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

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Your comments to Mikwut:

Yes, but its even more than that. I am saying they can (and do) do both. While some may be put off, realizing they are conned and usually leave, we are talking about the others who don't think they are being conned. Such people will both knowingly and subconsciously defend the beliefs, the false leader and his claims.

The quote Dan cited is speaking for those in this category. Here's what it says they will do:

The test had nothing to do with defending belief or the leader of the séance; it was purely about perception and observation of unusual events and how misperceptions get laid down in memory. You have total misconstrued this information and superimposed your model on it and attempted to use it in a way that can’t sustain your adaptation. It works for me because Joseph Smith was trying to make Emma believe he was actually reading from his stone, and that the writing would not disappear until correctly written—and he succeeded. It doesn’t work for you because your Emma knows the truth, but lies. The quote I’m using suggests that concluding Emma like isn’t the only option. There’s that, but there also the time lapse and comparison to Whitmer’s statements to consider.

I agree. So now you not only have it from me, you also have it from a source Dan quoted in apparent agreement as well.

Roger, the quote doesn’t have anything to do with what you are talking about.

But there is another level here that I am asserting as well. I am also stating that some of these same people will also intentionally lie for the same reason--because they believe in the overall cause. Say, for example, they believe séances are a good way to communicate with the dead but they notice Mr. Davey's assistant moving the table from underneath. They may leave out that information or intentionally lie about it because even though this case was obviously fraudulent, they still believe in the overall cause and do not wish to damage it.

Of course there are people who make such calculations, but its one thing to assert something is the case, and quite another to make a compelling case for it. The key question is: Can you demonstrate this is the case with any of the translation witnesses? I’m afraid this is one of those half-baked ideas that you throw out without thinking it through first—sort of like Dale’s chart that you have no idea what it means.

Since this is an analogy that’s supposed to tell us what you think about some translation witnesses, let’s walk through it. You seem to be suggesting that someone saw Joseph Smith reading from a MS instead of a stone in a hat, but Joseph Smith doesn’t know this person saw the secret, and this person keeps this information to themselves and pretends to be fooled anyway. How could you possibly know this person from one that was fooled since it requires you to read minds? Congratulations, Roger, you have merely replaced a conspiracy theory, which might have a chance to be demonstrated for one that is impossible to demonstrate. This is the type of theory that historians and scientists shun, because you could pin it on anyone without the slightest evidence. In such case, we have simply returned to you calling some of the witnesses liars without cause--only they are informal conspirators rather than formal without any way of distinguishing one from the other. The only apparent utility of doing so would be to minimize your exposure to the improbable massive conspiracy theory. However, this person—with or without Joseph Smith’s knowledge—would still be part of a cover-up conspiracy. Nevertheless, you are using conspiracy as an ad hoc (even more so under this scenario) to explain away eyewitness testimony.

And there is still another level.... that is the level of Mr Davey's assistant (assuming he has one) which is much more analogous to the people we are talking about here... Oliver, Emma, David & Martin. They (Davey's assistant) are in on the trick. Does that mean they can't believe it's possible to communicate with the dead during séances? Not necessarily. It might, but we simply don't know that.

Again, such persons might exist for any con scheme, but not necessarily. Your job is to make a case for it. You haven’t done that. Multiple independent testimony I think would be a major stumbling block.

What are we to conclude, however, if his assistant comes out and specifically promotes Mr Davey's séances as the real deal? Might we not be a bit skeptical given the fact that they obviously have a vested interest in so testifying?

This would be improbable since he would have to tell people he was an assistant in the séance whom no one sees. People would want to know what made him an authority over the other people who were at the séance. Obviously, if there was an accomplice the medium wouldn’t want him testifying to anything. He would rather the dupes do all the talking.

In Dan's view, even the assistants at the highest level were duped by Smith. In the case of Oliver especially, that is unlikely.

So says you based on your need to explain away counter evidence.

Well, again, this is where you simply go wrong. The Book of Mormon witness statements are not benign, nor were they intended to be. You (and Dan) are corrupting the intention in your attempts to filter out the miraculous elements in the hopes of reconstructing what actually happened, but you can't do that very well because the miraculous elements were intentionally put there for a specific reason. The witnesses themselves don't want you tampering with their statements.

Put there by whom? Briggs’s sixty-year-old account of his interview with Emma is the most miraculous. We know how things like that happen in the telling of the story. Whitmer’s version is less miraculous. Even if Emma said it exactly like Briggs remembered, that’s not a problem either, which is why I quoted the skeptic book. Now, you pretend to know Emma’s intentions and she tells you she doesn’t like me tampering with them. Well, I don’t think she would lie you calling her a liar either. Roger, I have done nothing tricky here; I have treated the Briggs interview as any historian would.

It is therefore much more reasonable to be skeptical of any elements in their statements that are NOT corroborated by outside observers. That leaves us with Joseph inserting head in hat and rattling off a few words or possibly sentences. Hardly enough evidence to suggest that the entire Book of Mormon was produced in this manner. And supporting that we know that the not insignificant KJV sections were not. Therefore the weight of the evidence, with regard to the witness statements, is in favor of only some of the Book of Mormon being produced through head in hat dictation.

You have not produced good enough reason or evidence to make this conclusion. You are attempting to set aside all eyewitness testimony except the non-Mormons. The witnesses were interested because they were believers; believers are biased, but not necessarily liars. You have not shown that they are liars—you have only asserted it in various ways. You can’t use the possible use of the KJV as evidence against the witnesses. It’s not. Sorry. Forget it. It’s an argument that only works on morons.

Of course it makes sense. I can accept the Badger's Tavern account. Can you? S/R has no problem with Joseph Smith putting his head in a hat and rattling off some words.

I know. It has a problem proving he read from a MS.

Like what? So far as I know, all they say independently is that Joseph put his head in a hat and rattled off some words. Internally they all corroborate words appearing in a stone. Do you accept that?

You are playing rhetorical games here.

Really?! Exactly how so? You don't think he sees Oliver, David and Emma as lovable? You tell me--better yet, let's have Dan tell us both what adjectives he wants removed (and why) and what he would choose to replace them with.

Why do I need to characterize anyone? All I’m looking at are multiple independent testimony given by people who were respected in their communities.

No! Sheesh. It is neither reliable nor likely complete. The only possibly reliable elements are those that are corroborated by outside witnesses. Everything else is questionable at best. Why? Well because they most likely are:

...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.

The quote implies sincerity and unintentional enhancing of the miraculous aspects of their testimonies, not to the core content.

At least attempting to formulate a succinct answer somewhat relevant to whatever your question is..... Dan takes the witnesses at their word and he shouldn't for the very reasons cited by his own source. The only thing possibly reliable is what outside witnesses corroborate... that is head in hat + a few words or sentences.

You have misquoted and misrepresented the source—and missed an important lesson pertinent to these situations. Again, multiple independent testimony, which is on better ground than Spalding witnesses.

[_GlennThigpen]

Another little bit of evidence that goes against the Conneaut witnesses, at least Artemas Cunningham. We must keep in mind that as originally penned, the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon were an abridgement of the first part of the large plates of Nephi, which included the writings of Lehi himself. How much of the Book of Lehi was taken from the writings of Lehi and just where the account of Nephi begins is a matter of conjecture. But one thing should be certain, and that is that the first part of the Book of Mormon would have been in the third person, as is all of the parts of the Book of Mormon that Mormon abridged, except for the direct quotes.
Since the Conneaut witnesses are almost unanimous that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon read almost identical, much the same as, many passages verbatim, etc. it would follow that Solomon's work would have followed essentially that outline, with Mormon taking the place of Fabius as the narrator in Solomon's alleged and mythical second manuscript, and the words would have been in the third person also.
Yet Artemas Cunningham declares

The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi," I recollect as distinctly as though it was but yesterday, although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years.

That phrase would not have been in a third person narrative, unless it were a direct quote. I can find no instance of Nephi speaking orally in such a manner.

I predict that there will be a couple of S/R theorists that will produce an ad hoc, "just so" scenario without any supporting evidence to explain that problem away. But that is apr for the course.

Glenn

[_Roger]

The test had nothing to do with defending belief or the leader of the séance; it was purely about perception and observation of unusual events and how misperceptions get laid down in memory. You have total misconstrued this information and superimposed your model on it and attempted to use it in a way that can’t sustain your adaptation.

This is completely incorrect. I am applying it exactly in the manner it was intended. You are attempting to manipulate it to your advantage by applying it only selectively to Emma's statement.

With regard to "nothing to do with defending belief or the leader of the séance;" the fact is--unless you totally misrepresented them, and I don't think you did--these were honest dupes. That is why you chose this as an analogy. You wanted a case featuring honest dupes. Therefore, these were NOT people who were skeptical of séances. On the contrary, they were believers. THAT is why we see the results we do. THAT is what prompted them to consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means.

You simply don't like the fact that a correct application of the quote leads to my conclusion rather than yours.

It works for me because Joseph Smith was trying to make Emma believe he was actually reading from his stone, and that the writing would not disappear until correctly written—and he succeeded.

Sheesh. Marg is correct to point out that you are assuming what you're trying to prove. The fact is you don't know that Joseph Smith succeeded! In fact, given Emma's propensity to lie, it's more likely he did not. You're just assuming it because you want to believe the best about Emma. But we can already see that you shouldn't be doing that because Emma has already given clear indications that she's lying.

No, the reason the quote works--but not in the way you want it to--is because Emma is doing exactly what the séance believers did. It doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference whether Emma actually believed her husband was participating with God in a legitimate translation or not. What matters is that she gives us clear evidence that she's lying in order to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means."

It doesn’t work for you because your Emma knows the truth, but lies.

It doesn't work for you because my Emma is the real Emma. Yours is a fantasy based on unwarranted faith in a highly biased witness who's already demonstrated she can't be telling the truth.

The quote I’m using suggests that concluding Emma like isn’t the only option. There’s that, but there also the time lapse and comparison to Whitmer’s statements to consider.

First you are now at least admitting it IS an option.

Second while it may not be the only option, it is the best option. It fits the evidence better than any alternative and it also fits with her pattern of lying about polygamy--which also took place in another interview with Emma.

Third, "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" can indeed accurately be charaterized as lying. You are trying get Emma off the hook your quote puts her on through a trivial technicality that attempts to argue that 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 is simply a series of honest mistakes when it's done by honest dupes.

That is a very weak position to be arguing, but that's where you're at. And the fact is, even if you want to characterize the phenomenon as a series of honest mistakes, the glaring fact remains that whether intentional or not the testimony itself is completely unreliable.

So whatever you want to call it, Emma is guilty of it and that renders her testimony unreliable.

Of course there are people who make such calculations, but its one thing to assert something is the case, and quite another to make a compelling case for it. The key question is: Can you demonstrate this is the case with any of the translation witnesses? I’m afraid this is one of those half-baked ideas that you throw out without thinking it through first—sort of like Dale’s chart that you have no idea what it means.

This is priceless! You're the one who doesn't know what to do with the data in Dale's chart because it doesn't fit into your Book of Mormon theory! It fits very nicely into S/R.

It's one thing to assert the reliability of biased witnesses and quite another to show solid factors that overcome that bias. While attempting to do that, you have instead given us more reasons to reject their biased testimony. You have provided a quote that emphasizes how unreliable biased testimony can be, especially when we're talking about witnesses who believe in a cause and the cult leader promoting it--a factor that may or may not be present in your séance analogy but is most certainly present with the followers of Joseph Smith!

Since this is an analogy that’s supposed to tell us what you think about some translation witnesses, let’s walk through it. You seem to be suggesting that someone saw Joseph Smith reading from a MS instead of a stone in a hat, but Joseph Smith doesn’t know this person saw the secret, and this person keeps this information to themselves and pretends to be fooled anyway.

I don't know where you're getting this.

How could you possibly know this person from one that was fooled since it requires you to read minds? Congratulations, Roger, you have merely replaced a conspiracy theory, which might have a chance to be demonstrated for one that is impossible to demonstrate. This is the type of theory that historians and scientists shun, because you could pin it on anyone without the slightest evidence.

What a bunch of nonsense. In the first place you're arguing against your own strawman rather than anything I've said. In the second place even under your faulty strawman logic YOU have the exact same problem. Oh wait, I forgot... you actually have the power to read minds as evidenced by your claim to know the extent of my knowledge.

The fact is you are attempting to read Emma's mind when you go to the wildest extremes to clear her name in the face of negative evidence.

In such case, we have simply returned to you calling some of the witnesses liars without cause--only they are informal conspirators rather than formal without any way of distinguishing one from the other.

Without cause(!) *roll eyes* The only thing without cause here is your insistence that Emma is not lying in the face of glaring evidence that she is. You're not treating this witness historically, Dan. You're treating this witness with unwarranted favor.

The only apparent utility of doing so would be to minimize your exposure to the improbable massive conspiracy theory. However, this person—with or without Joseph Smith’s knowledge—would still be part of a cover-up conspiracy. Nevertheless, you are using conspiracy as an ad hoc (even more so under this scenario) to explain away eyewitness testimony.

Bunk. There is no conspiracy--at least not the kind you wish there was. There was a small group of three maybe four men who likely believed in ancient Nephites and that they had been chosen to add revelation and bring it to the world. They were religious fanatics, all of them. They used religion as a platform to advance a cause for which they would receive multiple benefits.

The rest are dupes JUST LIKE YOU WANT THEM TO BE.

Again, such persons might exist for any con scheme, but not necessarily. Your job is to make a case for it. You haven’t done that. Multiple independent testimony I think would be a major stumbling block.

The skeptical testimony establishes only that Joseph could put on a show. We already knew he could do that. It does not establish that work could not have been done in secret whether on site or off. You admit that a Bible was used in just such a manner. That's more than enough.

This would be improbable since he would have to tell people he was an assistant in the séance whom no one sees. People would want to know what made him an authority over the other people who were at the séance. Obviously, if there was an accomplice the medium wouldn’t want him testifying to anything. He would rather the dupes do all the talking.

No analogy is perfect. But an accomplice could accomplish an important task by actually sitting at the table and pretending to be a believer. In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses it is more likely than not, that Oliver was privy to information the others were not. But even if Oliver was merely a dupe, we still see a reluctance by him to offer specific details about the translation other than the official party line of head in hat with every word coming from Joseph's lips. That he specifically mentions that, but never says a word about a Bible is significant whether you think so or not.

Put there by whom? Briggs’s sixty-year-old account of his interview with Emma is the most miraculous. We know how things like that happen in the telling of the story. Whitmer’s version is less miraculous.

Less miraculous?! You mean where God won't let the translation proceed unless everything is spelled correctly? You seriously think that is "less miraculous"? (!)

Even if Emma said it exactly like Briggs remembered, that’s not a problem either, which is why I quoted the skeptic book. Now, you pretend to know Emma’s intentions and she tells you she doesn’t like me tampering with them. Well, I don’t think she would lie you calling her a liar either. Roger, I have done nothing tricky here; I have treated the Briggs interview as any historian would.

So now I am not supposed to call Emma a liar because she wouldn't like it?! Tough cookies! You're the one who thinks these witnesses were honest bumpkins, not me, and yet you still are forced to tamper with their testimonies(!) because they give you no other option! Your devotion to these witnesses is apparent.

The fact is, now that you've brought up Whitmer, you just lost your "her story was corrupted by Briggs" approach because Whitmer corroborates the miraculous element which demonstrates NOT the corrupting of the story by a rogue reporter you had hoped to pin the blame on but the intent of your witnesses. Now it is obvious that BOTH Emma and David are supplying reports "that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means." Your witnesses keep digging you in deeper!

You have not produced good enough reason or evidence to make this conclusion. You are attempting to set aside all eyewitness testimony except the non-Mormons. The witnesses were interested because they were believers; believers are biased, but not necessarily liars. You have not shown that they are liars—you have only asserted it in various ways. You can’t use the possible use of the KJV as evidence against the witnesses. It’s not. Sorry. Forget it. It’s an argument that only works on morons.

Had to throw in that little jab at the end, didn't you. It's a clear example that you realize your argument is weak so you have to attempt to punch it up by calling anyone who comes to a different conclusion (the reasonable one!) a moron. That's an ad hom fallacy.

The facts are clear. A Bible was used. No Book of Mormon witness ever acknowledges that but instead they either categorically state (Knight) or strongly imply that every word came straight from the prophet's lips. I can see why you don't want that entered as evidence, but it is.

The quote implies sincerity and unintentional enhancing of the miraculous aspects of their testimonies, not to the core content.

While it may imply sincerity, the fact is you don't know how sincere they were since that would require you to read their minds. Additionally, they were apparently true believing honest dupes and they still messed things up royally. And if they weren't you just lost them as analogous to what you want established. Either way it was a blunder to post the quote while still hoping to maintain your position. It had the opposite effect of what you were hoping to use it for. No amount of damage control is going to change that. Like this:

You have misquoted and misrepresented the source—and missed an important lesson pertinent to these situations. Again, multiple independent testimony, which is on better ground than Spalding witnesses.

The only one missing a lesson here is you. Your witnesses are clearly biased, clearly invested in the cause they are testifying to, clearly and intentionally (as corroborated by Emma's and David's independent testimony) supplying reports "that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means." In short, just as common sense dictates, your Book of Mormon witnesses are simply unreliable.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

This is completely incorrect. I am applying it exactly in the manner it was intended. You are attempting to manipulate it to your advantage by applying it only selectively to Emma's statement.

With regard to "nothing to do with defending belief or the leader of the séance;" the fact is--unless you totally misrepresented them, and I don't think you did--these were honest dupes. That is why you chose this as an analogy. You wanted a case featuring honest dupes. Therefore, these were NOT people who were skeptical of séances. On the contrary, they were believers. THAT is why we see the results we do. THAT is what prompted them to consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means.

You simply don't like the fact that a correct application of the quote leads to my conclusion rather than yours.

Roger, the fact that the séance attendees were “honest dupes” does not mean that they were unskeptical believers—as if skeptics can’t be fooled—that’s your assumption. The assumption seems necessary to you to make it applicable to your theory about the Book of Mormon production. You are implying it was their beliefs that cause them to record inaccurate details. This is wrong. The errors arise from the fact that they are not trained observers. The point being made is that “five untrained observers are no match for one clever conjurer” (Skeptic’s Handbook, 27).

The quote indeed pertains to “honest dupes,” as you say above, but you have been using it to describe intentional liars. Note what you have previously said about this quote:

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."

Marg’s “point” was that Emma was an intentional liar, which is one reason I quoted this source. Another reason was because she didn’t accept my personal anecdote about one friend describing a trick I had showed him to another friend, which was the first time I observed the phenomenon. This quote does not make your point that Emma was intentionally lying. It makes my point that it was probably unintentional—that is, if we accept Briggs’s account as accurate.

You also said:

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.

Clearly, you have misread the source and have been falsely arguing that it supports your view that inaccuracies in Emma’s account were intentional.

That premise--of Dan's--is quite faulty, and, using a citation he used because he thought it supported his premise exclusively, I have both

1. agreed with the citation that even sincere dupes consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means and

2. shown that biased believers at the highest levels of an organization they support are all the more more prone to the same thing

The quote has nothing to do with “biased believers”.

such that either way, taking the Book of Mormon witness testimony at face value is simply naïve--except for what is corroborated by outside witnesses, which, as I have stated, is not in dispute.

Thinking that they are giving us the whole truth and objectively reporting what they saw without embellishing or leaving out damaging details is, again, naïve.

There is no “either way,” because you are missing the lesson in the quote. If you are going to question the witnesses based on bias, you’ll have to do it without this quote, because it doesn’t support that thesis. Meanwhile, you need to acknowledge the possibility that Emma’s unintentionally exaggerating the miraculous aspect of her testimony. This is a concept that real skeptics find useful in a variety of situations.

Then, you tell Glenn:

We've just been over Emma Smith as a classic example. What she described could not have happened unless God was actively participating. That works for you, but not for me or Dan. So Dan concludes she was embellishing. He stops short of actually saying she was lying, but what difference is there? She was lying, plain and simple. Here is what Dan's source--that he cited in support of his position on Emma--says... that they:

“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.”

This is exactly what Emma was doing. Dan just seems to think she did this unwittingly or unconsciously(!) Nonsense. She was lying, plain and simple.

Whether Emma was intentionally lying or unintentionally embellishing makes a world of difference. It’s the difference between your position and mine. One impeaches Emma’s testimony about the head in hat, the other doesn’t—that is, if you leave out support from other independent witnesses.

No! Sheesh. It is neither reliable nor likely complete. The only possibly reliable elements are those that are corroborated by outside witnesses. Everything else is questionable at best. Why? Well because they most likely are:

...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.

Again, you are misusing the quote to imply intentionality, when it was clearly unintentional. This means that the central or core of the story remains intact, while miraculous aspects are distorted in such a way as to prevent its use in giving a naturalistic explanation. This is because they were fooled; if they figured the trick out, they would be able to give more details leading to a solution. For example, since a séance is held in a sealed room, with lights out, and everyone is holding hands around the table—including the medium—it appears that a florescent-painted horn mysteriously floats and blows, or a tambourine on the table plays. Unless you know how it’s done, you will leave details of your account that can explain how it happened naturalistically. Yet, you will still be able to tell readers what happened, or appeared to happen. This generally reliable account, although incomplete and possibly distorted, can be corrected or completed by the historian by referencing other witnesses or employing principles that seem to apply.

Above you also advance the argument that whatever believers report is untrustworthy because of the quote I have used. Whereas the testimony of non-believers is reliable, presumably because they are sufficiently skeptical not to be fooled and therefore not include the distortions believers include. You therefore believe you are justified in throwing out anything a believer says, which leaves you with evidence only for “a few words or sentences,” as you argue below:

At least attempting to formulate a succinct answer somewhat relevant to whatever your question is..... Dan takes the witnesses at their word and he shouldn't for the very reasons cited by his own source. The only thing possibly reliable is what outside witnesses corroborate... that is head in hat + a few words or sentences.

You can believe this if you wish, but the source I quoted doesn’t support you. I have quoted Gottschalk on historical methodology, that one disputed aspect of a witnesses testimony doesn’t justify throwing the whole testimony out. You move to do so is strictly polemical. It has nothing to do with wanting to know the truth about history, or even the strengths and weaknesses of competing theories.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Before I let the séance example drop, I wonder if you will indulge us in a little experiment, which might prove to be fun and possibly illustrate my point better than simply describing it. If you click on the address below, you will see a trick. After watching it once, write what you observed. It’s important that you not figure out how it’s done, possibly through multiple viewings, because you are to be our sincere dupe for this experiment. You are to see it once like the attendees of the séance. (Anyone who wants to participate may do so, but don’t tell the secret or you will ruin the experiment.) Just describe it and, like Davey’s instructions, “write out in detail all that [you can] remember having happened.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fyRaj2Ir1Q&feature=related

[_marg]

Roger,

Before I let the séance example drop, I wonder if you will indulge us in a little experiment, which might prove to be fun and possibly illustrate my point better than simply describing it. If you click on the address below, you will see a trick. After watching it once, write what you observed. It’s important that you not figure out how it’s done, possibly through multiple viewings, because you are to be our sincere dupe for this experiment. You are to see it once like the attendees of the séance. (Anyone who wants to participate may do so, but don’t tell the secret or you will ruin the experiment.) Just describe it and, like Davey’s instructions, “write out in detail all that [you can] remember having happened.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fyRaj2Ir1Q&feature=related

I have a question, where is the seance quote in your book, what chapter?

Ok I'll play.

I saw Blaine with 2 individuals a middle aged woman and man at night on a busy street ..with cars and people walking by..one person Blaine commented on the man walking by as being crazy which had to do with whatever the man said. Blaine was doing all the talking..while holding with both his hands both her wrists and she held 2 cards..with the face card facing Blaine. I don't know what the trick with the cards was supposed to be..I remember the woman nervously laughing and the man looking into the camera ..I'm not sure if the woman mentioned what the face card was supposed to be or how successful whatever trick he was doing was. There was a voiceover..that distracted my attention of that trick. The voiceover said something about "watch Blaine's hands or watch the woman's wrists..because a trick is about distraction". ..or something along those lines. I think it was Blaine's voice..added to the video later. At that point I did start to watch his hands on her wrists. It wasn't all the clear though.

When he takes his hands off her wrists and that trick is over ..he walks a few short steps I think it was around a corner maybe not it might have been behind the woman and man but a few feet to their right..and there is a jewelry store window. He directs them to following him all the while talking and shifting the conversation to jewelry. I don't remember the details of what he was saying. I believe it was something about he'd like to be able to take jewelery out of a store front window. But then he starts to talk about what is in the store window and how nice a watch is (I believe). He asks them to come closer and look at a particular watch in there..he comments how nice it is and after a closer look at it the woman says it's her watch. He asks if she's sure..she says yes. He asks again..she says yes. He goes to the store door and says it's locked. He pulls out a sheet of newspaper and says something along the lines of "I'll see what I can do". He puts the newspaper unfolded up against the window..they are standing to the right of him but slightly behind him. We see his hand it appears to go through the newspaper and through the window. ..as if the window was fluid. It looks like his arm went through but I thought the arm didn't look quite real, but that was just a brief thought and I didn't closely examine..he picks up the watch ..pulls arm out and out of newspaper and gives it to her. Both people are amazed and say he put his hand in the window and got the watch..I think to people walking by. Blaine made some sort of comment about the newspaper, either it had a hole or it didn't..not sure which.

I'm not even sure if he actually removed a watch I believe my focus was on the arm and the surrounding fluid-like glass which only went in about 4 or 6 inches it appeared..the view of the arm inside was clear..not distorted...but I didn't really notice if the watch was removed.

[_Roger]

Dan:

I don't have time at present to answer your entire post, but I will comment on this:

Roger, the fact that the séance attendees were “honest dupes” does not mean that they were unskeptical believers—as if skeptics can’t be fooled—that’s your assumption.

That is NOT my assumption. If you think it is then you are not understanding my position.

I don't know anything about the séance attendees other than what you've posted. My only assumption with regard to them is that they had to at least have been open to the possibility that one might be able to communicate with the dead at a séance.

When a magician saws a woman in half, I am NOT open to the possibility that a woman can be sawed in half and live. But I can readily admit I don't know how the trick is done. So as a skeptic, I can be fooled, but I remain skeptical.

In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses they are NOT skeptics. Even under your (unrealistic) best-case-honest-dupe scenario where they're just unbiased reporters, they are still completely open to the possibility that this could all be true and they are NOT skeptics. On the contrary they really want to believe that Smith is all that and a bag of chips. Therefore, how much easier is it to fool someone who really wants to believe you can saw a woman in half?

[_GlennThigpen]

In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses they are NOT skeptics. Even under your (unrealistic) best-case-honest-dupe scenario where they're just unbiased reporters, they are still completely open to the possibility that this could all be true and they are NOT skeptics. On the contrary they really want to believe that Smith is all that and a bag of chips. Therefore, how much easier is it to fool someone who really wants to believe you can saw a woman in half?

However, that is missing the point. What would be unreliable about a report from many witnesses that they saw Joseph Smith dictating the contents of the Book of Mormon with his face buried in a hat?
That report would be no more unreliable than that of a person who saw Blaine stick his hand through a newspaper and a glass window to retrieve a watch. You may not buy into either stories, i.e that Joseph saw words appearing in a stone as he read them off to a scribe, or that Blaine actually stuck his hand through a window, but there is no reason to doubt that people actually witnessed the face in the hat method of dictation, or the hand through a newspaper and glass trick.
In both cases, the problem is to discern how the events actually took place. For Joseph, one must determine how he could rattle off the dictation hours on end without apparently having any manuscript to read from. In the case of Blaine, I did not follow up to see how he performed the trick, but I am not yet ready to believe that he actually stuck his hand through a glass window.

Foe Joseph Smith, I will even go along with the presumption of a prodigious memory. That does not make the S/R theory any more tenable.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Continuing your last post to me:

Sheesh. Marg is correct to point out that you are assuming what you're trying to prove. The fact is you don't know that Joseph Smith succeeded! In fact, given Emma's propensity to lie, it's more likely he did not. You're just assuming it because you want to believe the best about Emma. But we can already see that you shouldn't be doing that because Emma has already given clear indications that she's lying.

Not only can you not understand the quote I provided about séances and interpret it in the proper context, you have difficulty interpreting my statement in context as well. I argument wasn’t sincerity vs. insincerity, it was why the quote about séances works in the context in which I used and doesn’t for your use. I’ll repeat what I said:

It works for me because Joseph Smith was trying to make Emma believe he was actually reading from his stone, and that the writing would not disappear until correctly written—and he succeeded. It doesn’t work for you because your Emma knows the truth, but lies.

You should know by now that my argument for the essential accuracy of Emma’s statement comes from other independent witnesses. Then, you argue in circular fashion that Emma was lying “because Emma has already given clear indications that she's lying”—meaning, I presume, the miraculous elements in her account. It’s only clear it you assume that it’s clear that she lied, which is what you are trying to prove, right? And you can only do that if you ignore my quote from the séances, which you have agree is good (although you misused it for your purposes).

No, the reason the quote works--but not in the way you want it to--is because Emma is doing exactly what the séance believers did. It doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference whether Emma actually believed her husband was participating with God in a legitimate translation or not. What matters is that she gives us clear evidence that she's lying in order to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means.”

She can’t be doing “exactly what the séance believers did” (only some were believers) unless she was an honest dupe. If she was intentionally lying, she was part of a conspiracy. In such case, the quote doesn’t work for you and you are misusing it—and no one should take you seriously if you persist in it. It’s a world of difference—in the first instance her account of Joseph Smith translating with head in hat remains in place, in the second it is doubted.

It doesn't work for you because my Emma is the real Emma. Yours is a fantasy based on unwarranted faith in a highly biased witness who's already demonstrated she can't be telling the truth.

It’s quite the reverse since you are operating under a false premise that miraculous or impossible elements in an account means the person is lying. I’m also tire of explaining that bias doesn’t equate to lying and fabricating. We’ve discussed Emma’s support by multiple independent witnesses, as well as non-Mormon testimony of casual observers, which you try to brush aside with ad hoc theories.

First you are now at least admitting it [lying] IS an option.

I said:

The quote I’m using suggests that concluding Emma like [lied] isn’t the only option. There’s that, but there also the time lapse and comparison to Whitmer’s statements to consider.

I said this in the context of your (and Marg’s) assumption that lying was the only option. Now you know better, hopefully.

Second while it may not be the only option, it is the best option. It fits the evidence better than any alternative and it also fits with her pattern of lying about polygamy--which also took place in another interview with Emma.

At least you now know lying is not the only option, and that it was rash of Marg to make that conclusion without analyzing it historically in light of other similar statements and giving due consideration to time lapse. Your interpretation flies into the face of a reasonable reconstruction based on all the available evidence. We know Emma lie about polygamy because we have multiple independent witnesses to the contrary, and we know she told the truth about Joseph Smith translating with head in hat for the same reason. Remember, each element of a person’s testimony is handled separately.

Third, "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" can indeed accurately be charaterized as lying. You are trying get Emma off the hook your quote puts her on through a trivial technicality that attempts to argue that 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 is simply a series of honest mistakes when it's done by honest dupes.

Lying implies intentionality—intentional deception. My construction doesn’t. We are describing two different Emma’s. Her support by other independent witnesses points to my Emma, rather than yours.

That is a very weak position to be arguing, but that's where you're at. And the fact is, even if you want to characterize the phenomenon as a series of honest mistakes, the glaring fact remains that whether intentional or not the testimony itself is completely unreliable.

So whatever you want to call it, Emma is guilty of it and that renders her testimony unreliable.

My position is the strongest for the reasons stated. You have the job of divining Emma’s intentions were other than what she stated without anything besides your need to dismiss her testimony in toto. But that’s not correct historical methodology. We don’t throw it out. We verify what we can with other witnesses. We might treat questionable elements with skepticism, especially if they are unique to a particular source, but if they are describe less miraculously by another witness—go for the lesser miracle in reconstructing what probably happened.

This is priceless! You're the one who doesn't know what to do with the data in Dale's chart because it doesn't fit into your Book of Mormon theory! It fits very nicely into S/R.

It's one thing to assert the reliability of biased witnesses and quite another to show solid factors that overcome that bias. While attempting to do that, you have instead given us more reasons to reject their biased testimony. You have provided a quote that emphasizes how unreliable biased testimony can be, especially when we're talking about witnesses who believe in a cause and the cult leader promoting it--a factor that may or may not be present in your séance analogy but is most certainly present with the followers of Joseph Smith!

The chart doesn’t fit into anything, because it’s meaningless. I used it as an example of how you adopt half-baked ideas so long as they appear to support your position. You couldn’t even tell me or give me examples of the data upon which it was based. Not one example of a “redundant that”—nor could you find your way on your own to an 1830 searchable Book of Mormon. Similarly, your suggestion that there was some dupe of Joseph Smith’s that knew the secret and kept it to themselves is without foundation and not well thought through.

Since this is an analogy that’s supposed to tell us what you think about some translation witnesses, let’s walk through it. You seem to be suggesting that someone saw Joseph Smith reading from a MS instead of a stone in a hat, but Joseph Smith doesn’t know this person saw the secret, and this person keeps this information to themselves and pretends to be fooled anyway.

I don't know where you're getting this.

I got it from you, I completed your thought because obviously you didn’t do it yourself. Here’s what you said:

But there is another level here that I am asserting as well. I am also stating that some of these same people will also intentionally lie for the same reason--because they believe in the overall cause. Say, for example, they believe séances are a good way to communicate with the dead but they notice Mr. Davey's assistant moving the table from underneath. They may leave out that information or intentionally lie about it because even though this case was obviously fraudulent, they still believe in the overall cause and do not wish to damage it.

This is your analogy to help us understand how you view Joseph Smith and his witnesses in translation, and why a formal conspiracy is not necessary, right? Perhaps if I translate it as close to the analogue as possible, you will see more clearly what you said to us. (Because in giving your analogy, you left it to us to do translating, obviously trusting us to do so.)

But there is another level here that I am asserting as well. I am also stating that some of these same people will also intentionally lie for the same reason--because they believe in the overall cause. Say, for example, they believe the Book of Mormon is a good way to convert people to Jesus but they notice Joseph Smith reading to Cowdery from a manuscript. They may leave out that information or intentionally lie about it because even though this case was obviously fraudulent, they still believe in the overall cause and do not wish to damage it.

So where is this person, Roger? As I said, it’s one thing to assert it, but quite another to make a compelling case for it.

How could you possibly know this person from one that was fooled since it requires you to read minds? Congratulations, Roger, you have merely replaced a conspiracy theory, which might have a chance to be demonstrated for one that is impossible to demonstrate. This is the type of theory that historians and scientists shun, because you could pin it on anyone without the slightest evidence.

What a bunch of nonsense. In the first place you're arguing against your own strawman rather than anything I've said. In the second place even under your faulty strawman logic YOU have the exact same problem. Oh wait, I forgot... you actually have the power to read minds as evidenced by your claim to know the extent of my knowledge.

The fact is you are attempting to read Emma's mind when you go to the wildest extremes to clear her name in the face of negative evidence.

In the first place, it doesn’t surprise me you don’t understand the implications of your own statements—that was my point about half-baked ideas. I followed your analogy as close as I could. Now you are trying to dodge coming up with an example from among Joseph Smith’s witnesses that fits your analogy. Want to withdraw your assertion that such a person exists and go back to the massive conspiracy that would be necessary to maintain the Spalding theory? You can change your mind, you know? I don’t need to read your mind; my assessment is based on what you write. And regarding Emma, you are the one attempting to read her mind by saying she didn’t believe what she said without any evidence for doing so. Pointing out that Emma described a miracle, or something that appears to have been impossible for Joseph Smith to have done, isn’t negative evidence. It doesn’t impeach her entire statement. The time I have spent on this was not in defense of Emma—nor did it involve some ad hoc theory, as it might have for you and Marg—but rather it was spent in explaining why your objections were nothing but tripe.

Without cause(!) *roll eyes* The only thing without cause here is your insistence that Emma is not lying in the face of glaring evidence that she is. You're not treating this witness historically, Dan. You're treating this witness with unwarranted favor.

I’m treating her like one among several independent witnesses. I also give due consideration for the historical setting and time lapse, which you are failing to do in your polemical stance. Your evidence that she lied is that she described impossible things, but you admitted my use of the séance source adequately explains that. When Emma’s account is compared with Whitmer’s on the same topic, an understandable explanation of what probably happened emerges—you should be happy to embrace that!

Bunk. There is no conspiracy--at least not the kind you wish there was. There was a small group of three maybe four men who likely believed in ancient Nephites and that they had been chosen to add revelation and bring it to the world. They were religious fanatics, all of them. They used religion as a platform to advance a cause for which they would receive multiple benefits.

The rest are dupes JUST LIKE YOU WANT THEM TO BE.

So much for adding clarity to the situation. I presume you are alluding to your theory that Rigdon took the MS from the printer and mistakenly believed it was a real translation of a real history, and that he felt inspired to add all the religious content and have it deceptively brought forth by Joseph Smith, who also added portions by revelation, as well as Cowdery. I see, it was a pious conspiracy. Regardless, it doesn’t help in the least. All you have done is make a conspiracy theory all the more improbable. If the rest (Emma, Harris, David and Elizabeth Whitmer, two unidentified scribes, and Joseph Knight) are dupes, my evidence is intact and, without your ad hoc speculation that Smith and Cowdery worked in private and only brought the hat out for show, Joseph Smith apparently dictated with his head in hat without aid of MS. Since witnesses saw Joseph Smith dictating to Cowdery, Cowdery can’t be part of the conspiracy either. Roger, you have nothing but speculation and assertion.

The skeptical testimony establishes only that Joseph could put on a show. We already knew he could do that. It does not establish that work could not have been done in secret whether on site or off. You admit that a Bible was used in just such a manner. That's more than enough.

… and ad hoc rationalizations … and fallacious arguments from silence. We already knew he could put on a show? … as opposed to reading directly from the MS to Cowdery? Since you haven’t demonstrated the latter, there is no reason to assume the former.

No analogy is perfect. But an accomplice could accomplish an important task by actually sitting at the table and pretending to be a believer. In the case of the Book of Mormon witnesses it is more likely than not, that Oliver was privy to information the others were not. But even if Oliver was merely a dupe, we still see a reluctance by him to offer specific details about the translation other than the official party line of head in hat with every word coming from Joseph's lips. That he specifically mentions that, but never says a word about a Bible is significant whether you think so or not.

It’s not significant for determining if an S/R MS was used any more than if Gulliver’s Travels or Robinson Crusoe were used. I guess you didn’t read my reconstruction of why Cowdery only mentioned the spectacles and not the stone in hat story. Yes, Cowdery was quite the party-line man until his sudden excommunication in 1838. I don’t think he was happy about that, and he made no effort to return until after Joseph Smith’s death. I would argue, however, that Cowdery had no time to be an accomplice secretly since everything as far as we know was done in the open.

Less miraculous?! You mean where God won't let the translation proceed unless everything is spelled correctly? You seriously think that is "less miraculous"? (!)

Emma made it sound as if Joseph Smith could see what she was writing—that is, according to Briggs’ sixty-year-old memory:

when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.

Whitmer, on the other hand, says according to an 1874 interview reported in 1880:

the words would appear, and if he failed to spell the word right, it would stay till it was spelled right, then pass away; another come, and so on

Time lapse may also be an issue here, but note that it is less miraculous—no stopping in the middle. It’s not likely that this would pertain to normal words, but rather to the spelling of proper names. The process was that the scribe would read back what was written from dictation, and then Joseph Smith would either move on or make corrections. In such case, Joseph Smith could simply ask for the spelling and then change it, or he could assume the spelling was not to his liking by the pronunciation. Undoubtedly he also added, deleted, or changed words, possibly passing them off as scribal errors or even a misreading on his part due to his lack of education. In any case, Whitmer’s description can be more easily explained “by natural means” than Emma’s version. In 1875, he reportedly said:

and he was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed, and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together. ...

This source only claims that he couldn’t pronounce some of the proper names, and spelt them out. However, this source and the others shows that the proper names is where the spelling took place, whether it was initially spelled out by Joseph Smith in dictation or as a correction. James H. Hart, a Mormon from Utah, reported in 1884 that Whitmer said:

Sometimes Joseph could not pronounce the words correctly, having had but little education; and if by any means a mistake was made in the copy, the luminous writing would remain until it was corrected. It sometimes took Oliver several trials to get the right letters to spell correctly some of the more difficult words, but when he had written them correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear, and be replaced by other characters and their interpretation.

Again, this only claims that the writing remained until correctly written, which Joseph Smith determined when the scribe read it back. So, there is nothing particularly miraculous here or impossible to explain “by normal means.” I’m sure in the process of dictating an entire book using this method, some situations arose that were easy to construe as miraculous—which would not be unlike what cold readers do to make people think they can read their thoughts (well perhaps need to have a discussion on this as well).

So now I am not supposed to call Emma a liar because she wouldn't like it?! Tough cookies! You're the one who thinks these witnesses were honest bumpkins, not me, and yet you still are forced to tamper with their testimonies(!) because they give you no other option! Your devotion to these witnesses is apparent.

If you try to misrepresent the Spalding witnesses and force your polemical non-historical interpretations on their testimonies, I will sound just as devoted to them. My tongue-in-cheek comment about Emma was in response to your claim that you know what her intentions were and that she wouldn’t like my handling of her statement—hence, my comment that she wouldn’t be pleased with you caller her a liar.

The fact is, now that you've brought up Whitmer, you just lost your "her story was corrupted by Briggs" approach because Whitmer corroborates the miraculous element which demonstrates NOT the corrupting of the story by a rogue reporter you had hoped to pin the blame on but the intent of your witnesses. Now it is obvious that BOTH Emma and David are supplying reports "that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means." Your witnesses keep digging you in deeper!

If you missed my last discussion that compared Emma’s and Whitmer’s statements, I hope the above revisit will help you see that caution about Briggs is in order even more so.

Had to throw in that little jab at the end, didn't you. It's a clear example that you realize your argument is weak so you have to attempt to punch it up by calling anyone who comes to a different conclusion (the reasonable one!) a moron. That's an ad hom fallacy.

The facts are clear. A Bible was used. No Book of Mormon witness ever acknowledges that but instead they either categorically state (Knight) or strongly imply that every word came straight from the prophet's lips. I can see why you don't want that entered as evidence, but it is.

You’ve entered that fallacious argument from silence every chance you get and I’m telling you intelligent people aren’t buying it. I have already explained that you are assuming the witnesses saw the Bible being used, and you are also assuming that use of a Bible means the words didn’t come from the prophet’s lips. I have explained and demolished this argument many times, and for you to stubbornly repeat it shows a lack of intellectual honesty.

While it may imply sincerity, the fact is you don't know how sincere they were since that would require you to read their minds. Additionally, they were apparently true believing honest dupes and they still messed things up royally. And if they weren't you just lost them as analogous to what you want established. Either way it was a blunder to post the quote while still hoping to maintain your position. It had the opposite effect of what you were hoping to use it for. No amount of damage control is going to change that.

You mean, no amount of explaining is going to change your mind. Better readers have long ago determined you have misused the quote.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

What a good sport. Thanks for participating. I’ll hold off on discussing it until Roger has a chance to respond.