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

[_marg]

Bruce a discussion on Hamer's satire was discussed in this thread a while back.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=252851#p252851


Dan, I'm currently reading McCullagh's book which addresses ad hocness and argument to best explanation however I won't be writing up a post on this until sometime next week. Today and this weekend I won't be spending time on the board.

[_Dan Vogel]

Bruce a discussion on Hamer's satire was discussed in this thread a while back.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=252851#p252851


Dan, I'm currently reading McCullagh's book which addresses ad hocness and argument to best explanation however I won't be writing up a post on this until sometime next week. Today and this weekend I won't be spending time on the board.

Marg, I tried to read this thread, but got bored reading your tired and useless defenses. I couldn’t wade through 27 pages hoping to find anything meaningful, which given your reliance on ad hoc speculation is doubtful.

[_GlennThigpen]

Bruce,
If you're still watching this thread, could you provide a bit of information on the issue the archaic English usage in the Book of Mormon possibly skewing the results of your study, and by implication of the original Jockers study?
This thread has devolved into pretty much a free for all on just about anything related to the S/R theory and little attention has actually been paid to the original OP.
Of course, I am guilty of helping that process along also.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Hi Bruce:

Nice of you to pop in! I hope you'll stay a bit and join the discussion. Dan and Glenn's posts have become predictable, so it would be nice to get a fresh perspective--even one that no doubt will join in chorus with Glenn and Dan.

Here's my two cents worth.

I just saw an interview with author Jonathan Kay of “The Truthers.” The book identifies several clusters of people who seem ‘susceptible’ to believing in/promoting conspiracy theories. It suggests reasons why conspiracy theories are popular in these clusters even though believing the conspiracies is a real stretch. One cluster that scares me is the mid-life crisis cluster (although I guess I’m pretty much past that).

The book is about highly improbable conspiracies. It does note that there are real conspiracies, but real conspiracies are usually badly planned, badly carried out, and not kept secret. For example, the Watergate break-ins were poorly carried out, with lots of whistle-blowers, and easy to investigate.

I think marg makes a good point when she asks how one might know when a good conspiracy has occurred? I suppose at some point down the road pride might be expected to compel the truth out of someone who helped pull off a good conspiracy, but unless that happens (which I'm sure it does on rare occasions), how would we know when a good conspiracy has taken place?

On the other hand, I don't consider S/R to be a conspiracy in the sense that S/R's critics typically want to paint it as being. We've touched on that a bit in some of the many pages on this thread.

I haven’t read the book yet, but obviously the interview made me think about the purported Spalding-Rigdon-Smith-Pratt-Whitmer Book of Mormon conspiracy theory while reading it. I remembered reading a thread in another blog a couple of years ago by John Hamer.

(http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/07/18/t ... ing-fable/)

Hamer’s thread lays out in a sarcastic but thought-provoking way how unlikely this conspiracy is, how unlikely it is that the players would agree to their part in the conspiracy, and how unlikely it is that the various participants would keep their silence to their deaths. I think these are holistic questions that haven’t been well-addressed by S/R theorists.

If I remember right, I responded to Hamer on his post. It might be on the thread marg quoted. But from what I remember, most of Hamer's arguments boil down to what S/R critics constantly do--painting S/R in the worst possible terms (as in basically building strawmen) as though that is how S/R has to be.

In my opinion the weakest two elements of S/R are

1. It requires a second Spalding ms that is no longer extant
2. It requires Smith and Rigdon to have met and worked together secretly before December 1830

Those are the two weakest requirements of S/R and, admittedly, to a lot of folks (who have signed on to a competing Book of Mormon production theory) those elements sound far-fetched. By comparison to the weak spots in the competing theories, I don't think so.

For example, as we've learned about Dan's take on Book of Mormon production which we've been calling S/A (Smith-Alone), he theorizes that a KJVB was used but that it's use would not have raised red flags for honest dupes like Oliver Cowdery. I disagree. Dan does this because he wants to believe the Book of Mormon witnesses most of the time and he doesn't want to allow for any plagiarism other than the KJVB. The tightrope Dan is forced to walk because of this is a weak spot in my opinion, comparable to those of S/R.

From your perspective and Glenn's (which we've been calling S/D for Smith-Divine) there are several weak spots, that, again in my opinion, end up causing S/D to fare much worse than S/R (Spalding/Rigdon).

So when we compare weak spots in each of the main three Book of Mormon production theories, at least in my opinion, S/R fares no worse than the competitors and, again in my opinion, comes out on top in terms of actual explanatory power. The main S/R weak spots have good answers... for example, there is good reason a second Spalding ms does not exist since Joseph Smith & Co. would not have wanted a copy to survive. By comparison, there really is not a very good reason why the hypothesized plates of S/D don't exist and there is really no good evidence that they ever did (whereas with our missing manuscript, we know that our writer was a real person who actually wrote something in a real language. We cannot say the same for Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, etc.)

Here’s an excerpt:


Meanwhile, Sidney had become a Campbellite preacher and moved to Ohio’s Western Reserve (not far from the Conneaut home of the long-deceased Solomon). Sidney realized that for his plan to work he couldn’t possibly publish the manuscript himself. That would be too easy. And it would spoil the fun of having fellow conspirators with whom to split his eventual proceeds and with whom to share his most dangerous secrets.

Of course, this is tongue in cheek but let's deal with it seriously.... Hamer may be correct that Sidney had an idea that he could not publish the work himself. To my way of thinking, Rigdon believed he had come across an authentic translation of an ancient manuscript that told real stories of the ancient inhabitants of this continent. I suspect that Rigdon truly believed God had placed it in his care after the translator (Solomon Spalding) had passed away. But since he had borrowed the manuscript without permission of it's author or the author's family (in fact he may not even have known who the author was), he was apparently not interested in or not able to seek permission. My take on Sidney does indeed require him to be rather fanatical and delusional, but, fortunately, he accommodates that element of our theory quite well.

His mind immediately turned to Joseph Smith Jr. — just 250 miles away in Palmyra, New York. How had Sidney met Joseph or heard of him? It doesn’t really matter.

Actually I don't think his mind immediately turned to Joseph Smith. I suspect he was looking for a young man to help him before he hit on Smith. At least he seems to have tested the waters with Darwin Atwater before Smith. What is interesting, however, is that Joseph Smith's itinerary has sufficient holes in it to provide opportunity. Dale sees a good opportunity in the summer of 1826. Do you happen to know Joseph's whereabouts during summer-fall 1826?

Why would he immediately know that the young man would be the perfect person to pretend to create the manuscript of a book? And how did he imagine that a poor nobody like Joseph could ever get it published?
Ultimately, we have to realize that this is the kind of visionary Sidney was. Not only could Sidney imagine things that no one else would; the fact that these things ultimately succeeded proved his brilliance.

Well, creative writing certainly, on John's part, but not quite accurate. Sidney's "brilliance" was far overshadowed by Joseph Smith's. Even Dan would go along with that. Joseph Smith's cunning is the primary reason we are having this discussion today. The Mormon phenomenon succeeded primarily because of Joseph Smith's charisma and whit and in spite of Sidney's delusions of grandeur. While Sidney may have got the ball rolling, Smith picked it up and ran with it. Things ultimately did not work out according to Rigdon's plan, although he persisted in trying to realize his dreams. But Sidney seems to have been plagued by more dominant personalities all his life-or at least until it was down to just he and Stephen Post.

However it was that Sidney knew Joseph, it was very fortunate that no other person on earth knew they knew each other. Sidney immediately traveled to Palmyra in secret. Once again extremely careful not to be seen by anyone,

...and there is, of course, testimony that he was seen. Convenient for us conspiracy theorists!

he met with Joseph and the two made a pact. Joseph would pretend to translate Sidney’s manuscript and Joseph would take all the credit and all the rewards.

Here again, is another area where, despite the creativity, John is building a rhetorical strawman rather than postulating something close to reality. I don't believe Sidney thought Joseph merely pretended to translate. We know Smith was attempting to convince people he had real powers to see things in his rock. We even have testimony that gives us clues as to how he did that. I think Sidney was convinced Joseph actually could see things in his rock.

Later they would use the resulting book to found a church, which Joseph would lead and in which Sidney would play an important supporting role.

And yet, as I'm sure you know, someone was attempting to keep the reigns on Joseph at this time, limiting the scope of his powers to Book of Mormon translation. Who are we supposed to believe was attempting to do that? God? Joseph himself?

It was just the kind of deal any successful preacher with a manuscript he believed was priceless would make with an impoverished young man with no prospects.

Sidney made several other secret trips to Palmyra — fortunately always unseen by anyone except Joseph — and ultimately gave Joseph the manuscript.

Well Joseph certainly wasn't billing himself as John is here! In fact, Joseph's conning abilities were good enough to sell Josiah Stowell and Joseph Knight on the notion that this "impoverished young man" had a lot of prospects!

I was wondering what your reactions are to the questions raised by the Hamer thread and the Kay book.

Well that's my immediate reaction. I'd be interested in hearing your responses.

All the best.

[Guest]

Roger,

Comments on your comments to Bruce:

I think marg makes a good point when she asks how one might know when a good conspiracy has occurred? I suppose at some point down the road pride might be expected to compel the truth out of someone who helped pull off a good conspiracy, but unless that happens (which I'm sure it does on rare occasions), how would we know when a good conspiracy has taken place?

On the other hand, I don't consider S/R to be a conspiracy in the sense that S/R's critics typically want to paint it as being. We've touched on that a bit in some of the many pages on this thread.

The problem is that your conspiracy theory has no evidence for it, so there’s no justification for postulating it in the first place. Yours exists solely to explain away conflicting evidence and testimony.

If I remember right, I responded to Hamer on his post. It might be on the thread marg quoted. But from what I remember, most of Hamer's arguments boil down to what S/R critics constantly do--painting S/R in the worst possible terms (as in basically building strawmen) as though that is how S/R has to be.

Hamer described Rigdon’s role in the conspiracy sarcastically, but he raised logical problems, such as Rigdon and Smith meeting before 1830 and keeping the conspiracy secret even when under pressure.

In my opinion the weakest two elements of S/R are

1. It requires a second Spalding ms that is no longer extant
2. It requires Smith and Rigdon to have met and worked together secretly before December 1830

Those are the two weakest requirements of S/R and, admittedly, to a lot of folks (who have signed on to a competing Book of Mormon production theory) those elements sound far-fetched. By comparison to the weak spots in the competing theories, I don't think so.

3. It requires several witnesses to lie about the method of translation
4. It requires an amazing feat of memory by several Spalding witnesses …

For example, as we've learned about Dan's take on Book of Mormon production which we've been calling S/A (Smith-Alone), he theorizes that a KJVB was used but that it's use would not have raised red flags for honest dupes like Oliver Cowdery. I disagree. Dan does this because he wants to believe the Book of Mormon witnesses most of the time and he doesn't want to allow for any plagiarism other than the KJVB. The tightrope Dan is forced to walk because of this is a weak spot in my opinion, comparable to those of S/R.

One of the major weaknesses in your position is the eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith’s translation method. Your efforts to dislodge these multiple independent testimonies failed according to standard historical methodology. Your attempt to smuggle a Rigdon/Spalding MS into the translation room through an argument of silence also failed according to the rules of logic. Your arguments proved to be nothing more than polemics and your claims to wanting to uncover historical truth disingenuous.

From your perspective and Glenn's (which we've been calling S/D for Smith-Divine) there are several weak spots, that, again in my opinion, end up causing S/D to fare much worse than S/R (Spalding/Rigdon).

Not if the Spalding theory fails on secular terms.

So when we compare weak spots in each of the main three Book of Mormon production theories, at least in my opinion, S/R fares no worse than the competitors and, again in my opinion, comes out on top in terms of actual explanatory power.

The conspiracy theory explains nothing—it only maintains an already tenuous theory, which also has no explanatory power. The only thing it can claim to explain is how an ignorant Joseph Smith could have produced the Book of Mormon, which is false assumption.

The main S/R weak spots have good answers... for example, there is good reason a second Spalding ms does not exist since Joseph Smith & Co. would not have wanted a copy to survive.

This is how the conspiracy theory feeds itself. No evidence is evidence of a successful conspiracy. However, the problem of a missing MS is more complex, because you have to explain why Hurlbut would hand over his evidence to the Mormons. That’s where the theory gets extremely convoluted and ad hoc in its refusal to admit counter evidence.

By comparison, there really is not a very good reason why the hypothesized plates of S/D don't exist and there is really no good evidence that they ever did (whereas with our missing manuscript, we know that our writer was a real person who actually wrote something in a real language. We cannot say the same for Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, etc.)

This is a fallacious argument that is so silly as to not require response. It in no way justifies or excuses your lack of evidence.

Of course, this is tongue in cheek but let's deal with it seriously.... Hamer may be correct that Sidney had an idea that he could not publish the work himself. To my way of thinking, Rigdon believed he had come across an authentic translation of an ancient manuscript that told real stories of the ancient inhabitants of this continent. I suspect that Rigdon truly believed God had placed it in his care after the translator (Solomon Spalding) had passed away. But since he had borrowed the manuscript without permission of it's author or the author's family (in fact he may not even have known who the author was), he was apparently not interested in or not able to seek permission. My take on Sidney does indeed require him to be rather fanatical and delusional, but, fortunately, he accommodates that element of our theory quite well.

This ad hoc interpretation is so far out that it needs no response. It’s ridiculous on its face. Of course a case can be made that Rigdon was a religious eccentric, but that’s irrelevant to establishing your wild speculation. Nor does it answer Hamer’s observation that there was no need for Rigdon to spin an elaborate conspiracy, especially with an unknown treasure digger in another state.

Actually I don't think his mind immediately turned to Joseph Smith. I suspect he was looking for a young man to help him before he hit on Smith. At least he seems to have tested the waters with Darwin Atwater before Smith. What is interesting, however, is that Joseph Smith's itinerary has sufficient holes in it to provide opportunity. Dale sees a good opportunity in the summer of 1826. Do you happen to know Joseph's whereabouts during summer-fall 1826?

This kind of argument is totally vacuous. It means nothing. There is no expectation that Joseph Smith’s every move can be known. You are attempting to shift the burden to those who oppose your theory. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith knew Rigdon let alone traveled to Ohio. In the fall of 1826, Willard Chase was trying to get his stone from Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith apparently took Samuel Lawrence to search for treasure along the banks of the Susquehanna River and to visit Harmony, PA.

Well, creative writing certainly, on John's part, but not quite accurate. Sidney's "brilliance" was far overshadowed by Joseph Smith's. Even Dan would go along with that. Joseph Smith's cunning is the primary reason we are having this discussion today. The Mormon phenomenon succeeded primarily because of Joseph Smith's charisma and whit and in spite of Sidney's delusions of grandeur. While Sidney may have got the ball rolling, Smith picked it up and ran with it. Things ultimately did not work out according to Rigdon's plan, although he persisted in trying to realize his dreams. But Sidney seems to have been plagued by more dominant personalities all his life-or at least until it was down to just he and Stephen Post.

This still doesn’t answer Hamer’s question: “And how did he imagine that a poor nobody like Joseph could ever get it published?” It seems Rigdon’s “delusions of grandeur” would have prevented his looking for help, especially in the most unlikely of places. How likely is it that Rigdon would have allowed Joseph Smith to push him aside? Rigdon became the devoted follower of Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith continued to dictate texts in the same manner he had done the Book of Mormon with no apparent help from Rigdon.

However it was that Sidney knew Joseph, it was very fortunate that no other person on earth knew they knew each other. Sidney immediately traveled to Palmyra in secret. Once again extremely careful not to be seen by anyone,

...and there is, of course, testimony that he was seen. Convenient for us conspiracy theorists![/quote]

Of course, this evidence was prodded out of Lorenzo Saunders by the conspiracy theorist themselves. Saunders’ late testimony is not reliable, and was contradicted by Katharine Smith. More likely, Saunders is conflating Rigdon’s appearance in Palmyra in December 1830 with a visit by a “well dressed man” in 1827, when we know that both Joseph Knight and Josiah Stowell were visiting the Smiths, both of whom were well-to-do strangers.

he met with Joseph and the two made a pact. Joseph would pretend to translate Sidney’s manuscript and Joseph would take all the credit and all the rewards.

Here again, is another area where, despite the creativity, John is building a rhetorical strawman rather than postulating something close to reality. I don't believe Sidney thought Joseph merely pretended to translate. We know Smith was attempting to convince people he had real powers to see things in his rock. We even have testimony that gives us clues as to how he did that. I think Sidney was convinced Joseph actually could see things in his rock.

Despite your unique interpretation, Hamer is representing the majority of Spalding advocates. You can’t use your private theory to accuse Hamer of building a strawman. Regardless, your suggestion makes absolutely no sense. Your theory is not even “lose to reality.” Why would Rigdon seek out Joseph Smith to really translate what he thought was already translated? Where would Rigdon get the idea that a seer stone used to locate treasure could also be used to translate books not even present? Where did Rigdon get the idea that there was more to be discovered than what he already had in MS form? Why would he ask a real seer to lie? This is pure fantasy, and implausible at that.

Later they would use the resulting book to found a church, which Joseph would lead and in which Sidney would play an important supporting role.

And yet, as I'm sure you know, someone was attempting to keep the reigns on Joseph at this time, limiting the scope of his powers to Book of Mormon translation. Who are we supposed to believe was attempting to do that? God? Joseph himself?

This gets involved, but if you had read my book you would know that both the concepts of church and reformation/restoration came gradually as the translation proceeded. It had nothing to do with reigning in Joseph Smith. The part of the revelation you are apparently alluding to—that Joseph Smith “pretend to no other gift” besides translating—is related to not having power to show Harris the plates (D&C 5). You are seeing sinister things where there are none, which is one of Shermer’s points quoted above. However, note that you didn’t answer Hamer’s observation about Rigdon being pushed aside by Joseph Smith.

It was just the kind of deal any successful preacher with a manuscript he believed was priceless would make with an impoverished young man with no prospects.

Sidney made several other secret trips to Palmyra — fortunately always unseen by anyone except Joseph — and ultimately gave Joseph the manuscript.

Well Joseph certainly wasn't billing himself as John is here! In fact, Joseph's conning abilities were good enough to sell Josiah Stowell and Joseph Knight on the notion that this "impoverished young man" had a lot of prospects!

Hamer is describing the unlikely financial and unnecessary partnership between Rigdon and Smith. Both Stowell and Knight believed Joseph Smith could find treasures, which made partnership with Smith seem necessary. Rigdon would have had no need to share wealth with Joseph Smith.

[_Roger]

Dan:

As I mentioned to Bruce your posts have become predictable, although, even amid all the bloviating you still manage to make a few interesting observations and ask some relevant questions. I would respond, but at this point I think I will wait to see if Bruce responds or if his contribution was merely a hit and run.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan:

As I mentioned to Bruce your posts have become predictable, although, even amid all the bloviating you still manage to make a few interesting observations and ask some relevant questions. I would respond, but at this point I think I will wait to see if Bruce responds or if his contribution was merely a hit and run.

Roger,

My discourse might be forceful and direct, but it’s not “bloviating”—i.e., to speak at length in a pompous, boastful, self-aggrandizing way. Where do you get that?

[_Roger]

I'm still waiting to see if Bruce will respond, so I don't want to move the discussion along too much without giving him ample opportunity, however, this post by Dan addresses a key concern raised by Bruce (and articulated by John Hamer) so I will respond to it:

How would one know about all the good conspiracies which are successful and not found out? How would one determine what percentage of real conspiracies are found out versus one's not found out?

Seems logical enough, but this is one of those circular arguments when used to defend a conspiracy theory. The lack of evidence for conspiracy isn’t proof for the conspiracy.

Shermer’s 4th point: “The more people involved in the conspiracy, the less likely they will all be able to keep silent about their secret goings-on.” Bruce (and John Hamer) mentions four conspirators (Spalding-Rigdon-Smith-Pratt-Whitmer), but by my tally there are a lot more conspirators with Joseph Smith:

Sidney Rigdon – stole MS from printer’s office and rewrote it before passing it to Joseph Smith and pretended to be converted by Parley P. Pratt
Emma Smith – lied about translation
Martin Harris – lied about translation
Oliver Cowdery – lied about translation
David Whitmer – lied about translation
Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery – lied about translation
Two unknown scribes (probably Whitmers) – scribes who knew truth about translation, but kept quiet
Whitmer family – who possibly knew truth about translation

Parley P. Pratt – who pretended to convert Rigdon in Ohio

Katharine Smith Salisbury – who lied about not seeing Rigdon at her family’s residence in Manchester, NY, in 1827, before his pretended conversion
Smith family – who kept Rigdon’s pre-1830 contacts with Joseph Smith a secret

So in order to make S/R appear as implausible as possible, Dan presents a list of "conspirators" who would have to have kept quiet if S/R is true. But is Dan's list even remotely realistic? Turns out, it is not. Let's take a look....

Sidney Rigdon – stole MS from printer’s office and rewrote it before passing it to Joseph Smith and pretended to be converted by Parley P. Pratt

Sidney Rigdon is the obvious first choice. Rigdon is, after all, the "R" in S/R. As I said earlier, S/R does indeed require some specific (and rather peculiar) traits for Rigdon, but, fortunately, he accommodates us. My version of Rigdon--which I think nicely conforms to what is known about the man--has him as an usually passionate, religious fanatic, with the added caveat that his early head injury also brought about delusions and erratic behavior. In short we cannot simply view Rigdon as a rational adult. Doing so will skew any analysis. Dan is correct, however, in that S/R necessarily postulates a feigned conversion by Rigdon. But once again he nicely accommodates us in that there is testimony that he faked his conversion to the Baptists.

Emma Smith – lied about translation
Martin Harris – lied about translation
Oliver Cowdery – lied about translation
David Whitmer – lied about translation
Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery – lied about translation
Two unknown scribes (probably Whitmers) – scribes who knew truth about translation, but kept quiet
Whitmer family – who possibly knew truth about translation

It's interesting that Dan lists these people as participants in a conspiracy who would have to have kept quiet about it if S/R is true. It sheds some light on how Dan approaches this.

The fact is S/R would not suggest that any of the above people would have been likely to have known anything about a connection to a Spalding manuscript with the possible exception of Cowdery. So whether or not any of them directly lied about the translation is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of S/R. And yet Dan attempts to present them as co-conspirators in a massive S/R coverup. Given that they were followers of Joseph Smith and publicly professed S/D, it is wildly improbable that any of them would have kept any secrets favorable to S/R. On the other hand, as I have discussed at length on this thread, given their support for S/D, it is quite likely they would have kept silent with any information that they believed could be potentially damaging to S/D and, simultaneously, would have readily proclaimed whatever they believed would enhance it--this is borne out in their testimonies.

Parley P. Pratt – who pretended to convert Rigdon in Ohio

Parley may be a unique case. He might have produced content for the Book of Mormon. He might have participated in pretending to convert Rigdon, or he might have simply followed Rigdon's directions without knowing what was really going on. Evidence is inconclusive.

Katharine Smith Salisbury – who lied about not seeing Rigdon at her family’s residence in Manchester, NY, in 1827, before his pretended conversion

Could you refresh my memory on this, Dan?

Smith family – who kept Rigdon’s pre-1830 contacts with Joseph Smith a secret

Now this is certainly an interesting question. If Rigdon showed up at the Smith residence prior to Dec. 1830, can the silence of the Smith family on that question be considered participation in a cover-up? Is that the only way to view it?

It's interesting because when confronted with this same type of scenario in terms of Bible use, Dan thinks that a Bible being used in Book of Mormon production would not have raised red flags; hence, no one bothers to mention it was used.

I suspect if I try the same thing with Rigdon's alleged presence at the Smith home prior to Dec 1830 he will find multiple ways to protest.

I will grant that the question itself is worthy of consideration. Possible answers could be that Rigdon only interacted with Joseph or that the Smith's indeed intentionally covered up his presense in Palmyra or that Joseph only met with Rigdon in Ohio. There may be other solutions, but, I will certainly consider this question as well as it's implications.

[_Roger]

Dan:

My discourse might be forceful and direct, but it’s not “bloviating”—i.e., to speak at length in a pompous, boastful, self-aggrandizing way. Where do you get that?

I don't want to get bogged down in a tit for tat over irrelevant subjective matters. I used the word bloviating (which is subjective) based on many things you've stated on this thread coupled with your most recent examples such as:

Your arguments proved to be nothing more than polemics and your claims to wanting to uncover historical truth disingenuous.

Here, as you have done repeatedly, you are attempting to make yourself appear wise and distinguished by painting those who disagree with you as nothing more than disingenuous, ignorant "polemicists."

...and...

>This is a fallacious argument that is so silly as to not require response. It in no way justifies or excuses your lack of evidence.

>This ad hoc interpretation is so far out that it needs no response. It’s ridiculous on its face.

>This kind of argument is totally vacuous. It means nothing.

>You are attempting to shift the burden to those who oppose your theory.

>if you had read my book you would know that

While you may not characterize the above as "bloviating" I do--especially given the context that you rarely post without doing this sort of thing. But understand, I am not complaining about it, I am simply calling it for what it is because you asked where I got the idea. I have concluded that such communication is simply a part of who you are and I should expect nothing else.

[_GlennThigpen]

Sidney Rigdon is the obvious first choice. Rigdon is, after all, the "R" in S/R. As I said earlier, S/R does indeed require some specific (and rather peculiar) traits for Rigdon, but, fortunately, he accommodates us. My version of Rigdon--which I think nicely conforms to what is known about the man--has him as an usually passionate, religious fanatic, with the added caveat that his early head injury also brought about delusions and erratic behavior. In short we cannot simply view Rigdon as a rational adult. Doing so will skew any analysis. Dan is correct, however, in that S/R necessarily postulates a feigned conversion by Rigdon. But once again he nicely accommodates us in that there is testimony that he faked his conversion to the Baptists.

Okay, Roger, how about producing evidence that,
(1) That a printing establishment connected to Robert Patterson in Pittsburgh had in its possession the mythical second manuscript.

(2) That Sidney Rigdon had any knowledge of that manuscript.

(3) That Sidney Rigdon either stole or copied that manuscript from which he produced the Book of Mormon.

(4) That Parley P. Pratt was a co-author or had anything at all to do with the process.

I noted in one of your posts that Dan and I have become predictable. And I guess that in a way we have. his post is an example of that predictability. We ask for evidence to support your theory and you provide, "It could have happened this way...."

So now, after all of the caterwauling about the witnesses, lets get to the nuts and bolts of your argument. Let's get a document into Sidney Rigdon's hands with evidence that will make the S/R theory at least plausible. Evidence from primary sources would help. Hearsay evidence that has some corroboration could be evaluated.

Asserting that Sidney could have known that such a document was at such a printing shop, and that he could have had the opportunity to steal or copy it does not rise to the level of evidence.

Glenn