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

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Well I don't accept that. There's been too many times for my liking when his shorthand doesn't sound like short hand to me. I understand this time wasn't so bad, but when Dan argues to convince me what a believer Cowdery was, that he really tried to translate with the stone and failed....then I wonder just how skeptical Dan is about any of the claims, including the supernatural claims.

Being skeptical doesn’t mean you call everyone who claims supernatural powers or claims to have witnessed a miracle liar. You call yourself a skeptic, but you don’t seem to have read much skeptical literature. Because I’m a naturalist, I tend to regard all claims of the supernatural as either delusion or fraud. There is nothing in my interpretation of Cowdery’s attempt to translate that requires belief in the supernatural. Cowdery was a rod worker, and rods can appear to move themselves through subconscious involuntary muscle movement. Joseph Smith knew Cowdery would fail, and that was the lessen that kept Joseph Smith in control.

It's possible in my opinion that he's claiming to be a skeptical historian and atheist, because if he didn't, he'd be labeled an apologist and dismissed as an objective historian. As I've said before I've never in my life seen a self professed skeptic be so extremely unskeptical and in this case, buy into at face value the claims made by those with a vested interest in perpetuating a fraud.

You are so off base about me, which explains why you have so much difficulty understanding people in the past.

So when he starts talking like a skeptic and an atheist then maybe I'll believe him on those claims. From now on I intend to point out to him when he doesn't talk like a skeptical atheist.

If I sounded like a “skeptical atheist”, I wouldn’t sound like an “objective historian”, would I?

[Guest]

Dan I haven't responded to your recent posts for a number of reasons. Until about a week ago ( I now take Celebrex and it's made a huge difference) since January, the hip arthritis I have became painful especially sitting and getting up right after. So rather than sit at a computer, I spend 3 hrs most days at the local YMCA/gym/pool. Also the weather is nice now and those days are few and far between most of the year so one has to take advantage of them when they are here.

So this issue currently for me is a low priority. I'm still interested but I don't feel time is of the essence and quick responses necessary.

Let me give a general response to your recent posts. Quoting the book on historical methodology I mentioned to you...

On p 68.

7.) The Trustworthiness of the Observer

People–and thus sources–lie, of course, sometimes consciously but sometimes unconsciously. Here historians are interested not so much in the lie as in a more subtle form of falsehood, the suppression or shading of knowledge to conform to orthodox opinion. The personality of the observer is key here. Hence, the scholar must, to the extent possible, study the life of the individual; she must compare this observer with others treating the same or related events; she must be attentive to inconsistencies, lapses, suppressions in the story the document tells. A checklist of factors to consider would include the following:

–Political commentators, by their very nature, shade their reports, making them conform to the party line in one way or another. But even people without direct political connections to the events being reported have political views, and these will inevitably shape the way a person reports, and what is reported.

–Very often, politics are more evidently at play: an observer may not dare tell what he considers the truth. Sometimes, of course the observer must fear for his life, or the well-being of his family; more often, however, the pressure is more subtle–what is at stake is a job, influence, connections.

–The vanity of the observer will play a role as well, for every officer puts her self center-stage, implicitly or explicitly. The historian's problem is to figure out just how center-stage this particular observer would've put herself.

(From reliable sources" An introduction to historical methods by Martha Howell & Walter Prevenier. 2001 Cornell University Press)

As I mentioned before the book I read on historical methodology I'm not thrilled with. For example above they mentioned "Here historians are interested not so much in the lie as in a more subtle form of falsehood,"..well I'm sure historians are very interested in what are lies just as much as subtle falsehoods.

Be that as it may, looking at this particular section addressing "trustworthiness of observers" ...I think the gist of what they are saying applies to the Book of Mormon witnesses. There is an acknowledgement that people lie for self interest, for personal benefit but as well another motivating factor for lying is out of fear.

When people have a vested interest in something which all the Book of Mormon witnesses did other than the 2 hostile ones, or when they have reason to fear negative repercussions..(which is what likely happened years later after leaving the church)..what they say must be evaluated in that light.

You've said (I believe) a number of times, that standard historical methodology doesn't allow you to write off the Book of Mormon witnesses as unreliable. This despite the fact that what all those people are reporting or commenting on is a fraud. No matter how you want to explain it, it still involves fraud. Someone or someones are lying. This is not a typical historical situation in which a fraud is not assumed or even speculated.

Your explanation of when and how the seer stone and urim & thummin were first said to be used..and your use of Emma to back Cowdery's claims..... to me it is a waste of time to consider.

I really don't care at what point Smith said he used a urim and thummin etc. The statements regarding urim and thummin and seer stone sound like a convoluted mess of making it up as they went along. So frankly B.S. is B.S...and the details of the propaganda are much less important than an acknowledgement it is intentional propaganda.

So Dan you can speculate Emma was fooled as opposed to she was lying; and assume that Smith really used a stone in a hat with her and others ...but that's Dan Vogel's speculation not standard historical methodology. Your resistance to acknowledge that the witnesses to the translation process are unreliable (even the hostile ones because what they witnessed was very limited and under Smith's control)..basically tells me your historical interpretation is unreliable.

Cite me your source text Dan, that you are using to conclude that applying standard historical methodology requires one to accept the Book of Mormon witnesses as reliable.

[_marg]

You are so off base about me, which explains why you have so much difficulty understanding people in the past.

So you think I just don't clue in about people and what they are about...is that it?

Are you using standard historical methodology again?

So when he starts talking like a skeptic and an atheist then maybe I'll believe him on those claims. From now on I intend to point out to him when he doesn't talk like a skeptical atheist.

If I sounded like a “skeptical atheist”, I wouldn’t sound like an “objective historian”, would I?

There is no need for you to present arguments on the message board from the perspective of a believer or in words how a believer would express themselves. So that was my point. You have said you are a skeptic and an atheist, I don't care one way or another whether you are or aren't, however it seems to me, that from time to time you talk and argue as a believer would. And until you express yourself like a skeptical atheist I won't accept you are...and in the future I'll point out when you are expressing yourself as a believer would.

[_GlennThigpen]

There is no need for you to present arguments on the message board from the perspective of a believer or in words how a believer would express themselves. So that was my point. You have said you are a skeptic and an atheist, I don't care one way or another whether you are or aren't, however it seems to me, that from time to time you talk and argue as a believer would. And until you express yourself like a skeptical atheist I won't accept you are...and in the future I'll point out when you are expressing yourself as a believer would.

marge, Dan Vogel is far, far from a believer. He does not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He does not believe in angels. He does not believe in God. He does not believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by any supernatural means. If you were of a mind to do a few searches for posts he has made over the years and read his books, it would become evident that he is not a believer. Maybe even get a consensus from this board. A believer would not assert that the witnesses were honest, but duped, and that Joseph was perpetrating a knowing fraud.

It does not make your arguments any stronger to try to label Dan as a "closet Mormon" (my words). It does not help your arguments to assert that just because the witnesses believed in angels, divine visitations, etc. that they were unreliable. You have to use historical sources about those witnesses to determine reliability. You might start by reading Richard Lloyd Anderson's research on the witnesses. To be sure, you can find negative research also. Just check it out and compare.
You also need to use historical sources if you wish to counter Dan's arguments. There are counters to some aspects of his arguments if you search out the sources. On other aspects, it really comes down to beliefs.

I read the stories and believe that the Book of Mormon was an inspired translation. Dan reads the stories and does not believe that the Book of Mormon was an inspired translation. His worldview will not allow for it. He definitely is not a believer.

Just wanted to add that I do not feel offended that a bewildered Dan is shoved into the LDS believer's camp. Just amused.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Perhaps some would also call me a closet Mormon, with my rejection of atheism and my call to LDS to return to the best of Christianity and the Book of Mormon, NightLion-style.
Yes, Glenn. LDS is sola fides. There is no logic to those beliefs, no factual foundation, but, by gum, you are going to stick to your beliefs. Don't get me wrong, I sort of admire that.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

So you think I just don't clue in about people and what they are about...is that it?

Are you using standard historical methodology again?

No, I’m not using standard historical methodology when responding to your personal attacks. I’m not defending the witness; I’m defending myself. I’m also suggesting that you have substituted historical methodology with your personal and obviously idiosyncratic way of assessing people. You tend to make sweeping generalizations on the slightest evidence (often misinterpreted), rather than taking the larger view. Apparently, your bias against religious people distorts your assessment of things, both present and past.

There is no need for you to present arguments on the message board from the perspective of a believer or in words how a believer would express themselves. So that was my point. You have said you are a skeptic and an atheist, I don't care one way or another whether you are or aren't, however it seems to me, that from time to time you talk and argue as a believer would. And until you express yourself like a skeptical atheist I won't accept you are...and in the future I'll point out when you are expressing yourself as a believer would.

Go right ahead. You can do as you please. It will only show how obsessed and defensive you are to maintain your worldview. Readers will conclude that you are extreme and unbalanced in your assessment of Mormon witnesses, and they will naturally wonder why you don’t apply the same polemics to the Spalding witnesses.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
He does not believe in God.
...

That's an interesting fact to know.

Which category of ex-Mormons does this fall into: The "I was faking it"
category, or the "My testimony was a deluded lie" category?

Actually, I do not care. It matters little to me what a person believes;
for we know that beliefs can change. Ex-Mormons are an example of that.

I am more interested in hearing what people know -- of their experiences
and of their discoveries in life.

Here is what ex-Seventy Oliver Olney said in 1843:

>"I do not contend that there are no honest and well meaning
>persons amongst the Mormons, but they are deceived by an
>unprincipled gang of scoundrels whose sole object and aim is
>to secure their own aggrandizement."

Brother Olney neglected to add that the "aggrandizement" lust
extended as far as world-wide domination (Council of Fifty),
world-wide monarchy (Smith's 1844 coronation) and concubinage
for female members --- though he did discuss such matters elsewhere
in his writings.

So long as Brodieites unequivocally renounce, denounce and condemn
the LDS leaders and all their works, I do not care much about what
they say they believe.

In the case you are discussing, I assume that the ex-Mormon in question
will one day repent, will re-accept the restored gospel, will be re-baptized
and will be re-endowed (by proxy). Absent his current refusal of such
future LDS ordinances for the deceased, I suppose that this thread can
be endlessly re-hashed in the CK a few decades from now.

Happily, I will not be there to participate.

Uncle Dale

[_marg]

marge, Dan Vogel is far, far from a believer. He does not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He does not believe in angels. He does not believe in God. He does not believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by any supernatural means. If you were of a mind to do a few searches for posts he has made over the years and read his books, it would become evident that he is not a believer. Maybe even get a consensus from this board. A believer would not assert that the witnesses were honest, but duped, and that Joseph was perpetrating a knowing fraud.

I don't care whether he's a believer or not. What I am addressing is things said on this thread and how it comes across to me. Complete reluctance to acknowledge the unreliability of the Book of Mormon witnesses and why...comes across as how a believer would talk. Be that as it may, what's more important is that his arguments indicate to me that his interpretation of historical data is unreliable. I don't buy that he's limited by standard historical methodology. If he truly is then there is something wrong with standard historical methodology. The bar would be set too high, such that a good critical evaluation of the evidence is not possible.

It does not make your arguments any stronger to try to label Dan as a "closet Mormon" (my words). It does not help your arguments to assert that just because the witnesses believed in angels, divine visitations, etc. that they were unreliable. You have to use historical sources about those witnesses to determine reliability. You might start by reading Richard Lloyd Anderson's research on the witnesses. To be sure, you can find negative research also. Just check it out and compare.

I've already been put off from reading Richard Lloyd Anderson because I believe Dan told me he's worse than he is with regards to psychoanalyzing J. Smith.

Let me address this underlined part, because you are misrepresenting my position.

From Alec Fisher "Critical Thinking..An Introduction Cambridge University Press 2001

p. 103

7.4 Questions about the nature of the claim which influence its credibility

7.4.1 Is it very unlikely, given other things we know; or 9s it very plausible and easy to believe?

If a friend tells you that she had coffee with some mutual friends [in the normal circumstances in which people say things] this will be easy to believe. But, if she says that she has just had coffee with the Queen of England, this will be hard to believe, because very few people do this. Of course it may still be true, but, in the absence of a much fuller story and some evidence, this is not a very credible claim.

Suppose now that the friend says she is just seeing a miracle–she has seen her lover, who has been dead for two days raised up like Lazarus by a priest who prayed over him. How credible with this claim be? David Hume [1711–76] the famous British philosopher have much to say about this kind of claim in his Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (first published 1748, section X). Here is part of his argument:

"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not until then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

In short, the more unlikely it is that some claim is true, given what else we know, the less its credibility and the more we shall need persuading before we believe it.

So Glenn when I look at the 3 witnesses in the Book of Mormon... Cowdery, Whitmer & Harris, as an example it's not simply a matter of whether or not they believe in angels or a God it's a matter of critically evaluating what they say..how credible is their claim given what we know. When they say for example " And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the word is truth." I don't accept at face value their claim. I note they have a vested interest in the start up religion. Their claim is extraordinary. Is it more likely they actually heard God or is some other more natural explanation likely, that they are using the claim they heard God in order to convince others of their claim? When I look at their claims within the context of all else that I know involved with their start up religion, I conclude they are willing to lie in order to promote this religion.

And then this evaluation extends into judging other claims they make with regards to their vested interest..the promotion of this religion.

The same thing with Emma's testimony which I'm not sure if it is a reliably true on or not, but if she in fact did claim that Smith would as he dictated with his head in a hat stop and inform her to correct spelling errors because the stone wouldn't proceed...and given the context of the rest of her testimony and in light of the fact that she too had a vested interest in the enterprise...it is more likely to me that she was lying as opposed to it really happened as claimed. Lying is also a more likely an explanation than Smith was able to successfully fool her time and again, and be consistently correct in guessing when she was actually making mistakes. It's more likely because of the context of everything else said. When one looks at the whole statement it's obvious it is intended propaganda ..to promote the idea that Smith was incapable of writing the Book of Mormon due to lack of knowledge and inability to even read words off the stone..that it MUST have been done by some miraculous supernatural way.

You also need to use historical sources if you wish to counter Dan's arguments. There are counters to some aspects of his arguments if you search out the sources. On other aspects, it really comes down to beliefs.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. However the S/R witnesses is counter evidence but then Dan argues and an extremely poor argument I might add... that he uses the Book of Mormon witnesses e and accepts their claim to a head in the hat with no manuscript present translation process as credible and on that basis dismisses the S/R witnesses.

His use of the Book of Mormon witnesses to back each other up is circular reasoning. People in on a con are likely to back each other up. When extraordinary claims are being made..one needs extraordinary evidence. Using all the Book of Mormon witnesses has evidence for each other, when they themselves are not reliable witnesses, when they are highly motivated to lie, is not using good evidence.

I read the stories and believe that the Book of Mormon was an inspired translation. Dan reads the stories and does not believe that the Book of Mormon was an inspired translation. His worldview will not allow for it. He definitely is not a believer.

I don't really care whether he is or isn't. But he uses his status as an historian to argue why his arguments should be accepted. It's on that basis that I have a problem. That is why I point out he doesn't come across to me as an objective historian...given his arguments.

Just wanted to add that I do not feel offended that a bewildered Dan is shoved into the LDS believer's camp. Just amused.

Correct, one can be a believer and still be a very objective historian or can still argue well from an objective perspective. But as I said Dan uses his historian status in order to claim superiority in argument. It is for that reason that I point out my criticism of his reasoning and that he doesn't come across to me as an objective historian but seems to argue more from a believer's perspective. My intention is not to be derogatory.

[_marg]

Apparently, your bias against religious people distorts your assessment of things, both present and past.

Well Dan it's not about religious belief...it's about a critical thinking concept..which should also apply in historical methodology and I'm sure it does..it's just that you don't use it..and that is "that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So witnesses making extraordinary claims..who also have a vested interested in the enterprise they are involved with and promoting ...do not as a whole offer good credible evidence to support the claims they make.

You've got 2 very weak hostile witnesses who had limited observation to the translation process and yet you accept the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements to the translation process as reliable. Your whole Smith alone argument is built up with that basic premise. Your rejection of the S/R witnesses also is a function of your uncritical acceptance of the Book of Mormon witnesses.

If I was arguing this with Glenn I'd understand his perspective but you argue that as an historian using standard historical methodology you are forced to accept the Book of Mormon witness claims...and that I don't buy.

If your basic premise is wrong Dan, the rest of your reasoning which rests on it, is going to be unreliable.

There is no need for you to present arguments on the message board from the perspective of a believer or in words how a believer would express themselves. So that was my point. You have said you are a skeptic and an atheist, I don't care one way or another whether you are or aren't, however it seems to me, that from time to time you talk and argue as a believer would. And until you express yourself like a skeptical atheist I won't accept you are...and in the future I'll point out when you are expressing yourself as a believer would.

Go right ahead. You can do as you please. It will only show how obsessed and defensive you are to maintain your worldview. Readers will conclude that you are extreme and unbalanced in your assessment of Mormon witnesses, and they will naturally wonder why you don’t apply the same polemics to the Spalding witnesses.

LOL..Dan ..Spalding witnesses are not making extraordinary claims they also don't have a vested interest and would not have personally benefited from lying..many also don't even know each other nor had contact with each other. .

I evaluate each group (as you should) in their own right. It is poor reasoning at best to reject the S/R witnesses (as you have done) as the basis that you accept the Book of Mormon witnesses statements to the translation process as credible. Because the Book of Mormon witnesses said no manuscript was used, Dan Vogel accepts their claim and uses that to reject the S/R witnesses and that any manuscript could possibly have been used by Smith. Dan the Book of Mormon witnesses have a vested interest, extraordinary claims are being made...they are therefore not reliable witnesses when it comes to those extraordinary claims supportive of the church they have a vested interest in.

[_mikwut]

Marg,

What is the "extraordinary claim" the Book of Mormon witnesses are making?

mikwut