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

[Bedlamite]

...the change-over in literary style was approximately coincident with
the decision to include redundant "that's," the word "wherefore," etc.
...

Although I suppose that the switch over to "wherefore" might be
claimed for about May of 1829, the predominance of the word in
Latter Day Saint scripture should probably be marked as beginning
in June of that year -- with the text that became BoC ch. XV.

Assuming that BoC XV is properly dated, the change-over in literary
style in the Book of Mormon perhaps came just after Ether 13 was dictated,
and the last "a"-prefixed verb was set down in the Nephite record.

I spoke earlier of "redundant that's," and one such example is seen
in the term "after that..."

Coincidentally (??) the "after that's" in the Book of Commandments
also begin in June of 1829, with BoC XV.

I take this to signify that far more than just exchanging
"therefore" for "wherefore" happened, c. May-July, 1829. A significant
shift in Book of Mormon language was instituted at that time -- at about
the time that the proto-Mormons (Smith, Cowdery, etc.) decided to
found their own, unique church, and not just reform existing
Christianity in something similar to Campbell's "restoration movement."

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

Analysis of the eye witness testimony and historical record does not support the Spalding theory. Rigdon and Pratt didn't know Joseph Smith before or during the dictation. Only by convoluted and circular reasoning can it be made so. The eye witnesses to the actual dictation were dupes, but what Kind? If dupes and not liars, what would make them imagine they saw Joseph Smith dictating with face in hat? What did Whitmer have gain after being outside the church for decades? There are too many witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly to Joseph Smith, who testified to the same thing.

This is what does not make sense to me. You made a compelling case in American Apocrypha that the eyewitnesses changed their testimony over time, sometimes drastically. Why then, would you put so much stock in what they testify to?

All the best.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Why then, would you
...

Roger -- My observation is that outsiders can never quite understand
the gullibility of the Latter Day Saints. We are absolutely fixated and
grounded in our history -- even when we do not know it very well.

It was very late in my life that I even thought to question the reliability
of William Smith, the famous (infamous) RLDS High Priest who repeatedly
swore to us that his brothers, Joseph and Hyrum (and he, himself) were
strict monogamists.

Even after I was somewhat disaffected from Community of Christ, I
still assumed that Katherine Smith Salisbury (Joseph's sister) and Emma
Bidamon (his widow) were trustworthy in their testimonies.

When we have never-members, like Jan Shipps and Mario dePillis relying
upon our old witnesses, in order to reconstruct past history, it is easy
to accept the view that the Latter Day Saint past was just what our
old testifiers and polemicists said it was.

If a person like myself wishes to determine what Parley P. Pratt was
doing in 1829, where else can I go, than to Parley's own son's
compilation of his father's autobiographical writings? Either I trust
Parley, or I do not -- and, if I do not trust him, I cannot write about
what he was doing before he met Hyrum Smith and associates.

For 80% of my life I simply trusted that the old sources must be at
least basically true and reliable -- that they couldn't ALL be giving
false information.

Luckily I still have that other 20% of my life to live -- and with the
freedom of mind to now question and even reject, in some cases,
the stories that the early Mormons have handed down to us.

Uncle Dale

[_Roger]

UD:

Roger -- My observation is that outsiders can never quite understand the gullibility of the Latter Day Saints. We are absolutely fixated and grounded in our history -- even when we do not know it very well.

Possibly so, but I don't think Dan fits into that category. He certainly knows the history pretty well. Maybe I entirely missed the point Dan was making in American Apocrypha but it sure seemed like the point of the specific chapter he wrote was, you have to take what these guys are saying with a grain of salt.

If that was the point--or at least one of the points--then my question for Dan, in light of that, is why would he place so much confidence in what they say about how the Book of Mormon was produced?

He says that hostile witnesses corroborate the seer stone/dictation method. Well, that is certainly true, but I don't think there is enough "hostile" testimony to conclude that dictation was the only method Book of Mormon words got put on the page. In fact it seems like someone could make a fairly compelling case that what the hostile witnesses were testifying to was only what Smith & Co. wanted them to see. We know from the 1826 hostile testimony that Joseph was actively engaging in trickery in an attempt to fool people. Dan might even agree with that. If so, then what makes him think Joseph stopped attempting to fool people after 1826?

I'm pretty sure Dan agrees with his co-author David Wright that whoever produced the Book of Mormon plagiarized from the KJVB. I agree, but acknowledging that is to reject the eyewitness testimony Dan is otherwise relying on when he says:

Analysis of the eye witness testimony and historical record does not support the Spalding theory.

Why should we conclude the eyewitness testimony is reliable when they claim every word was dictated by Smith and yet unreliable when it comes to KJVB plagiarism or even when measuring their former words against their own later words?

All the best.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Why should we conclude the eyewitness testimony is reliable
...

Because Oliver Cowdery was a sincere, honest, reliable and
trustworthy Christian man, who would never have kept dark
secrets from the Saints -- nor participated in any sort of fraud?

If he was something other than that -- then perhaps he helped
Joseph Smith dupe Whitmer and Harris.

But, how can we ever know for certain?

I suppose that some compilers of Mormon history assume that
Oliver was bamboozled, just like Martin and David were....

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan:

Analysis of the eye witness testimony and historical record does not support the Spalding theory. Rigdon and Pratt didn't know Joseph Smith before or during the dictation. Only by convoluted and circular reasoning can it be made so. The eye witnesses to the actual dictation were dupes, but what Kind? If dupes and not liars, what would make them imagine they saw Joseph Smith dictating with face in hat? What did Whitmer have gain after being outside the church for decades? There are too many witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly to Joseph Smith, who testified to the same thing.

This is what does not make sense to me. You made a compelling case in American Apocrypha that the eyewitnesses changed their testimony over time, sometimes drastically. Why then, would you put so much stock in what they testify to?

All the best.

I don't recall having argued that?

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

I'm pretty sure Dan agrees with his co-author David Wright that whoever produced the Book of Mormon plagiarized from the KJVB. I agree, but acknowledging that is to reject the eyewitness testimony Dan is otherwise relying on …

Why should we conclude the eyewitness testimony is reliable when they claim every word was dictated by Smith and yet unreliable when it comes to KJVB plagiarism or even when measuring their former words against their own later words?

This is a natural question asked many times, and answered. The answer I usually give is that Whitmer’s description of the translation process was in response to claims about Spalding’s manuscript being used. Whitmer’s answer therefore is limited to that issue and does not preclude the possibility that he also saw Joseph Smith and OC using the KJV as a translation aid, or transcription shortcut. I believe it’s possible that Cowdery copied directly the longest block from Isaiah when Joseph Smith and others were away in Palmyra in early June 1829 making arrangements with Grandin to print the book. Regardless, there would be no need for the eyewitnesses to mention this in their descriptions of the translation process since strictly speaking it was not how Joseph Smith translated.

[_Uncle Dale]

...it’s possible that Cowdery copied directly the longest block from Isaiah when Joseph Smith and others were away
...

If Oliver Cowdery was the theologian who altered the italicized
words in the KJV text copied into the Nephite Record, then I
suppose we should be able to discern a concomitant theologizing
going on in Oliver's articles in the early Mormon newspapers, etc.

Another possibility is that the alterations of the italicized words in
copied biblical passages were made on the spur of the moment, as
the text was being copied, and thus not due to a concerted effort
to insert Mormon "corrections" into the KJV text.

Had the biblical texts been reproduced verbatim in the Book of Mormon
this oddity would not exist to perplex us today -- but the alterations
were made and thus must somehow fit into the process by which the
determination was made to either reproduce KJV passages by oral
dictation or by the transcriber's pen.

It is a point to keep in mind, when attempting to differentiate text
finalized through dictation and text finalized through copying.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

...
Why should we conclude the eyewitness testimony is reliable
...

My answer is different than Dale’s. I would paraphrase David Hume’s statement on miracles: pick the lesser miracle. Given the repeated and multiple eyewitness testimony maintained over decades, it would require a greater conspiracy to maintain a lesser speculated conspiracy. So which is easier to believe: the witnesses were telling the truth, or that they were involved in a massive conspiracy? What would Occum’s Razor have you choose? How many assumptions are needed to maintain the Spalding theory? Why replace a simple straightforward theory, for one so convoluted and ad hoc?

The theory was spawned by those trying to remember what they head read fifteen years earlier. Obviously, the Book of Mormon witnesses’ testimony is much stronger than that kind of testimony.

[_MCB]

Another a-prefixed verb in II Nephi.

27:32 and they that a make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.