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

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

This is a remarkable post by Dan for reasons that will become apparent. First, the question begging for an answer is: do you understand how the con works?

Was it memorization? Was it all off the top of his head?

This is a little off topic. I was speaking of the psychology of the con and the dupe. However, let me state that I believe the Joseph Smith’s dictation was essentially impromptu—the same as he dictated revelations. This doesn’t mean he didn’t prepare for these dictations. First, he was used to telling stories about what he saw in his stone as a treasure seer. Like one Indian killing another and throwing his body into the hole to guard the treasure and so on. Lucy Smith said he entertained his family with these stories in the evenings after work. More immediately, I would point out that the average dictation day produced eight pages—perhaps a few hours worth. That left the rest of the day to think about what he was going to dictate. He was in control of when he started and stopped. He had the ability to do it.

Correct. This is the point I've been hammering for some time now. The beliefs of the participants play a key role in the deception, to the point of making them active participants. The only question is how much information they were privy to that might have done damage to the cause.

You are missing the point that it’s not intentional on their part.

And she's playing right along to the point of now she's doing her job.

Again, it’s not intentional. I’m describing how it works with dupes, not coconspirators.

Bingo! The quote you site makes our point. In that case the "sitters" were consistently omitting crucial details, adding others, changing the order of events, and otherwise supplying reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means. They were therefore, in effect, acting as PR agents for the alleged supernatural claims. The inescapable conclusion is that their testimony is not reliable precisely because it "consistently omitted crucial details, added others, changed the order of events, and otherwise supplied reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means."

Dan has just given us a slam dunk. He might as well join the team.

The quote I provided describes people who believed the séances were real, but in relating what they had seen they unconsciously change details so as to enhance the miraculous nature of what they witnessed. There’s nothing about conspiracy or lying. Their accounts are going to get as close to the translation as you are going to get. The central feature of Joseph Smith with head in hat is substantiated by all the witnesses (except Smith and Cowdery, of course), and is not the miraculous part of the description. As with most multiple witness situations, some of the details vary. The correcting of spelling in Emma’s account is problematic due to time-lapse, but if she exaggerated the miraculous nature then the quote I gave helps explain why without calling her a liar. However, Whitmer’s version is less miraculous.

[_mikwut]

Hello marg,

Your quote is a short hand. What it is about is that the evidence to warrant rational acceptance of a claim should commensurate with that claim. The more out of the ordinary the claim the more out of the ordinary, the greater the evidence needed to warrant a claim before rational justified acceptance. But of course there are degrees and judgments made as to how ordinary or extraordinary a claim is.

It is a well accepted critical thinking concept...but that's okay Mikwut ..continue to think it's stupid. I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

So you reject what I said by lengthening the description of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and then think that does the trick!? The phrase is easily understood as a platitude marg and extending the phrase doesn't remove it from a list of platitudes. I know the phrase enjoys common usage too, all too common marg, it comes from debunking literature and Carl Sagan, not historical research or evidence texts. Non-charged and properly objective words such as sufficiency, relevancy, corroboration, credibility are what real evidence includes. You could substitute for "extraordinary" - 'unpopular' or what you don't want to accept. Witness testimony of the nature of the Book of Mormon witnesses is extraordinary relative to general historical research because it is independent, extensive, varied in bias, etc... That tired phrase just confuses rather than focuses evidential issues. But, that's needed by S/R advocates.

The Sagan platitude is usually fairly mundane because good ole fashion evidence is all that follows in the discussion after its employed. But, your naïve use of it is as a polemical and semantical sword in even natural historical discussion. It allows you to shift the goal posts for your own liking and create unnecessary red herrings that amount to irrelevant long winded repeating posts. It is undefined, 'Extraordinary' is an overly subjective term that doesn't mean the same thing to all people. So both poles of the trite phrase are open to very loose interpretation and judgment that can only be settled with evidential standards that were and are commonly employed before the use of phrase was necessary at all.

For example, the Big Bang (or most all scientific theories) is "extraordinary" but we accept it on rather settled and mundane observations - nothing extraordinary about that at all - we accept it on evidence, relevant and sufficient evidence, that's all. That's why your use of it is in harmony with your ad hoc fallacies that are so prevalent. What would be the standard for extraordinary evidence in the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses? You don't say, you just give the phrase as if it settles the matter because ghosts, esp, aliens and fairies are debunked using the phrase. You and Roger utilize the trite phrase not as an evidentiary tool but as an escape hatch and fog machine.

my regards, mikwut

[_Roger]

Dan:

You asked for some witnesses who said the information about how the stone worked came from Joseph Smith. When I reminded you we already did that. You artificially narrow it to these three people.

Okay chronology is important here, so let's see the chronological development....

Which witness makes the claim that they witnessed the words appear in a stone rather than simply taking J.S. word for it?

In response I challenged mikwut to:

Show me the witness who admits to having this knowledge only because they were "simply taking J.S. word for it"

To this, you wrote:

Roger, I gave you several instances where witnesses said "he [Joseph Smith] said so at least". Did you forget?

And I responded:

Would any of those include Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith or David Whitmer?

And you came back with Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery. I can accept that Elizabeth Ann may have been a simple, honest dupe and that she might not have been privy to information some of the others likely were. The larger point is that the main witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Emma Smith, make emphatic statements as though they have some authority. They do not state that they are only reporting what Joseph told them. They simply state that words appeared in a stone--whether they actually saw the words or not, or got the information from Joseph or not. This may be a subtle difference, but it's a difference nonetheless. You and mikwut take for granted that they got the information from Joseph Smith. And they probably did. But the statements they give place them on an almost even footing with Joseph Smith. They give authoritative statements that do not lean on mere reporting of what Joseph has allegedly told them. On the contrary, they categorically state that words appeared in the stone. And they state it in such a way as to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means."

I guess Harris and Elizabeth Whitmer aren’t good enough for you. I’m not sure I understand what difference it makes.

It makes a big difference. I do not think Harris was in at the highest level. Like you, I think Harris was probably a dupe. Elizabeth Ann probably was too.

Besides, it shouldn’t required anyone to specifically mention this information, because it’s obvious. I guess you have an agenda that makes sense to you.

I realize that you take this for granted, or as simply being obvious. I realize the difference is a subtle one. But it's important. The key witnesses--the ones who had the potential to know more than they revealed--make authoritative statements that do not merely rest on the word of Joseph Smith. This demonstrates that they are actively participating in PR--as opposed to simply reporting objective observations. They are actively promoting the cause. Even the source you cited categorizes such "witnesses" as consistently omitting crucial details, adding others, changing the order of events, and otherwise supplying reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means. This describes the primary Book of Mormon witnesses to the tee.

This is a little off topic. I was speaking of the psychology of the con and the dupe. However, let me state that I believe the Joseph Smith’s dictation was essentially impromptu—the same as he dictated revelations. This doesn’t mean he didn’t prepare for these dictations. First, he was used to telling stories about what he saw in his stone as a treasure seer. Like one Indian killing another and throwing his body into the hole to guard the treasure and so on. Lucy Smith said he entertained his family with these stories in the evenings after work. More immediately, I would point out that the average dictation day produced eight pages—perhaps a few hours worth. That left the rest of the day to think about what he was going to dictate. He was in control of when he started and stopped. He had the ability to do it.

Again, there is really not a huge distance between us. While what you've said is certainly possible, it is also quite possible that he was consulting written materials in the downtime. If he has a remarkable memory, then that also explains a lot.

Correct. This is the point I've been hammering for some time now. The beliefs of the participants play a key role in the deception, to the point of making them active participants. The only question is how much information they were privy to that might have done damage to the cause.

You are missing the point that it’s not intentional on their part.

You are missing the point that it can easily go either way and it's simply naïve to think devoted followers aren't ever going to intentionally withhold information or embellish facts to bolster and/or protect the cause. You said it well yourself:

This is not just any con either; it’s one that involves supernatural beliefs.

That is absolutely correct. There is a difference between "any con" and "one that involves supernatural beliefs." As I stated, the beliefs of the participants play a key role in the deception, to the point of making them active participants. Your point about "intent" is almost irrelevant--in the sense that we can never know for sure exactly what their intent is. But merely being a part of the group and making statements in support of it demonstrates at least some level of intent. We can't know for sure how much covering up or embellishing they are willing to actively participate in, but the assumption should be that we are simply not going to get the full story from those who have an interest in promoting the cause--even if it's only on a basic level because they want to be part of the group. With the case of Whitmer, Emma and Cowdery, it is well beyond simply wanting to be accepted members of a group. And Emma clearly demonstrates a willingness to embellish, omit and even lie to promote the cause and her husband.

And she's playing right along to the point of now she's doing her job.

Again, it’s not intentional. I’m describing how it works with dupes, not coconspirators.

And I'm saying that your "dupe" premise is faulty from the get-go. Marg and I have demonstrated how Emma is more than a dupe. She's actively promoting and embellishing. It would appear that you have no alternative but to agree with that since she describes something that we agree would have been impossible. Therefore she can't be telling the truth. Exactly like your source says, she was embellishing in such a way as to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means." That is intentional, Dan.

The quote I provided describes people who believed the séances were real, but in relating what they had seen they unconsciously change details so as to enhance the miraculous nature of what they witnessed. There’s nothing about conspiracy or lying.

Doesn't have to be. You're the one who is hung up on the concept of "conspiracy." I think you immediately think of Ocean's 11 or something. I am saying it was not that kind of "conspiracy." It is, rather, a religious "conspiracy" which is joined simply when one becomes a part of the group. Embellishing to promote the cause or leaving out damaging information to protect it does not have to be spelled out in a sit-down, conspiracy meeting. Rather, it comes natural, and is reinforced by actions and words from other group members (peer pressure) just like the séance members you cited.

Their accounts are going to get as close to the translation as you are going to get. The central feature of Joseph Smith with head in hat is substantiated by all the witnesses (except Smith and Cowdery, of course), and is not the miraculous part of the description.

Sure, but that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether every word in the Book of Mormon was produced in that manner. When it comes right down to it, you have no way of establishing how much of the actual content in the Book of Mormon was actually produced in that manner. Even more importantly, you have no way of establishing that some of the content could not have been produced in another, non-public manner. In fact, you concede that the Biblical sections likely were produced in an entirely different manner.

As with most multiple witness situations, some of the details vary. The correcting of spelling in Emma’s account is problematic due to time-lapse, but if she exaggerated the miraculous nature then the quote I gave helps explain why without calling her a liar. However, Whitmer’s version is less miraculous.

I'm not hung up on calling them liars. People lie. It happens. Whether Emma was lying or simply "embellishing" is a subjective matter. To me it's obvious she was simply lying to build up the reputation of her husband. Just like she lied to her own son to protect the reputation of her late husband. Such things are common and exactly what we would expect from someone who has as much interest in the cause as Emma did. That doesn't make her evil, just human. In fact I am quite sympathetic to what Emma had to put up with. But the facts are clear that she was quite capable of and willing to lie.

[_marg]

I have another comment to this Dan.

Based on the availability of such books and speeches, no doubt, Josiah Priest would write in his American Antiquities in 1833: “The opinion that the American Indians are descendants of the lost Ten Tribes, is now a popular one, and generally believed.”47 He had good reason to celebrate the popularity of the idea, for the fifth edition of his book (published in 1835) announced that 22,000 copies had been sold in thirty months.

47. Josiah Priest, The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (Albany, 1825), 73.

– Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon 44.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=602

Josiah Priest believed in and argued for in his book or books the lost tribe myth I gather. The people interested in his stories and the ones who he got along with him personally likely believed as he did. He sold 22, 000 copies you say..but that's out of a population at the time of 12 million people. Sure it's an indication of popularity but with what fan base Dan? He was a fictional writer, did he appeal to the sort of individual who easily buys into myths? Did he appeal to mainly Christians and perhaps fundamentalists at that. Just what was his typical fan base? He's also not likely to be highly objective in gauging people's interest...to him it might seem it was generally believed but that's likely a distortion due to him being with people sharing similar beliefs and people drawn to or interested in him and his work who share similar beliefs.

In addition the S/R witnesses on the whole strike me as rather literate intelligent individuals for the day. Spalding's interest in history and politics may have appealed to a select type of person ..those interested in books, history, politics which Spalding was apparently well versed with and discussed with others.

So your Josiah Priest is rather weak evidence to rely on..and with which to conclude that nearly everyone back then, pretty much bought into the one and only lost tribe myth..which you want to force upon the S/R theory as a premise.

[_marg]

Marg,

I've address this above.

And today I've spent way too much time on this.

Dan I think it's gotten to the point that you are committing the fallacy

Proof by verbosity
• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
(from wiki)

This is an example in which you appear to be addressing my point and making an argument but you are not..and to untangle it, for me is simply too time consuming. It's just as the fallacy describes. It's an intellectually dishonest rhetorical ploy.

This is unfair.

Dan I deliberately put it in smaller print. I realize I could be wrong. But that example I gave..in which you didn't address what was said but made it sound like you did, in which you also said you modified your position but you hadn't modified it...gave me the impression ..you are doing as that fallacy points out. As I said I put it in smaller writing. Disagree ..whatever..I'm just letting you know that's how that came across to me.

It’s also rather ironic since it’s you who writes ridiculously long posts, especially this one—which could be much shorter if you would just acknowledge your use of ad hoc speculations.

Yes that one was long because generally I've been writing shorter posts to address sections of your long posts but then you respond to me short sectioned posts with another long post. Today I spent a couple of hours responding rather than breaking it up into short sections.

But Dan...I did not use ad hoc fallacy. 2things are crucial for ad hoc fallacy.

# 1 there has to be a burden of proof shift from the counter responder back to the original claimant. Mikwut even mentioned evidence being required. You have not met a burden of proof for example with this lost tribe's issue evidentially which enables you to conclude the S/R witnesses are confused or lying and think the Book of Mormon is a lost tribes story. Your argument is convoluted and it's based on your speculation. #2..my response to you is not irrational. An ad hoc fallacy response has no justified reasoning or evidence in the response. I'm not invoking some really strange irrational notion by saying the S/R witnesses were influenced by Spalding and were reporting what he said.

You are the one making an unwarranted assumption that everyone back then when referring to lost tribes could only mean one and only one thing...and it had to entail the myth generated by Esdras...you are completely taking Spalding out of the equation as one who was influential to the S/R witnesses. If the S/R witnesses appreciated the lost tribes myth as you say then there was no reason to think the Book of Mormon was a lost tribe story. Your whole theory on this is convoluted.

It’s clear that you have. You asked Mikwut to give examples and he did. You chose to launch into a huge denial and tried to make it appear like I was the one giving ad hoc speculations, which is nonsense.

Yes he gave examples, he's repeating what you have said, but we've already noted Mikwut's propensity to act as a cheerleader for you in this thread. I responded to his examples with reasoning and he chose not to address that reasoning but instead to attack me personally.

You misrepresented previous discussions to make it look like your responses were founded on evidence. So I reconstructed them as best I could, and showed exactly why your responses were ad hocs.

And I addressed your response and explained why you are wrong. I didn't misrepresent anything.

There’s no evidence for your trick-hat theory,

No kidding. I said from the beginning my suggestion was speculation. But it not ad hoc fallacy Dan. A burden of proof on exactly what happened to produce the Book of Mormon has not been met at this point in time. That's why we are still arguing. Because we don't know how it was done....it is still open to speculation. We've gone over this already Dan ..the say so of those Book of Mormon witnesses with a vested interest in the religion are not reliable evidence. That's basic critical thinking. There is good justified reasons to reject their say so until better evidence is available. I'm sorry I don't believe J. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon without any sort of reviewing process ever. I don't believe Emma when she says no manuscript was present and Smith picked up where he left off last without review. I think he may have picked up where he left off but because he had a manuscript he was reading from with which to review. But to just start dictating without review is an extraordinary claim. To dictate the entire Book of Mormon without review is an extraordinary claim. I don't accept the say so of the witnesses connected to Smith or those with a vested interest.

no evidence for your conspiracy theory,

Well in actual fact you've got a conspiracy theory going...there is no reason for the S/rwitnesses to think the Book of Mormon was a lost tribe story. But you've got them all conspiring against Mormonism, thinking the Book of Mormon is a lost tribe story (when there is no evidence for that) and claiming Spalding's story linked to lost tribes..so that it would in their minds match to the Book of Mormon. c

That would entail them deliberately lying Dan...conspiring against Mormonism. Why only Spalding's neighbours, relatives, and friends are conspiring ..is beyond me, I fail to see what they gain by doing so, but it apparently makes sense to you.

.no evidence for your speculation that Spalding had an anomalous position on the ten tribes,

I'm going to have dreams of lost tribes soon. I've already discussed it ad nauseum.

evidence for your specialized definition of “lost tribes”.

No Dan you are the one with the restricted specialized notion.

These were all ad hoc speculations.

2 things necessary for ad hoc fallacy

# 1 a burden of proof is shifted back to original claimant..because of adverse evidence..
# 2 the response to the counter must also be unjustified and irrational

Generally Dan you don't even shift the burden of proof back, you obviously think you do but you don't. I've explained this previously addressing the examples.

But even if you did, my counters are not irrational.

Marg, you are the one causing your own misery, when you should be doing other things for your health. I can only imagine the state your mind to spend so much time trying to show Dan Vogel is a fool for accepting Mormon testimony and rejecting Spalding witnesses. The truth is I know what I’m talking about—I’m not the one running off to purchase historical methodology books. I’ve learned these lessons long ago. It’s not my fault my posts are longer than they need to be. I’m trying to catch you up on these matters. If you review this thread, you will see that I’m the one who consistently brings relevant research to this discussion—while you are winging it and writing incoherent and incomplete sentences, which takes a lot of effort to decipher and rewrite more coherently before answering. So I haven’t had to deal with brief succinct posts from you either.

Yes I did see a couple of posts mentioning a particular writer on historical methodology and some of those posts of yours I do intend to address..because I do disagree with you.

As far as my health goes, I mentioned in the last week a new medication which is helping tremendously...and I make sure I get away from the computer a few hours in order to exercise..and for most of the day I'm away from the computer. As well I see a surgeon in a few weeks so things are looking up.

When you would write long posts I would respond to them in sections but then you'd respond with long posts to each piece. Most of your posts I haven't responded to. I decided to store them on Word so I would eventually get to them. I think there was something like 50 pages that I still have to get to. So perhaps I'll just address key things. But Dan I have no other obligations or time commitments, so I could theoretically devote hours and hours to here, though I don't. I'm free all day to devote to here but I don't.

I've known extremely good critical thinkers on the Net over the years. Craig Criddle is one. ( I read his posts over a few years long before he ever took an interest in the S/R theory - and I was not influenced by him on the S/R theory. in my opinion Dale Broadhurst is another, Roger another. (though Roger has some weaknesses which are religion related which we've had discussions on :) ) I follow their logic. I respect their reasoning.

I don't follow yours Dan on this issue. This is not personal. I'm not trying to make it out that you are a fool. You remember years ago when on FAIR I wrote to you, because I was fed up with how they ran it? I liked and respected you then...but this issue wasn't on that board then. On this issue the more I've learned what your reasoning is, and the flaws I see in it, the less I respect your reasoning and position in it. I don't dislike you, it's just I don't agree with you.

And I don't enjoy disagreeing with you. I really wish you had good arguments and it was just a mere difference of opinion that could go either way. But it's more than mere differences of opinion, your rationalization is faulty in my opinion to the point of absurdity. As well, I don't respect your excessive use in argumentation on accusing others of using fallacies. I think you use the accusation of fallacies..fallaciously.

Anyhow Dan I don't want to make you look like a fool. But I disagree with how you've handled this issue. You are right, I don't benefit from this discussion..other than I think it's the right thing to do, to argue it from a critical thinking perspective.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, that is the point. The Copperfield witnesses are being deceived by an illusion. However, they are reporting what they and ever how many others in the audience saw. Their report is accurate about what they saw. The only difference from Dan's and mikwut's point of view (not mine) is that the witnesses were being duped by an expert conman and did not know they were being deceived. The witnesses reports are accurate about what they actually saw.

As I pointed out earlier, the analogy to an audience is not as accurate as the analogy to one of Copperfield's assistants. An audience analogy might apply to someone like Isaac Hale who had limited exposure and was skeptical. But Cowdery, Whitmer and Emma Smith are more analogous to one of Copperfield's assistants. Do you think his assistants know the secret of the trick?

None of them actually reported that they saw the words appear in the stone. That would have been inconsistent and impossible if Joseph had it concealed from their sight.

Correct. They simply state categorically and authoritatively that words appeared in the stone. They offer no explanation of how they know that.

The reports about the words appearing in the stone had to come from Joseph, or something that they inferred. Either way, that is not direct, eyewitness knowledge.

Then how can it be reliable?

What it does provide evidence for is the agreed upon answer--either because A. there was pressure to provide the agreed upon answer or because B. they were dupes or C. words really appeared in a stone. I think the evidence leans toward A.

The report of Joseph with his head in a hat dictating the words is direct eyewitness reporting made by several different witnesses independently, at several points in their lives.

Which no one disputes.

Do you take it at face value that several people, maybe a hundred say they witnessed David Copperfield saw a woman in half, then later put her back together, or do you question that what they reported is reality? Does the fact that a person who saw David C do such a feat lessen their reliability as a witness? Even if any one of those witnesses actually believed it happened?

None of that changes the fact that the claim itself--at face value--is extraordinary. People don't survive getting cut in half; words generally do not appear in a stone. People do get into boxes usually with no harmful side effects; anyone can put his head in a hat and rattle off a few sentences.

The witnesses (the believers) claim more than just head in hat plus a few sentences or even merely a few words as the Badger's Tavern account seems to imply. It is unacceptable to attempt to dissect the supernatural element out of their claims. They would not stand for it. (You should understand that.) They intentionally included the supernatural element. It is an integral part of their testimony. They are NOT claiming Joseph put his head in his hat so he could concentrate and come up with material off the top of his head. They are claiming the head in hat was necessary to exclude the light so he could see words appear in a stone. The claim is extraordinary.

Even if you feel that you are not getting all of the story. If you feel that there was no miracle, it does not mean that there was a conspiracy.

You're letting Dan hang you up on the term "conspiracy." Please answer this... this is not a rhetorical question: are the followers of Warren Jeffs participating in a conspiracy?

It only means that the witnesses were reporting what they saw and were told.

It does NOT mean that. It ONLY means that if we presuppose the witnesses were both completely honest and would accurately report anything and everything regardless of its potential effect. We already know that does not apply.

Is the person conned unreliable because he or she was conned?

Yes. That should be common sense. Did a woman really get sawed in half?? Of course not. Can the witnesses tell us what really happened? No. Could Copperfield? Yes. Will he? No. Could his assistants? Yes! Will they? No.

I have yet to see any evidence produced that those witnesses were part of a conspiracy.

And you won't because you are attempting to force them into your concept of what such a conspiracy should look like.

Are the followers of Warren Jeffs part of a conspiracy?

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

And you came back with Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery. I can accept that Elizabeth Ann may have been a simple, honest dupe and that she might not have been privy to information some of the others likely were.

I quoted Elizabeth Ann, Harris, and Tucker. Not all the witnesses are going to mention all the same facts. Your division between dupes and accomplices is artificial. You have no real criteria for doing so. It’s a fiction you are creating and maintaining at a whim.

The larger point is that the main witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Emma Smith, make emphatic statements as though they have some authority. They do not state that they are only reporting what Joseph told them. They simply state that words appeared in a stone--whether they actually saw the words or not, or got the information from Joseph or not. This may be a subtle difference, but it's a difference nonetheless.

This is to be expected given their belief in Joseph Smith. What he claims is real. They’re not skeptical. The skepticism is up to us. That’s why I quoted the skeptical book on how the deceived report observations. We are attempting to work through this bias to get to the core of what happened, not trying to destroy the witnesses.

You and mikwut take for granted that they got the information from Joseph Smith. And they probably did.

This is where you should stop and appreciate what it means.

[/quote]But the statements they give place them on an almost even footing with Joseph Smith. They give authoritative statements that do not lean on mere reporting of what Joseph has allegedly told them. On the contrary, they categorically state that words appeared in the stone. And they state it in such a way as to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means."[/quote]

But no … you can’t resist trying to force an issue out of it. Briggs’s sixty-year memory isn’t as reliable as Whimter’s statements closer to the time, and his are less miraculous. Still, the miraculous part is expected and doesn’t justify calling anyone liars and postulating a massive conspiracy.

It makes a big difference. I do not think Harris was in at the highest level. Like you, I think Harris was probably a dupe. Elizabeth Ann probably was too.

Above it’s a “subtle difference”—now it’s a “big difference”? You are determining who is a dupe, who is at lower and higher levels arbitrarily. It’s meaningless. We either have multiple independent witnesses who tell the same core story, or we have a massive conspiracy.

I realize that you take this for granted, or as simply being obvious. I realize the difference is a subtle one. But it's important.

Now were back to subtle differences. Roger, you always think what isn’t mentioned is more important than what is said.

The key witnesses--the ones who had the potential to know more than they revealed--make authoritative statements that do not merely rest on the word of Joseph Smith. This demonstrates that they are actively participating in PR--as opposed to simply reporting objective observations. They are actively promoting the cause.

Bias is not in dispute here. They are believers who want people to understand the reasons for their belief. However, you want to conclude more than bias, which is overturned by multiple independent witnesses, friendly and unfriendly. So, minus your (and Marg’s) imaginative ad hocs, you’re stuck with simple bias.

Even the source you cited categorizes such "witnesses" as consistently omitting crucial details, adding others, changing the order of events, and otherwise supplying reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means. This describes the primary Book of Mormon witnesses to the tee.

The skeptic book I cited dealt with people who had been deceived by tricks. They were sincere, not liars. This doesn’t mean that the witnesses intentionally forget to mention there was a Spalding MS in the room; it simply means that Joseph Smith’s apparent correcting of spelling is probably explained as an illusion accomplished with the unwitting help of the dupe.

Again, there is really not a huge distance between us. While what you've said is certainly possible, it is also quite possible that he was consulting written materials in the downtime. If he has a remarkable memory, then that also explains a lot.

That remains to be seen. So far, I have no hope of it. But perhaps I’m wrong since the theory expressed above hints that you have no real confidence in your (or Marg’s) attacks on the witnesses.

You are missing the point that it can easily go either way and it's simply naïve to think devoted followers aren't ever going to intentionally withhold information or embellish facts to bolster and/or protect the cause. You said it well yourself:

“This is not just any con either; it’s one that involves supernatural beliefs.”

If the witnesses intentionally withheld seeing Joseph Smith use a MS rather than dictating with head in hat, they are more than followers—they are coconspirators. Independent multiple witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, argues against that conclusion—unless the conspiracy began early and everyone agreed on what to say and then waited for decades after Joseph Smith died to say anything. That seems a little far fetched to me. There is a difference between supernatural beliefs and supernatural experiences. All I’m saying is that they believed Joseph Smith was translating with his seer stone supernaturally. So he had to convince them that he was actually seeing something by making various comments along the way—perhaps claiming the writing didn’t disappear because they had spelt a name wrong. We know that it wasn’t as miraculous as Briggs’s account makes it sound.

Put it this way—a skeptic and believer both attend a revival and see a faith healer, do you not expect their accounts to be different? Say you only had the believer’s account. Could you not supplement that account with your own skepticism and knowledge of what really happens in such situations to approximate what probably happened without writing it off as a lie? If you had more than one account, that would make it easier, wouldn’t it?

That is absolutely correct. There is a difference between "any con" and "one that involves supernatural beliefs." As I stated, the beliefs of the participants play a key role in the deception, to the point of making them active participants. Your point about "intent" is almost irrelevant--in the sense that we can never know for sure exactly what their intent is. But merely being a part of the group and making statements in support of it demonstrates at least some level of intent. We can't know for sure how much covering up or embellishing they are willing to actively participate in, but the assumption should be that we are simply not going to get the full story from those who have an interest in promoting the cause--even if it's only on a basic level because they want to be part of the group.

No one tells the complete truth. After fifty years who could remember every detai. But let’s not go beyond the evidence and imagine them withholding knowledge of the Spalding MS. Multiple independent witnesses argues against that.

With the case of Whitmer, Emma and Cowdery, it is well beyond simply wanting to be accepted members of a group. And Emma clearly demonstrates a willingness to embellish, omit and even lie to promote the cause and her husband.

Wanting to be part of a group didn’t prevent them from getting excommunicated. So I think they are pretty independent thinkers, which is exactly what got Whitmer and Cowdery into trouble. Emma didn’t go to Utah and refused to join the larges body of believers, and didn’t affiliate with RLDS Church until 1860. Emma may have lied about polygamy, not to promote the cause of her husband, but to promote her own dislike for polygamy and to protect her son. We know she lied because of multiple testimonies against her, which is the same reason we know she was telling the truth about the translation.

And I'm saying that your "dupe" premise is faulty from the get-go. Marg and I have demonstrated how Emma is more than a dupe. She's actively promoting and embellishing. It would appear that you have no alternative but to agree with that since she describes something that we agree would have been impossible. Therefore she can't be telling the truth. Exactly like your source says, she was embellishing in such a way as to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means." That is intentional, Dan.

No, Roger. You must be misreading the quote I provided, because it quite clearly deals with unintentional errors in reporting. It’s impossible for the deceived to report what happened accurately when what they experienced was distorted to begin with.

Doesn't have to be. You're the one who is hung up on the concept of "conspiracy." I think you immediately think of Ocean's 11 or something. I am saying it was not that kind of "conspiracy." It is, rather, a religious "conspiracy" which is joined simply when one becomes a part of the group. Embellishing to promote the cause or leaving out damaging information to protect it does not have to be spelled out in a sit-down, conspiracy meeting. Rather, it comes natural, and is reinforced by actions and words from other group members (peer pressure) just like the séance members you cited.

No, Roger. No one in the séance is deliberately distorting what they observed. It’s all unintentional. You are missing the point. I understand you can see what’s up ahead on the road you and Marg are traveling, but it’s a dead end with signs along the way saying “conspiracy this way” and you have no breaks. What you are attempting to describe is an ad hoc conspiracy, which is a conspiracy nonetheless—and a less believable one at that!

Sure, but that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether every word in the Book of Mormon was produced in that manner. When it comes right down to it, you have no way of establishing how much of the actual content in the Book of Mormon was actually produced in that manner. Even more importantly, you have no way of establishing that some of the content could not have been produced in another, non-public manner. In fact, you concede that the Biblical sections likely were produced in an entirely different manner.

Not the argument from silence again, Roger. Do you ever learn? I don’t accept the burden to disprove a theory that has no evidence to begin with. The Bible has evidence, the Spalding MS doesn’t. The witnesses explicitly say there was no MS. So unless they were lying, your theory is out—which brings us back to what we were discussing before we were distracted by your fallacious argument. Now, you are guilty of two errors—being illogical and stubborn.

I'm not hung up on calling them liars. People lie. It happens. Whether Emma was lying or simply "embellishing" is a subjective matter. To me it's obvious she was simply lying to build up the reputation of her husband. Just like she lied to her own son to protect the reputation of her late husband. Such things are common and exactly what we would expect from someone who has as much interest in the cause as Emma did. That doesn't make her evil, just human. In fact I am quite sympathetic to what Emma had to put up with. But the facts are clear that she was quite capable of and willing to lie.

She was. But we follow Gottschalk’s advice and handle each claim separately. In this instance, we have multiple independent witnesses to challenge her polygamy denial and to substantiate her description of the stone in hat.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I’m not going to respond to your entire long post of 17 June. It would be only repeating what has already been said on this matter about your ad hocs.

I insisted that the Book of Mormon was about the 10 tribes?

Yes! You did it to make the Spalding witnesses testimony conform to the Book of Mormon and not appear to be a mistake.

It's your argument Dan that there is only one way "lost tribes" can be understood and referred to. The average person in their day didn't buy into the lost tribe Ethan Smith speculation, that was what many theologians may have bought into. Morse's geography which one of them mentioned was used in that day, had Am Indians being of Asian descent.

No one said everyone believed the ten tribe theory, only that it was a prevailing view. We have given evidence how “lost tribes” should be understood. You have given nothing.

So for a person back them to refer to Lost tribes..does not mean they are referring to the myth.

Asserted by you but never demonstrated. Nothing but conjecture.

Added to this what the witnesses were testifying to was what Spalding had said. Spalding being a believer that the Bible was entirely man-created with nothing to do with a God, and that he was educated in these matters, would likely have accepted as historically true that the Assyrians exiled the Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. And he likely was familiar with a lost tribes speculation that may indeed have had the tribes exiled enmasse and travel north. But Spalding being educated wouldn't have accepted speculations based upon the Bible and so his story line didn't need to follow that speculation. By using the lost tribes as historically factual he could tie the blood line to a group of people, for which history had no account after 720 B.C. All that was available was speculations. And so it would give his story believability.

A jumble of conjecture based on what you need to happen and illogical argumentation.

You don't have negative evidence Dan sufficient to meet a burden of proof that establishes by the mere mention of "lost tribes" that the witnesses who mentioned Spalding used lost tribes to explain where the Am. Indian came from..to establish they all must have been confused or lying. That's what it boils down. For ad hoc fallacy to apply, the counter claim must meet a burden of proof which overturn the initial hypothesis/claim. Your argument doesn't meet that burden of proof..that establishes the S/R witnesses had to have been mistaken. My response to you is not irrational, it is warranted.

You are arguing in circles. You are assuming your ad hoc definition of “lost tribes” prevents us from meeting the burden of proof—therefore you don’t need to prove your ad hoc. We have defined the term by reference to how it was used—you have shown nothing to support your weird definition. How can something you made up be warranted? Your definition is ad hoc.

You are the one highly motivated for personal reasons to dismiss the S/R witnesses..claiming for example they all must have faulty memory and are confused in their memory of MSCC. You tried to use E. Loftus's studies to back up your argument and when I investigated it turned out the argument you used didn't apply to the situation with the witnesses.

Loftus and other memory studies have a lot to do with these situations. But you went on some tirade trying to find quibble points to prove why the witnesses’ memories were good—which can’t be done.

Look Dan I read the Book of Mormon and not once did the words "lost tribes" stand out or even occur to me. So Hurlbut arrives on the scene questioning the Conneaut witnesses (they don't spend months preparing to answer him, they briefly review the Book of Mormon. What on earth would compel them from looking at the Book of Mormon to mention "lost tribes"?

That’s the point, Marg. There isn’t. It was a popular misconception at the time that the Book of Mormon was about the lost tribes, and they probably picked up on that.

You assume the S/R witnesses have great interest in this Mormon issue. They had no idea Hurlbut would show up, then didn't seek out reporters ..they were sought out. And they looked at the Book of Mormon and that's probably pretty much the extent of their investigation into the issue. They probably weren't even aware of Ethan Smith's book.

You are the one making up a convoluted theory. You've got these witnesses reading Ethan Smith, misreading the Book of Mormon, lying, confused...when none of that is necessary. They are simply recalling what Spalding discussed with them and what they remember his story was about.

These are red herrings.

You are absolutely right 20 year old memories are often faulty..but there is too much consistency with too many people for confusion to explain their statements. They also had the Book of Mormon to jog their memories. They acknowledge fading memory but on some things they clearly recalled often because of having their memory jogged. And there is no benefit to them to lie. You are arguing fallaciously when you appeal to authority of "standard historical methodology" because that is now sounding like a catch phrase, but what it really means is according to Dan's interpretation. Simply argue with good critical thinking explaining yourself rather than this appeal to authority.

My appeal to historical methodology is necessary when you keep saying it’s my interpretation. Standard historical methodology recommends skepticism when dealing with 20-year-old memories of the Spalding witnesses. Believe it!

As I said Dan if you presented good well reasoned arguments I'd respect that but you don't. Your use of ad hoc fallacy has been a rhetorical ploy which is convincing to those who don't appreciate what it's about. Ad hoc fallacy, requires good counter evidence which shifts a burden of proof from the original claim. You don't have good counter evidence sufficient to meet a burden of proof which justifies shifting.

Sadly, you are one of those who don’t know what an ad hoc is—even after all that reading. You are doomed to repeat your mistakes and hide behind meaningless loopholes you think you have found.

You have no memory studies which support that all those witnesses's memories must have been unreliable. That was simply Dan's desperation and misuse perhaps misunderstanding of what the memory studies do say.

I didn’t say memory studies prove anything, only that they offer a possible explanation should the Mormon witnesses’ testimonies be determined reliable. You are the one who tried to use memory studies to prove the opposite—which to me is naïve.

Marg: Spalding witnesses’ memories can be relied on.

Incorrect, certain portions can be relied upon. Biblical language, things they say they clearly remember due to their memory being jogged such as names...and in my opinion "lost tribes" because they linked that to why Spalding was writing..which was to explain where the moundbuilders and am. Indians came from historically

Quibble.

Ben/Glenn: Their claim that Spalding linked the Indian with the “lost tribes”, and by inference the Book of Mormon as well, is evidence that their memories are unreliable and may have been tainted by hearing the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes.

Marg: The Book of Mormon is about the “lost tribes”,


Incorrect..for one thing Dan I've never claimed to understand well what the Book of Mormon was about. I said I read it once and don't even have a good memory of it. What I got out of it, was a repetition of a common theme ...that one must believe in that God or else likely be punished. Having Lehi be a descendant of one of the lost tribes..is what I pointed out. When you and Glenn brought up lost tribes, I had no idea what lost tribes was. And I looked into it. it took me time to understand your argument.

Correct. You defended the Spalding witnesses memories by arguing that the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes. We all couldn’t believe you could be so obviously wrong, and no matter how many times we tried to correct you—you just came up with another ad hoc explaining why the witnesses could be correct and the Book of Mormon could have originally been about the ten tribes.

Dan paraphasing me: and Spalding could have written a different kind of lost tribes story that conforms to the Book of Mormon (ad hocs #1 and #2).

My explanation evolved as I learned more. But you are misrepresenting me, either than or I didn't explain myself well. The S/R witnesses do not say Spalding wrote a "lost tribes" story. I don't think Spalding wrote a lost tribes story. He wrote a fictional account which he thought might be viewed as historically true, to give a history to the the Am. Indians and the local moundbuilders..and he had them descend from some lost tribes. Being as Spalding was educated in these matters ..he would have known the lost tribes have no history after 720 B.C. ..and so it would be convenient to use them and give his story credibility.

We’ll you see—you did claim the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes after all, at least your own brand of it. Let me tell you the motivation behind linking the Indian with the ten tribes was not only to solve the mystery of what happened to the ten tribes but to save the Indian and make them fit subjects for the Christian religion to fulfill prophecy concerning the conversion of the Jews in the last days. In other words, it was theological; so I don’t see old Spalding being interested in this kind of subject to write about.

Glenn/Dan: The Book of Mormon isn’t about the lost tribes, and if Spalding wrote such a story it too wouldn’t be about the lost tribes in America—at least not recognizable enough to deserve the label “lost tribes” by the witnesses.

Dan paraphrasing me: Lehi being of the tribe of Joseph, one of the tribes that had gotten lost, qualifies the Book of Mormon as a history of the lost tribes (ad hoc #1b).

No Dan, I'm fairly certain that I never said the Book of Mormon is a history of the lost tribes. I would have said that Lehi is connected by blood line to the lost tribes and therefore there is a connection in the Book of Mormon to the lost tribes.

Right! That’s what I said with only a slight quibble. It was one of your ad hoc arguments to save the Spalding witnesses.

Dan paraphrasing me cont'd : Passages in Book of Mormon stating ten tribes in a northern region were added by Smith or Rigdon (ad hoc #1a).

Yes a few passage with lost tribes living elsewhere could easily have been added. Lehi is still connected by bloodline to the lost tribes and that is all the witnesses need to be referring to with their mention of "lost tribes' as per their recall of what Spalding wrote and said.

And you don’t see that as an ad hoc?

DAn paraphrasing me cont'd : Witnesses who said Spalding’s MS linked the American Indians with the “lost tribes” were using that term in a different way than commonly understood (ad hoc #1c).

At first I bought into Glenn and your argument about what was "commonly understood" in those days. But after giving it more thought I've changed my mind on that. As I looked into it ..it seems it was something that theologians gave thought to and many accepted perhaps because of Ethan Smith's book, but it was not something the vast majority of people gave much thought to. As I have pointed out many times, what the S/R witnesses were recalling was what Spalding told them and their understanding was a function of what he told them. They weren't asked to give an explanation of lost tribes per their understanding or what they accepted. What they gave was their recall of what Spalding wrote and explained to them..and there is good reason to assume Spalding appreciated lost tribes ..historically factual..that they were tribes exiled in 720 B.C....but would not have accepted any biblical myths or speculation using the Biblical Esdras..even if he was aware of others doing so.

You didn’t address the issue, which was your specialized definition of “lost tribes” that allows its fulfillment in one tribe coming to America. It’s not about how many believed or didn’t believe in the ten tribe theory.

Dan paraphrasing me cont'd : Spalding could have had some of the dispersed tribes from 720 B.C. move to Jerusalem, and then eighty years later had two families from the tribe of Joseph leave to America.

Yes he could have ..he could also have continued to evolve his story going back in time..and different witnesses depending on what they were exposed to might have different recall as a result. I don't claim to know what he wrote exactly...other than I don't accept your argument that their recall of "lost tribes" indicates they are all confused or lying.

This is all ad hoc conjecture based on what you need to happen, with some rationalization to make it fit the facts. This proves nothing, but it’s only purpose is to ward off negative evidence.

Glenn/Dan: We know your motivation for speculating that, but what would be Spalding’s motivation for changing the popular explanation of Indian origins?

I know your motivation Dan for wanting to dismiss the S/R witnesses.

This has nothing to do with the witnesses; it’s about what you think is a reasonable response.

So this "lost tribes"issue you have blown way out of proportion in an attempt and it's a desperate attempt to dismiss them all.

The issue is your ad hoc responses.

As I said i read the Book of Mormon, not once did the thought of lost tribes or words lost tribes occur to me. Not once. So why would it for them? You say they must be confused, that they had heard the Book of Mormon is a lost tribe story. Give me a break. They were not fixated on Mormonism...trying to develop a story to discredit Mormonism, reading everything they could on it, going to reporters to talk about it. There is no evidence they knew or even read Ethan Smith's book. Hurlbut went to them, they gave a statement, and their statement in key respects is consistent with later witnesses completely unconnected to them.

This is your new strategy? The ten tribe theory wasn’t well known? You must really like punishment. Their statements mention the “lost tribes” without explanation, so they take it for granted that readers know what they are talking about. The theory linking the Indian with the ten tribes was esoteric; it was well-known and discussed in many sources besides Ethan Smith. The next thing you are going to do is similar to Mormon apologists who want me to show where they check the book out of the library or a personalized copy with their names embossed on the cover. The problem is that the Conneaut witnesses knew each other at the time and were interviewed at the same time by the same interviewer, which means that there is a serious possibility of contamination (a well-known danger to those investigating criminal cases). Later witnesses certainly knew what had been said by the Conneaut witnesses, and many times were responding to specific requests for information that was needed to make a better case.

As far as Spalding's motivation, the lost tribes is a point in time of a group of people for which there is speculation but no historical account of what happened to them after 720 B.C. His motivation could be that he's trying to present a fictional account as if historically true. To write the storyline from the point of 720 B.C. and discuss the exile of so many may have been too daunting..instead to focus on a few characters with a blood line would be easier.

This doesn’t explain why a non-believer would even choose to write about the ten tribes, and then to tell it in a more realistic way, when previously you argued that Spalding was trying to make fun of the Bible. This doesn’t make any sense. As I have explained already, he would have simply one or two families come out of Assyria and go to America. It makes no sense for them to go to Jerusalem, wait 80 years, then leave to America at the time of the Babylonia captivity. Silly nonsense! It’s still an ad hoc response to adverse evidence.

The problem that you have Dan is you really need to meet a burden of proof which overturns what the witnesses say. It's not just "lost tribes" that they say..whatever it is they are recalling it is not the MSCC. And then there are later witnesses as well as the printer...who confirm recall of a story written in biblical language. There are too many, and independent from one another with no motivation to lie, who recall a Spalding manuscript..that does not match MSCC written in biblical language.

Minus your special pleading, the criticism of the Conneaut witnesses is legitimate. I don’t think you understand what an independent witness is. They do have motivation to crush the upstart religion calling their cherished churches of the devil and their leaders all corrupt. That kind of thing makes people angry—so angry that they persecute, murder Mormons, and drive them from their state—twice. If people will do that—they will do almost anything. It’s not by accident that many of the Spalding advocates were ministers and strong members of churches. But for my purposes, I’m going to assume sincerity and faulty memory unless I have evidence otherwise to accuse some of lying.

So it's not a matter of me not being able to counter you, it's that you have not presented a strong argument which successfully meets a sufficient burden of proof to discredit the S/R witnesses.

All that is necessary is to present adverse evidence that requires an explanation. The fact that you resort to ad hoc speculation is proof that you have no other way of dealing with the problem. Each piece of adverse evidence doesn’t have to be a slam dunk. It just has to be problematic. If the evidence was weak or had problems with it, it could be dispensed with without inventing ad hocs to deal with them.

Marg: Spalding was a biblical skeptic (factually backed up with evidence) who would likely have accepted as historically true being as he studied theology..that Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. were exiled by Assyrians. He would not likely have accepted mythical stories of lost tribes as historically true.

Glenn/Dan: Spalding’s being a biblical skeptic doesn’t help you; it doesn’t prove he would have written as you speculate. Glenn said it would tend to indicate that Spalding wouldn’t have likely linked Indian origins to the Bible, but rather the Romans and Asians; and Dan it’s not likely that he would defend the Bible (and diminish his potential readership) by changing a popular myth to a more realistic version?


The burden of proof to discredit so many witnesses, with no motivation to lie, who are independent from one another who all recall a manuscript not matching MSCC , written in biblical style, whose memories were jogged on names and phrases because of the Book of Mormon ..is on you Dan.

On the contrary, the burden to prove your theory is on you. Nevertheless, your demand for negative evidence is rather hollow when you think ad hoc responses are legitimate.

I don't know why Spalding wrote whatever he did..I'm only going by the recall of witnesses. So you can speculate what you think Spalding should have written but that's not what the witnesses say he did.

[/quote]

Best answer so far. It all comes down to trusting the witnesses, even if it doesn’t make any sense. But isn’t that a reason for skepticism? If it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not true.

[_GlennThigpen]

And you won't because you are attempting to force them into your concept of what such a conspiracy should look like.

Are the followers of Warren Jeffs part of a conspiracy?

Roger, what does a conspiracy look like?

I do not know if any of the followers of Warren Jeffs are are part of a conspiracy. Please show where this is relevant with some specific examples.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

You and Dan are the ones who keep attempting to force S/R defenders into a box that you've labelled "conspiracy." Not only do you attempt to force us into the box, but then you attempt to tell us that we can't adjust the box to our liking.

That is why I asked:

Are the followers of Warren Jeffs part of a conspiracy?

It is a relevant question to this discussion because your answer will reveal how you are defining the conspiracy box you're attempting to force us into and it's important that you answer it, rather than attempt to dodge it. A simple yes or no will do.

If you are going to stick with "I don't know" then you will need to concede that you can't possibly know whether S/R must necessarily postulate a Smith+helpers conspiracy. You must acknowledge that you're using the term pejoratively but when it comes down to it you can't define it.