effort to save a dying theory.

Of course we know that the state of the official explanation is much weaker in that it not only postulates a set of metal (ie. difficult to destroy) plates that no longer exist, but it also proposes writing on those plates for which there is no evidence coupled with a story about millions of people for which there is no evidence. This, I suspect, is why defenders of the official position do not wish to go head to head with either S/R or Smith-alone proponents and instead prefer to temporarily adopt the Smith-alone thesis in order to join in attacks against S/R.

But despite Dan's protests, Smith-alone also suffers from problems, though admittedly not as great as the Official version. In Dan's version of Smith-alone, a Bible is the only speculated external source allowable from which material we now find in the Book of Mormon could have possibly come. Despite the fact that no witness EVER admits that a Bible was used to produce the Book of Mormon, Dan is at least reasonable enough to overrule his otherwise trustworthy witnesses on the grounds that they never denied it and that it was obviously a trivial matter, not worth mentioning. But because they DID deny the use of a Spalding manuscript, we apparently have no choice but to take them at their word on that--even though we simultaneously reject their ultimate claims that the Book of Mormon is actually what it claims to be as well as the supernatural elements of their otherwise stellar testimonies.

How Dan thinks he succeeds at weaving a logical, rational thread through all of that is still beyond me--although I think I understand Dan's great reluctance to consider any potential source other than the Bible. To even consider that other external, non-Biblical sources may have been used (in a greater capacity than merely Joseph's earlier exposure to them) is to open the door to consideration of a Spalding manuscript. For some odd reason, the Spalding connection is the one connection that must be prevented at all costs. Given that, it must be frustrating that it is in the Spalding story that we find strong parallels to Joseph Smith's own discovery account. Of course I know Dan thinks he's effectively shot those parallels down, but he hasn't.

Beyond that, people like Dale and Craig Criddle continue to find and refine new textual evidence for a connection. Despite the noise and occasional temporary reversals, movement over the last decade has been, and continues to be in favor of S/R.

[_MCB]

At present, I am copying text from a modernized version of Thompson's translation of History of the Kings of Britain. I am selecting text which resonates with the Book of Mormon. The mere quantity of parallels goes well beyond fair use. I am sure the editor of that text will give permission. Does anyone want to bet that Joseph Smith was familiar with that text? I won't.

To even consider that other external, non-Biblical sources may have been used (in a greater capacity than merely Joseph's earlier exposure to them) is to open the door to consideration of a Spalding manuscript.

[_GlennThigpen]

Well if we are looking at theories objectively and that should be our goal in this discussion we are seeking the best fit explanation of the data. If we ignore the S/R theory for the time being, and evaluate Smith alone versus the Smith Divine theory..the Smith alone theory adequately explains the data. The Smith Divine theory is unnecessarily complex and God and angels can easily be explained as the imaginations of Smith. There are no objective individuals who are not connected to the enterprise, who have no vested interest ..who can vouch for any of the extraordinary claims. A few hostile witnesses observing Smith dictating in a hat on a temporary basis is not extraordinary...that's something within Smith's control to manipulate and do temporarily. Sure the Smith Divine theory came first..but it isn't successful in meeting it's burden of proof to those who are objective. So the Smith alone theory overturns the Smith Divine ..and accounts for the evidence much better.

Whatever the motivations are of Dan or yourself are is irrelevant..we are looking for the best fit theory of data. So in effect since Smith alone can account for the data and since Smith Divine is unsuccessful in meeting a burden of proof for it's extraordinary claims...your counter that the Divine theory came first is irrelevant. Your theory has been overturned with a theory that meets a burden of proof to warrant the claims made by Smith & Co.

As a matter of fact, the Smith alone theory falls very short of the mark. I said that it was an ad hoc theory to try and explain how the Book of Mormon came to be. There are many gaps that it does not cover. Before making such a pronouncement, you really need to bone up on the scholarship that has been done on the Book of Mormon such as the names, especially Egyptian, the Hebraic and Egyptian literay structures, and a host of other things which the Smith alone theory, nor the Spalding/RIgdon theory does not account for.

Both theories can not be correct. For you to argue the Smith Divine is the better theory, would require ad hoc justification added to the Smith alone to falsify the Smith alone.

You have things backward. The Smith alone theory is ad hoc. I am not using the Smith Divine theory to falsify either the Smith alone theory or the Spalding/Rigdon theory. They are ad hoc theories that fail to explain the evidence ofthe Book of Mormon.

So you are arguing as a counter that the Smith alone theory uses as evidence that Smith had a vivid imagination and was a genius which is to explain away the evidence that he was a poorly educated farm boy. But you haven't countered the evidence ..Smith can still be imaginative and a genius while being poorly educated. You are adding ad hocs to try to prevent your Smith Divine theory from being overturned by the Smith alone theory. The Smith alone theory says there is no evidence for God and angels, and we can account for what happened..that it happened solely by Smith's imaginations.

No, I am adding nothing. The raw genius and vivid imagination are unsupported ad hoc theories to explain how Joseph could have produced the Book of Mormon alone.

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.

Howe is not offering an explanation Glenn to maintain a conclusion. He (or Hurlbut) is obtaining evidence.

They are offering unsupported statements.

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.

Whatever legitimate evidence is being sought, is not an explanation ..it is evidence. Ad hoc fallacy deals with explanations unsubstantiated.

That is the point. Howe's statements and the unsigned letter in Hurlbut's handwriting are unsubstantiated. If you are going to lower the evidentiary standards enough to accept them, then Winchester's statement is just as credible and a refutation of Howe and Hurlbut/Wright.

Aaron Wright's statement is consistent with some other ad hoc statements, but not all. The statements have no evidentiary support.

Of course they have evidentiary support. With no Spalding manuscript available and no knowledge one would be available almost 20 years after Spalding's death, and despite Hurlbut not even thinking to question whether Spalding had other manuscripts..witnesses including Aron Wright mentioned he had others. They are offering evidence Glenn, they are not simply speculating that Spalding might have had other manuscripts, they stated they knew he had other manuscripts. The real ad hoc fallacy here is attempts to explain away the evidence that Spalding had a number of manuscripts and one which was written in biblical style.

As I noted, Matilda Mckinstry described those phamplets and manuscripts. I have not explained them away. I have merely used one of the witnesses to explain them. None of the witnesses other than McKinstry described what those pamphlets and manuscripts were. Anything further than her statements is ad hoc.

I think you misunderstand the nature of ad hoc statements and reasoning. Ad hoc statements are "brainstorming" to try to explain away contrary evidence.

And that is exactly what you do. Rather than accept the many and varied (in time and place) S/R witnesses ..including the printer R. Patterson.. that the Spalding manuscript brought in was written in biblical style you try to explain away the evidence and say that because MF is not physically available, it must never have existed. But there were many people who say they saw it. Just because something can't be found, does not mean it never existed.

Yes many people say they say a manuscript and heard Solomon read from it. And we have a manuscript. It does exist.

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.

Again you are attempting to explain away evidence rather than account for the evidence. A draft letter which shows up in a library in 1914 (I believe) is not exactly planted information meant to deceive. It's in Hurbut's writing, it matches up to Aron Wright's initial statement, it is consistent with Howe's book of 1834 in which he says a number of witnesses were shown MSCC and say that's not the one they referenced, that Spalding went back in time with another manuscript. On MSCC in Hurlbut's writing obtained in 1833 is written that MSCC had been shown to Oliver Smith, Aron Wright and Miller and others. Not exactly planted deceptive material. But your argument against this evidence in order to dismiss it is ad hoc. Your argument makes no sense and doesn't account for the evidence and your counter is unprovable. We could go on and on, with you never acknowledging the evidence as having any legitimacy.

marge, you are going circular. There is no substantiation to Howe's statement that he went and talked to some of the neighbors and showed them the manuscript and thay said it was not the same. All you have is Howe's word. But he did not provide any affidavits signed by those alleged witnesses. Nada, zilch. We have an unsigned statement supposedly by Aaron Wright which repeats some of the material from his affidavit and says that Solomon told him that he started writing a story for his amusement, then went back and started writing a history (of the lost tribes no less).
That is what is ad hoc. When confronted with the manuscript that Matilda Davison had placed in the trunk for safe keeping, and it did not have the names Moroni, Nephi, etc. an ad hoc story had to be contrived. Solomon had written a second story. (But that contradicts Oliver Smith.)

Glenn