Dan:
If Oliver Cowdery was a knowing accomplice then cover-up is possible. The head in hat routine only has to be performed when a dupe is nearby. Otherwise Smith can simply dictate from a manuscript that gets concealed when a dupe approaches. You think they just left the door unlocked so anyone could walk in at will? If Oliver Cowdery is a knowing accomplice then work on the ms can be done in more than one place and by more than just Cowdery.
This statement is fantasy. No proof OC was a co-conspirator at this time. There is no evidence that head in hat was performed only for show when a dupe approached. You think they locked the door to keep people from walking in without any support for that speculation. The last sentence is wild and unnecessary speculation.
Fantasy? You acknowledge that deception is indeed a part of the process. You acknowledge that no words appeared in a stone. Therefore, the head in hat routine is a show specifically designed to deceive. Do we know the level of deception or exactly how the deception was carried out? No we don't. All we have is speculation. It is incorrect to assert that my speculation is inferior to any other speculation.
It is also a completely rational observation that the deception is only necessary when a dupe is nearby. Deception is not necessary when only accomplices are nearby.
Unless you can prove that the door was unlocked and the translation took place downstairs a vast majority of the time with multiple objective onlookers gawking through the open window taking copious notes, I don't see why your speculation is any more valid. In fact if you'll notice the photo of the upstairs room identified as where the translation took place... it's not as if someone could sneak up on them undetected. Quite the contrary.
Nice photos, by the way. I would love to visit.
I’m not sure the translation was always done in the second story.
Perhaps not but whatever was done in the second story would certainly be less visible. The upper privacy could easily have been exploited for whatever portions were not intended for public consumption.
David Whitmer said a blanket was hung so that people stopping by could not see from the door the work as it was being done.
Which itself should raise the question of why? That in itself is a clue that something was going on that was not intended for the public.
I have quoted one source in this thread that described the family sitting around the room observing the translation. It sounds as if people had freedom of movement in and out of the room.
Then why the need for a blanket specifically designed to keep the public from viewing the translation?
David’s sister said she observed the translation many times.
And how do we know what that means? Many times downstairs? Many times upstairs? Many times when the blanket was up? If so, why was the blanket up? What is "many"? Who else was in the room? Does she specifically say there was no Bible in the room? No manuscript? If so, how can she be sure, since there was
obviously the Book of Mormon manuscript? How does she know someone wasn't deceiving her? You and I agree deception was indeed happening on some level since no words appeared in the stone. How can we know where the deception stopped?
There were also two other unidentified handwritings (about 25 pages in the extant original Book of Mormon MS), so OC wouldn’t have been the only co-conspirator.
And who's writing is it? It would be pretty weird if it turned out to be Rigdon's! What books are those?
It doesn’t fit your speculations, but when these dupes entered the room and Joseph Smith suddenly switched to head in hat, how do you imagine he dictated in their presence? Did he suddenly start making it up? Did he use a trick hat?
What's wrong with either? In the first place, your theory claims he made
the whole thing up! Why can't I have him making some of it up? In the second place, like me, you recognize that he was fairly good at deceiving people. There was at least one legal hearing before the Book of Mormon was produced in which he was accused of being a juggler who pretends to see things in a magic rock. If your theory is built on the concept that Smith can deceive people, why can't mine use it as well? I don't think you get exclusivity on Smith's talents.
Not really. Pretty much only Sidney, Joseph and Oliver. The rest can be dupes. It's also possible that Oliver was a dupe, but I don't think so.
If a MS was being used, how could OC not be a co-conspirator? As well as the other two scribes?
If a ms was being used then I think it is more likely that Oliver, at least, was aware of it. But I don't like your use of the term "co-conspirator" because of the connotation I know you are taking with it. I don't think Oliver would have viewed himself as a "co-conspirator" or even an accomplice. Those are our terms.
You hypothesized earlier a scenario and you said you don't know if it happened that way, but it is a possibility. I granted that much. The same applies here with my speculation.
As I stated earlier, it is possible he knew about a preacher or a seer/prophet in Ohio who was supplying Smith with a manuscript that was a translation into English from an ancient ms that gave an accurate history of the Indians and also contained genuine revelation. If he believes that much then the use of such a ms falls into the same category as the Bible does in your theory. You allow a Bible because you claim it won't raise red flags. Well neither would a ms that was viewed as being authentic (to those who needed to know about it). Joseph would have been adding additional revelation. So the additional revelation could have been done on the first floor while the Bible and ms stuff could have been done on the second floor.
However, it's still possible that Oliver could have been a complete dupe. That would require Joseph to have some pretty impressive memory skills. Not as likely, I think, as the former, but still a possibility.
Roger, I see little difference between the Mormon witnesses’ claims about the supernatural and your unsupported speculations—both are unsubstantiated. You have substituted magic with speculation. By all means, be skeptical about the part that pertains to seeing in the stone, but that doesn’t mean the non-miracle part of the witnesses’ statements isn’t true.
There are several issues here. First, there is a world of difference between "the Mormon witnesses’ claims about the supernatural and [my allegedly] unsupported speculations." Apart from the mere assertion of the supernatural in general (which is another issue, and one I don't reject) none of the specific supernatural claims in this case can be supported by anything material. So far as I know, we have some rocks that may or may not have been
the rock. So far as I know, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the rocks. So far as I know, we do not have Joseph's hat to examine. Of course there are no plates and no examples of reformed Egyptian. There's also no Nephite cities. So the claims of the Book of Mormon witnesses are indeed quite unsupported.
You bring up the idea that skeptics mentioned Smith putting his head in a hat but NO ONE disputes that Smith put his head in a hat. And you and I agree he only did so as
part of a show that was designed to deceive people. So all the skeptical witnesses do, is
confirm that a show to deceive people was in play whenever skeptics were around to see the proceedings! But we also know from David Whitmer (in an apparent moment of candor) that a blanket was used to specifically keep people from seeing! So there in fact
is reasonable ground on which to rest my speculation. Even a biased, pro-BOM witness (inadvertently?) acknowledges that a means of blocking the public view was indeed employed.
With regard to this:
but that doesn’t mean the non-miracle part of the witnesses’ statements isn’t true.
...nor does it mean that it is! In fact, since we agree the supernatural element is not true--despite their claims--we should be doubly skeptical about their mundane claims. Although I still (emphatically) assert that some guy calling himself a prophet and sticking his head in a hat while claiming to read words that appear in a magic rock is
anything but mundane. Try as you might,
you cannot separate that out of the testimony.
Besides, you have conceded that Joseph Smith did put his head into a hat when pretending to translate. If, after a revival meeting, a believer reports that the minister touched the head of a woman and the Spirit of God caused her to fall back, you might question the interpretation but not the observation.
But the one can't be separated from the other if we are to accept their testimony. If such a minister physically pushes on the head of his subject causing her to stumble backward, do we have to agree it was God's power manifesting? Of course not. In exactly the same way, NO ONE is disputing the head in hat routine, Dan. Not even me. What we dispute (with the Mormons) is
the reason he put his head in a hat. Whether you're comfortable admitting it or not, you fall on my side of the line. We both agree that he did not put his head in the hat to read words off a magic rock. The only alternative, then, is that he did it to deceive people. But there is only a need to decieve people
who need to be deceived. He doesn't have to put on an act when there are only devoted followers around. Either people who are not terribly observant or are willing to not divulge information
that would do damage to the cause. The key point is:
even so, just like the lady who feels the minister pushing on her, they can
still believe the overall work is quite authentic and that guarding secrets (as in not admitting she felt a physical push) is not only necessary but
the right thing to do.
Being skeptical of the witnesses is no excuse to charge them with dishonesty and conspiracy without cause.
Well maybe you just don't like thinking of the phenomenon in terms of
dishonesty. I don't know. Call it what you want, delusion... blind loyalty... gullibility enhanced by peer pressure... but whatever you want to call it, its a very real phenomenon.
I tested the strength of their claims and showed that their descriptions of Joseph Smith’s method of producing the Book of Mormon were true.
No you didn't. You did nothing of the kind. You have simply established that he put his head in a hat (
part of the time and how much you can't say for sure) and claimed to read off words that appeared in a magic rock. This appears to be the same technique Arad Stowell referred to as "palpable" four years earlier. NO ONE disputes what you claim to have "tested" and "showed." That people testify that Joseph put his head in his hat and spouted sentences is not in dispute.
You never responded to this. So were not accepting the witnesses statements at face value—you’re rejecting them out of hand.
I've given (as has marg and Dale) good reasons for being highly skeptical of the Book of Mormon witness's claims. First and foremost, they were all devoted followers--and the ones who weren't only witnessed the show that was designed for public consumption. They were not allowed to see behind the blanket. Devoted followers are biased and cannot be expected to provide accurate accounts when the possibility exists that doing so might bring damage to the cause. Failing to recognize that simple reality is irresponsible.
Admitting that a Bible was used could have done damage to the cause. No Bible was acknowledged.
You don't think that can be demonstrated? Your own D & C calls Martin Harris a wicked man. Yet I'm just supposed to take his word on what you want me to accept?
Harris was called a “wicked man” because he broke the covenant and showed the Ms to more people than allowed. This is a long way from proving he had the kind of personality to join a religious conspiracy.
No, the implication was that he might have been in on the plan with the evil designing persons who desired to destroy the work. I think Joseph was afraid of the possibility of Martin double crossing him. He was trying to figure out if Martin was just plain stupid or was something more in line with a John C. Bennett. As it turns out, it was apparently more of the former.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence showing his ability to become a dupe. What about Cowdery, Whitmer, the other two scribes?
I think Harris likely was a dupe. Whitmer is a tough call. Could go either way. I think Cowdery likely knew about a Rigdon supplied ms.
Glenn your demands represent a double standard. You want me to produce evidence that your witnesses were dishonest but (even though I think it can be done) that's not necessarily what my theory demands. But at the same time you excuse your own theory from having to provide its own evidence!
Show me the plates. Show me an example of reformed Egyptian. Show me a magic rock where words appear. For that matter, show me Joseph's hat!
Ridiculous! You don’t have to prove your thesis until Glenn can show you the plates. This is the best you can do?
Uhm... no, that's not what I said. In the first place none of us can prove our theses, so demanding I do so is just silly. In the second place, Glenn was challenging S/R on the basis of an alleged lack of evidence. I am pointing out that his theory has lot more missing evidence than mine. But even your theory has no more evidential support than either Glenn's or mine. We simply all choose to interpret the same evidence differently.
In terms of evidence, and how it is interpreted, can you give me an explanation for the data in the chart Dale posted on page 11? Why would the wherefore/therefore shift follow a similar pattern to the double that phenomenon?
You are attempting to escape Glenn’s reasonable demand by making an impossible counter-demand. This is not trying to find the truth, as you have repeatedly claimed; this is polemics. You made a claim that the witnesses were dishonest and members of a conspiracy, so give us some reason to respect your theory.
Well Dan, the same game can be played with you.... you made a claim that the Book of Mormon witnesses were duped. Here's Glenn's "reasonable demand:"
Can you produce evidence that Cowdery was dishonest? That David Whitmer was dishonest? That Martin Harris, et al were dishonest? Can you produce evidence that the witnesses who said there was no manuscript, no documents present were lying or were duped?
So I'd like to see your evidence that they were duped.
I've already pointed to the inconsistencies in their testimonies that you write about in AA as evidence for dishonesty. You blame that on the different interviewers--with no apparent reason that I can see other than your belief that these were completely honest guys who would never give contradictory testimonies. That does not work for me. I think the apparent contradictions are
real contradictions. Dale already pointed to Cowdery's later testimony that you
cannot accept as a truthful account. So dishonesty--or whatever you want to call it--has been established. Its up to you to demonstrate that at some point in the process Cowdery's word was reliable and objective before it became unreliable and unobjective. Given his interest in the cause, that will be quite the undertaking.
At the very least, we agree they were all highly devoted to the cause and therefore not merely disinterested, objective onlookers. It's up to you to show the factors that overcome that.
My theory does not hinge on the dishonesty of your witnesses. David Whitmer and Martin Harris could have been honest dupes, like Dan thinks, and my theory still works. Oliver Cowdery could have been an honest dupe and my theory still works. But Dale has already shown that at least at SOME point in the process Oliver lost his honesty.
Perhaps we should view this as progress, if it weren’t for the obvious contradictions.
You can view it as progress if you want but nothing has changed other than, perhaps, your understanding of my theory. And yet given your later comments it seems you still don't have a clear understanding. Smith could have been receiving instruction from Rigdon without the others knowing about it. But I think that's quite a bit less likely than at least Cowdery knowing about it.
You are trying to argue contradictory positions simultaneously.
No. You are trying to impose a contradiction when there's none there.
If none of these witnesses were dishonest, and they testify that Joseph Smith had his head I the hat and no Ms was used, where does that leave your theory in regard to Joseph Smith’s use of the R/S MS? You lost me.
Well I don't think you've ever really paid enough attention to understand what I have been saying all along. You're just so opposed to S/R (for some strange reason) from the get-go.
Let's go over this point by point....
If none of these witnesses were dishonest,
I'm not saying they were or they weren't. It's irrelevant. Do I
think they were? Yes,
in exactly the same way the faith healer's accomplice is dishonest. He is willing to put on a show and (I'm sure) willing to overlook or fail to mention information that might be damaging to the cause. If that's
not being dishonest, then neither were your witnesses. But I think it is. Nevertheless
what we call it is irrelevant.
and they testify that Joseph Smith had his head I the hat and no Ms was used,
No one disputes the head in hat was used. The question is: for what percentage? Best as I can tell, we simply don't know. If, for example, it turns out that the head in hat routine was employed for 15% of what actually ended up in the 1830 Book of Mormon text, then obviously the majority of the content was produced in another way. If the answer is closer to 85% then still some of the content was produced in some other way. If 85% or higher is the actual number, then it's still possible Smith memorized large chunks of text. This is certainly less likely, but still plausible. You simply cannot rule out a ms (of
any kind) given the information we have. There is no way (for
any theory) to get around the resulting speculation.
and no Ms was used,
No ms? Or no
Spalding ms? If Smith has determined he needs to keep a Rigdon supplied ms secret,
how are they going to know? You
agree Smith employed deception... right?
where does that leave your theory in regard to Joseph Smith’s use of the R/S MS? You lost me
With several valid possibilities. I don't have to choose one. I can simply point to the destination and say there are several valid ways of getting there.
Why this silly ad hominem? Arguments are good or bad independent of the circumstances of the person making them.
Did you perhaps notice I was responding to Dale's comment? I am in no way attempting to impugn Glenn. Dale's point was that ultimately Glenn's logic--when it comes to
his own theory of how the Book of Mormon got here--takes a back seat to his testimony. I agree that for him it does. For me it does not and it is completely valid to point out that Glenn's testimony may answer certain questions
to his satisfaction, but not to mine. It does not produce golden plates, reformed Egyptian or Nephite cities. If it did do those things, I would certainly be more open to Glenn's Book of Mormon production theory.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.