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

[Guest]

Dan:

You are attempting to fill a gap with speculation, but the gap itself is speculation. All we have is testimony of eyewitnesses who described the typical translation day. There is no hint of restrictive access to Joseph Smith by those who lived with him.

The hint comes in the form of a blanket. Being devoted followers they're not going to give us many more hints.

The only wariness was towards curiosity seekers.

And why should they be wary of that? Mormon missionaries were sent out into the public to promote the Book of Mormon. To generate curiosity. Why the need for such secrecy? If Joseph Smith could rattle off sentence after sentence of coherent narrative, why block access to anyone? Why not allow all comers? Heck, they might have even charged admission to cover the eventual printing costs! There was obviously a good reason Joseph only wanted a few close friends observing and even then all we have to go on is their biased word.

Emma worked in the room as the translation was progressing. The Whitmers could sit around the room and observe and listen. This is what we know.

And this from people who were heavily invested in the cause.

That’s different from what you are trying to do. You are trying to use the fact that we don’t know what was transpiring every minute of every day to make sinister assertions that have no evidentiary basis. So it’s not speculation vs. speculation.

It is speculation and yours is as sinister as mine. You don't accept what the witnesses tell you, Dan. Most of them went to their graves never denying that words appeared in a stone--which was the reason for the head in the hat. But you and I agree that didn't happen. You and I agree that a Bible was used but none of your witnesses back you up on that and I have no doubt if they were here today they'd flat out deny that any Bible was used and say we are both pawns of the devil for doubting it.

Similarly, we know stones don’t translate ancient books that don’t exist, and that the head in hat was for show. However, we don’t know Cowdery and two unknown scribes (probably the Whitmers) were coconspirators. Your assertion that we don’t know the level of deception is the negative version of the positive assertion that the level was higher than the evidence can support.

The way you've stated this is confusing. Positive or negative, the fact remains that you cannot prove they were completely innocent dupes. In fact the evidence is against you in drawing that conclusion for reasons I've already given. And as Dale has adequately pointed out Cowdery was NO innocent dupe when he made his spectacular claims. There is no getting around that. It is then up to you to show that at some point in the process Cowdery's word was reliable and objective before it became unreliable and unobjective. The way I see it, there is no good reason at all to believe that Cowdery's bias and unobjectivity came later in the progression.

You are the one who asserted the door was locked,

No I said it is a possibility, and it is.

and that Joseph Smith was secretly doing something behind closed doors. It’s your speculation and your burden, not mine. Consider the following:

Quote:
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logical. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). … Argument from ignorance is perhaps used as a rationalization by someone who realizes that he has no good reason for holding the belief that he does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The blanket supports my speculation and works against yours. Your ignorance on the matter is similar to mine. The only difference is that you think you can take the word of highly biased witnesses and I strongly disagree. But even taking them at their word still gives us clues that something needed to be blocked from public view. And they also leave you with the problem of not being able to account for every hour of translation. In fact, I would guess that all you really have is speculation about what a typical translation day might look like--as told by highly biased, highly interested, devoted followers of a charismatic figure. It's not unlike asking the followers of Warren Jeffs about a typical day inside an FLDS compound. They may or may not outright lie, but either way, you're not going to get the full 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.

What would that be? Copying from the S/R MS?

Or the Bible.

So Joseph Smith dictates for hours with head in hat,

How do we know that? The "for hours" part? How do you know that? What exactly do you base that on?

then he needs a MS to dictate from, then a dupe comes up the stairs and it’s head in hat dictation again.

Dan, any number of excuses can be used when Smith and Cowdery want more privacy.

...Brother Joseph is tired of all the curiosity seekers, Brother David, and they are causing a distraction that is hindering the work. So tomorrow we're going to work upstairs and we'd prefer not to be disturbed as we work. -or better yet... God has informed us that the translation is not progressing as quickly as it should and he has informed us that the reason is that we are too distracted. He has instructed us to move the work upstairs where we will be less distracted.

You think Whitmer is going to become suspicious and send spies up the stairs? Of course not. And that's just one small example of the limitless potential excuses that could have been used. The key to it all, Dan, is that devoted followers believe in the cause, are dedicated to it and will act (and speak) accordingly to the best of their ability.

Of course we know that Joseph employed some technique that involved placing his head in the hat and spouting off sentences, but we don't know that all of the work was accomplished in that manner, and in fact all indications are that the Isaiah and other KJV portions were not. So we already know that the Book of Mormon likely represents a combination of head in hat routine and outright reactive plagiarism.

The long periods of dictating in front of onlookers shows that he didn’t need a MS. The loss of the 116-page MS shows that a MS wasn’t used.

On the contrary! The 116 pages could have been restarted much sooner and completed much faster if Joseph could simply spout off coherent tales at will that he's been rehearsing since 1827. Once he's figured out an excuse for not having to duplicate the same exact wording, he's off to the races! If it's all coming from his own head, then it's all still up there.

But think of what a mess results if the 116 pages represented a combination of reliance on a ms as well as unique material added by Smith! All is lost! Such a conundrum matches the intensity of Joseph's reaction! It fits perfectly with what is known. We would not expect such a dire pronouncement from a man capable of spouting off coherent tales at will.

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.

How do you get that? The head in hat wasn’t for curiosity seekers.

You can't possibly know that. Instead you surmise it because you uncritically accept the word of highly biased witnesses. But let's say it was for both... and let's say Whitmer is a dupe. Then the head in hat is necessary when David is nearby, but not when David is not nearby. The blanket is an obvious clue that something needed to be covered up. The same technique was used for Martin Harris which is one of the reasons I suspect Harris was a dupe.

Then why the need for a blanket specifically designed to keep the public from viewing the translation?

So the work wouldn’t be disturbed. Nothing sinister.

Now you're the one legitimately in fantasy land. David Whitmer practically spells it out for you. The blanket was used to block something from public view. There's no getting around that. The blanket accomplished the same purpose with Martin Harris.

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?

Stick with what she said, not what she didn’t. She had many opportunities to see the head in hat.

Which no one disputes! So in short, the answer is, you don't know where the deception stopped and you can't rely on witnesses who were highly devoted, interested and biased and very likely deceived to boot!

So Joseph Smith is dictating from a MS and doesn’t know what’s coming, then someone comes up stairs and he makes it up, then he dictates from the MS and it all meshes together somehow.

More likely that when someone comes upstairs the work takes a small break. To add believability, Joseph grabs his hat (with stone already inside no doubt) and holds it in his lap as though he's lost his concentration while Oliver slides a supplied page under the stack of recently completed Book of Mormon ms pages.

Mine wasn’t in response to adverse evidence, yours is. Mine wasn’t even a necessary part of my theory, yours is.

What adverse evidence am I responding to that yours is not? You mean the testimony of biased witnesses?

No, Roger. The Bible has evidence in support of its use, the S/R MS doesn’t. It’s not the same.

The Bible has more evidence to be sure, but there is evidence of a connection between the writing of Spalding and the writing of Smith. That evidence supports the prior witness testimony that there is a connection.

However, I note that you now allow that Joseph Smith’s use of a Bible would not have aroused suspicion,

No way! I'm accommodating YOUR theorizing on that! I say that a Bible WOULD have aroused suspicion for the completely honest dupes that YOUR theory demands! Your theory requires Joseph to give some lame excuse for copying from a Bible, but whatever he tells them they just swallow as if it's no big deal, despite what the Book of Mormon text itself claims! I am saying, well, if you're going to go that far out on a limb--because you have to--then what difference is there if Joseph tells them (or more likely him, Oliver) the same thing about a ms that Oliver is convinced is authentic? There is no difference! Its simply an unwelcome conclusion to YOUR OWN logic, Dan. Not mine.

My theory does not demand such honest but gullible saints! On the contrary, my theory claims that Oliver was probably in on it at least at some level. And my theory claims that even if he (and the others) were not in on it, they were highly devoted and would have avoided mentioning anything that could have been potentially damaging to the cause! Hence: No Bible mentioned. And a Spalding (or any other) ms would have been denied for exactly the same reason. Certainly it would be easier to deny if they were not aware of it, (which is quite possible, given that all they may have known was that pages were being supplied by another seer in Ohio) but either way, such denials are to be expected from people who have an interest in the outcome.

and now you are trying to smuggle your MS into the room under the same argument. Notice how you keep arguing that I accept your position because of something I already hold. This is that ad hominem circumstantial fallacy I keep trying to tell you about. You are attempting to get your wild speculations accepted, not on their own merits, but for other reasons.

I'm not trying to get you to accept anything. I'm just responding to what I think are flaws in your theory and logic.

[_marg]

But think of what a mess results if the 116 pages represented a combination of reliance on a ms as well as unique material added by Smith! All is lost! Such a conundrum matches the intensity of Joseph's reaction! It fits perfectly with what is known. We would not expect such a dire pronouncement from a man capable of spouting off coherent tales at will.

Nice logical point Roger. If it was just a straight copy from a manuscript that would be fairly easy to rewrite, but with changes made to that copy as it's being written that would be much more problematic to duplicate closely. Concepts would have been forgotten.

And if Smith was so creative, then some lost pages should be no big deal. He'd immediately realize he simply needs to tell the account from another perspective ..that is use another character.

[_Uncle Dale]

But think of what a mess results if the 116 pages represented a combination of reliance on a ms as well as unique material added by Smith! All is lost! Such a conundrum matches the intensity of Joseph's reaction! It fits perfectly with what is known. We would not expect such a dire pronouncement from a man capable of spouting off coherent tales at will.

Nice logical point Roger. If it was just a straight copy from a manuscript that would be fairly easy to rewrite, but with changes made to that copy as it's being written that would be much more problematic to duplicate closely. Concepts would have been forgotten.

And if Smith was so creative, then some lost pages should be no big deal. He'd immediately realize he simply needs to tell the account from another perspective ..that is use another character.

Another possibility is that Smith began with a pre-written story
on manuscript pages -- but that he was only able to effectively
memorize a chapter or two at a time. He might have been able
to retain all of that in his head for weeks (or even months) at a
time -- but not perfectly and not forever.

If we add to this possibility the element of paraphrase and even
a little innovation, here and there, the dictated results would be
a composition not easily recalled perfectly -- not even for a boy
genius with a photographic memory.

Such an understanding of the process need not involve any
third-party writers, secretly handing Smith manuscript pages.
Such an explanation works, either in the case of Smith-alone
or in the case of Smith+helpers.

If Smith was destroying the original manuscript pages as he
went along, dictating a memorized section at a time to Harris,
then Smith would not have even retained the base narrative
from which he produced the "Book of Lehi." It would then be
unrecoverable, and even a photographic memory might not
have been sufficient to produce an exact copy of the lost MS.

I think it more likely that Smith memorized whole sections of
manuscript pages at a time (no matter who wrote them), but
I could also be convinced that he worked from abbreviated
notes and a rough chronological outline (also memorized).

What I think would be very unlikely, is that the book was
produced as a stream-of-conscious narrative, composed
on-the-fly, with no reference to any pre-made story.

I present these possibilities as potential "leads" for future
research -- but I know I'll be accused of "ad hoc" additions,
(which are disallowed in any discussion of the subject here).

UD

[_marg]

Another possibility is that Smith began with a pre-written story
on manuscript pages -- but that he was only able to effectively
memorize a chapter or two at a time. He might have been able
to retain all of that in his head for weeks (or even months) at a
time -- but not perfectly and not forever.

That speculation I don't buy. What evidence is there he had such a memory, that he spent time on his own writing a story on paper, that he had the personality for spending time by himself putting in the effort to memorize, plus why go through all that work of memorization. So I don't see that scenario as likely.

I like Roger's insight, because even if Smith had kept the copied manuscript portion (which he probably did) he couldn't copy it if he'd made significant changes to it that he couldn't remember. He'd be forced to replace it with something quite different so as to not look like he's making up the story as he goes along and simply replacing with an attempted duplicate of what he'd lost.

If Smith was destroying the original manuscript pages as he
went along, dictating a memorized section at a time to Harris,
then Smith would not have even retained the base narrative
from which he produced the "Book of Lehi." It would then be
unrecoverable, and even a photographic memory might not
have been sufficient to produce an exact copy of the lost MS.

What Smith wouldn't want is for it to look like he made the story up as he went along. So either the replacement has to be exactly the same or it has to be very different. To be somewhat the same in most respects would make it look like it was Smith's attempted recreation.

And why destroy the manuscript he had? He might need it later to verify something..so he's likely going to keep the manuscript he's copied from with the portion he hasn't. By destroying what he's copied from he's not destroying evidence if he still has more manuscript around.

I think it more likely that Smith memorized whole sections of
manuscript pages at a time (no matter who wrote them), but
I could also be convinced that he worked from abbreviated
notes and a rough chronological outline (also memorized).

I don't see the need for this. I don't think any of the Book of Mormon witnesses are reliable witnesses..and the hostile few had scant exposure under controlled circumstances. I can speculate that for a few scribes, Smith may have used a con..but why bother. I don't need to. There is no reason any of the witnesses are credible reliable witnesses..they all had a vested interest.

What I think would be very unlikely, is that the book was
produced as a stream-of-conscious narrative, composed
on-the-fly, with no reference to any pre-made story.

I present these possibilities as potential "leads" for future
research -- but I know I'll be accused of "ad hoc" additions,
(which are disallowed in any discussion of the subject here).

The problem with Dan's accusations of ad hoc fallacies is he assumes his counter claims are well warranted, such as, that the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible and reliable or that Smith alone theory has met a sufficient burden of proof to establish itself as the best fit theory of the evidence.

But he hasn't met a sufficient burden of proof which accounts well for the evidence. There is good reason to be highly skeptical of the claim that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself..so there is no justification that the Smith alone should assume presumption and only other theories have a burden to prove their case to overcome the S/A.

If there was little reason to be skeptical of the Smith alone theory, then other theories would have a burden to overturn the Smith alone theory. But there is no reason that one should presume Smith wrote the Book of Mormon on his own. He was secretive about the process, only involved a select few to witness the dictation and those people had a vested interest, he was a noted con, and he's was making many extraordinary claims.

So in order for an ad hoc fallacy to be successful the counter claim to the initial claim must be well warranted, and that's what Dan disregards. The counter claim has a burden to overturn the initial hypothesis. His counter claims to which S/R advocates respond are not well warranted. His counter claims do not meet a burden of proof which overturn the initial S/R claims he's attacking.

For example his Book of Mormon witnesses as evidence do not overturn the S/R claim that a spalding manuscript was used as evidenced by the Conneaut witnesses. His evidence is not reliable strong evidence. It's his assertion that his evidence is strong, but there are good warrants to justify why his evidence isn't strong.

[_Roger]

marg:

Nice logical point Roger. If it was just a straight copy from a manuscript that would be fairly easy to rewrite, but with changes made to that copy as it's being written that would be much more problematic to duplicate closely. Concepts would have been forgotten.

And if Smith was so creative, then some lost pages should be no big deal. He'd immediately realize he simply needs to tell the account from another perspective ..that is use another character.

This is one of the reasons I find S/R explains the actual data better than either alternative. Under S/D the explanation given for the rewrite is extremely lame and takes a rather large amount of faith to overlook the rather glaring problem that evil men intent on destroying Smith's work would NOT alter the manuscript they had stolen. Any alteration to a hand-written manuscript would be obvious. Rather they would simply sit on it and wait for him to produce another copy and then they could show the obvious differences--that is if they think he's just making it up on the fly! And even if they did take such a strange action, it would have never destroyed the work! In that case Joseph simply becomes a prophet, accurately predicting that his enemies would attempt to make alterations on the manuscript and, wellah! just look at those alterations!

And what if Smith predicts alterations and they fail to alter a pristine ms? What then?

But what if the manuscript itself was already full of alterations in various places? What if he and/or Cowdery had made notes, scribbles and changes? What then? How would that be explained? Given that possibility, Smith's far-fetched story seemingly becomes the only possible way of salvaging the whole thing. And if Smith could simply come up with narrative at the drop of a hat (or rather while looking into one), then why would there be a need to make numerous alterations?

That's where the S/R thesis explains everything much better than either of the two major competing alternatives. If Smith is working from a supplied manuscript and making his own alterations and additions (which is certainly what the extant text itself looks like in places where he's obviously written himself into Nephite narrative), there is no way he can accurately replace what has been lost even if he still retains the original supplied manuscript! All is truly lost! And it gets worse because he knows that the lost manuscript also has a number of cross-outs and alterations on it, (that were made after they had put pen to paper) probably in key places that he'd like to change again--but might miss or might change differently the second time around! How on earth would you explain that mess? Especially when God is supposed to be correcting everything even down to the spelling for pete's sake!

Enter the "evil-men-who-want-to-change-my-manuscript" solution! He knows there's already changes that have been made in permanent ink on those pages because either he or Cowdery made them! Therefore predicting that evil men will alter the words is a perfect way out! If the ms surfaces, he's just made himself an accurate prophet!

As it turns out, Lucy Harris had probably already burnt the ms before Smith even knew it was missing. And his explanation sounds extremely weak even to the faithful, who must simply accept that God knew this would happen centuries ago but did nothing to stop it or to reveal who these evil men were or what they had done with the ms! Instead, he'd had an ancient Nephite remedy the problem by producing another set of plates for an allegedly wise purpose! How convenient!

And if Smith can simply make this stuff up on the fly (S/A) then why worry so much about replacing the lost content? Why take several months to get back to full operation? All he has to do is claim God is telling him to translate another story using a different hero from a different set of plates. There is NO NEED for evil men to mess things up by altering the words on his lost ms. That's why I'm convinced Smith knew the lost pages already contained a number of cross-outs and alterations that would really look bad if God was supposed to be providing the translation and correcting errors.

Of course alterations could have been made after pen met paper even if Smith wasn't working with a supplied ms, but it's certainly much less likely that very many changes would have needed to be made if Smith had a gift of just making up coherent tales on the fly--especially ones that he'd been rehearsing since at least 1827.

And yet the whole thing makes perfect sense if Smith is adding content to a supplied ms.

It's ironic, given all this, that Dan thinks the 116 page loss works against S/R!

[_Uncle Dale]

...That speculation I don't buy. What evidence is there he had such a memory
...

It would be useful if somebody would produce a compilation of all
the known historical sources relating to Smith's memory. Perhaps
the topic even merits a professional journal paper.

According to William Hyde (whom the Smiths tried to recruit into
the Gold Bible Co. before the Book of Mormon was ever envisioned)
Joseph Smith, Sr. could memorize an entire book, in a single
reading, and then repeat back the contents at a later time.

Does anybody lurking on this thread have any reliable source
information regarding Joseph Jr.'s memorization abilities?

UD

[_MCB]

I did a search, and all I came up was a thread on this board from '09.

That referred me to

He would destroy his best friend for the sake of a few hundred dollars. It was his policy to get away with a man's money, first, because he wanted it, and second, because he believed that in getting a man's money he deprived him of power and position, and left him in a measure helpless and dependent. He was a tyrant; self-exaltation and gratification of his grosser passions with an entire disregard of others rights. And of all morality, led to his destruction at last. Hyrum Smith was as evil as Joseph, but with less ability; he had, I think a little more caution. Joseph had a wonderful memory. Hyrum was short in that; was a very poor public talker, but a pretty good secret worker. Sidney Rigdon was very close. I could never fairly understand him.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune2.htm#070387

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9438&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=0

[_Uncle Dale]

I did a search, and all I came up was a thread on this board from '09.

That referred me to

He would destroy his best friend for the sake of a few hundred dollars. It was his policy to get away with a man's money, first, because he wanted it, and second, because he believed that in getting a man's money he deprived him of power and position, and left him in a measure helpless and dependent. He was a tyrant; self-exaltation and gratification of his grosser passions with an entire disregard of others rights. And of all morality, led to his destruction at last. Hyrum Smith was as evil as Joseph, but with less ability; he had, I think a little more caution. Joseph had a wonderful memory. Hyrum was short in that; was a very poor public talker, but a pretty good secret worker. Sidney Rigdon was very close. I could never fairly understand him.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune2.htm#070387

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =a&start=0

Yes -- that would be one item to place on the sources list.

There was also William Clayton's quote from Smith -- that Smith had the entire
polygamy revelation in his memory, and could reproduce it at any time he wished.

That text is very long, complex and convoluted. I doubt that one person out of a
hundred could memorize it. How did Smith manage that feat?

I once had to memorize Lincoln's Gettysburg Address -- that's about the limit of my
humble abilities. But I've met actors who memorize copious amounts of "lines" for
their parts in plays/films. I could never understand how they accomplish that.

UD

[_MCB]

Human intellectual abilities vary considerably. There are things I cannot do that others can do quite well. I was told that I have incredible abilities in laying down patterns on leather and cloth for grain and economy of material. But memorization-- pah!! I would rather relate information and develop new ways of putting it together than memorize.

They say that anyone who memorizes the Koran has an automatic ticket to heaven.

[_marg]

I still don't buy that Smith likely memorized chunks of a manuscript prewritten before dictating.

I have a son with above average memory. I think a possible reason he developed it is that in order to get through school he needed to be able to listen well and remember because his handwriting was cumbersome and illegible. So he'll remember verbatim dialogue in movies, he does better than others in games requiring memory skills etc. But having a good memory for bits and pieces of information is not the same as spending time memorizing large chunks of a manuscript which is work. I think Smith would look for easier ways than having to memorize. In addition if he was memorizing why bother with the same names, and same wording, why not simply improvise with his own chosen names and paraphrase, yet the Conneaut witnesses said parts were the same and names were the same. I don't throw the Conneaut witnesses statements out as being unreliable, I think for the most part they are very reliable.