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

[_GlennThigpen]

So, after 24 hours with no response from Glenn, I take it that I can officially declare victory. ; ) (or that Glenn is burying his horse... in which case a moment of silence is in order.)

Sorry to disappoint you Roger, but I have been busy with other pursuits. I'm not going to go into a detailed response to your responses. But a couple of notes.

You cited B. H. Roberts as an expert on the Book of Mormon. However, that part is irrelevant to the discussion although he did make a mistake in his presentation. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is Ishmael's lineage lineage noted. Roberts performs and ad hoc worthy of Roger in asserting that Ismael was of the tribe of Ephraim. He was not an expert on the Spalding witnesses. His ideas did not coincide with what the witnesses said. That is your measuring stick. His, and your explanation still does not comport with the general understanding of the lost tribes theme of the time and place we are talking about.

What you and marge are proposing is not supported by the evidence when you say that Solomon Spalding likely would not have believed any of the story. That is in direct contradiction to Martha Spalding's statement that "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question."

If Solomon had indeed lost his faith, he was very careful not to divulge any hint to his neighbors. I will call on Redick McKee to illustrate this point. In a letter to A.B. Deming which was reproduced in Deming's "Naked Truths" book, McKee said, "In Amity I know he was a moral man, a strict observer of the Sabbath, and an attendant upon public worship; and I had no cause to doubt his being a true believer".

You have produced no evidence in the form of literature of the times nor from the statements of any of the witnesses associated with the Spalding saga that his ideas were any different from the prevailing ideas of the time. You have had ample opportunity to research this and have produced nothing.

Redick McKee's letter to A.B. Deming which was printed in Deming's "Naked Truths" tome went like this, "This romance he afterwards abandoned and set about writing a more probable story founded on the history of the ten lost tribes of Israel."

Also John Spalding, in a statement published in the June 1851 Issue of the Yankee Mahomet said, "Long after this, Nephi, of the tribe of Joseph, emigrated to America with a large portion of the ten tribes whom Shalmanezer led away from Palestine, and scattered among the Midian cities."

This is more evidence that the ideas of the witnesses were thinking along a ten lost tribes theme, and not just one or two. And those witnesses evidenced a viewpoint which was in line with the ideas and literature I have cited.

My evidence comes from the witnesses you rely on to establish a prima facie case for the S/R theory. Portions of two tribes does not equate to ten or large portions of ten tribes.

Whatever rewrites that anyone did to the Book of Mormon, what ever they supposedly put in or took out, would have had to leave the Book of Mormon reading essentially like Spalding's mythical second story in the historical aspects, if the witnesses are to be believed. But it is not there. Especially the Bering Straits portion.

It does not matter whether the witnesses were lying, or were just conflating several stories together. There is no lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon and no migration via the Bering Straits. As I noted before, this is one of the few things that can actually be checked out as to their statements, and it fails rather miserably.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Glenn and Roger,

My advice is to forget about why B. H. Roberts wrote his examination of the Book of Mormon. His intentions are irrelevant. Frankly, I don’t care what Roberts said about VOH—I can read it for myself. Only bone-headed critics insist that Joseph Smith had to have read Ethan Smith’s book, which plays right into the apologist’s hands. More sophisticated critics use this source as a tool for reconstructing the mind-set of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

From your post to Glenn:

I'm still having a hard time understanding your issue with the "lost tribes". Your argument is that the majority of people back in 1833 when the S/R witnesses were questioned would have accepted the lost tribes story and one which Ethan Smith had written about in which Am. Ind are descendents from the exiled Israeli tribes in 720 B.C. by Assyrians. But they are descendants of all the tribes exiled from then and traveled east to Bering str and over to America. [\quote]

Have you heard the saying—“Seek to understand before being understood”? I wouldn’t use the word “majority”; it’s probably more accurate to say it was a view widely known or prevalent when the Book of Mormon appeared.

So according to you Spalding would have read a similar scenario to Ethan Smith's and accepted it as would have the majority of people living in Spalding and J. Smith's day...and that would be a religious view based upon some Biblical passages in Esdras.

I've pointed out to you a couple of things, Spalding wasn't religious. Also just because some fanatical religious individuals wrote books interpreting the Bible that it reveals or prophecies that Am. Ind were descendants of exiled Israeli tribes in 720 B.C. doesn't mean the majority of people in the day of the writers, took an interest or bought into those religious fanatics book's theory. As it was Morse's geography at the time ..didn't propose this religious interpretation which you say everyone would have accepted.

A non-believer in the Bible would not necessarily reject the historical parts in that book or the Apocrypha. Like Jefferson and other deists, they would be more apt to reject the miracles. But I think you have given a reason why Spalding would not have chosen the ten tribe theory in any form and why he did write about Asians and Romans instead. If he discussed the ten tribe theory with the witnesses, it may have been in contrast to his theory. The author of the Book of Mormon was religious and chose to give a variation on the most prevalent theological explanation at that time.

A more important issue is what the witnesses meant by “lost tribes”—whether or not their memories are accurate—and what they could reasonably expect their readers to understand by that phrase. They only way to know that is to check how that term was used in the literature at the time and assign a probable meaning. Anything else is special pleading and mind reading.

But my question to you which I don't understand is, if everyone as you say bought into this religious interpretation of the Bible and thought that Am. Ind were descendants of all 10 lost tribes...then why weren't the writer/writers consistent with this theory? Let's say Smith wrote the Book of Mormon as per the Smith alone theory ..Smith is religious or at least one assumes he accepts the Bible is true why wouldn't he buy into this lost tribes theory you say everyone accepted and then why wouldn't he carry that forward in the Book of Mormon?

Remember my mentioning the passage in Ether 2:5—“And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been.” That’s a dead give away that the author of the Book of Mormon knows about the Esdras passage. 2 Esdras 13:41, which says the ten tribes traveled to a far country “where never mankind dwelt.” Ethan Smith interpreted this passage as a reference to America, “a land where no man dwelt since the flood” (p. 75). Ethan rejected another theological theory for Indian origins, but the Book of Mormon’s author tried to harmonize the two—hence, he could not have the Indians be of the ten tribes. However, he could still tap into the same evidences his contemporaries (like James Adair, Elias Boudinot, and Ethan Smith) used to prove Hebrew origin of the Indians—mostly from parallels between North American Indian words and Hebrew.

Why would the writers even put into the story that Lehi is a descendent of a Manasseh tribes which is a lost tribe..if that goes against the popular lost tribe theory of the day? How is it that the writer/writers of the Book of Mormon can go against the popular theory which you say everyone would have accepted but not Spalding or anyone else he knew?

Lehi discovered from the brass plates that he was a descendant of Joseph, and then goes discusses a prophecy of ancient Joseph about a great latter-day prophet named Joseph, who was named after his father. Do you want any more reason than that?

Why couldn’t Spalding do the same thing as the Book of Mormon’s author? Spalding wouldn’t have tried to harmonize the tower of Babel theory with the ten tribe theory. These were the two leading theological theories, and you have argued yourself that Spalding wasn’t theological.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

This goes back to the testimony of unreliable witnesses. You yourself reject the notion that Joseph actually read words from a stone by coming up with some other explanation you think is more plausible, ie. that Smith had a great imagination. So your theory comes up with an ad hoc response--to explain away a portion of the testimony of the very witnesses you want to think of as being honest! The fact is, unreliable testimony does not constitute "adverse evidence."

Let me try again. First, are you denying that you use ad hocs or are you saying it’s OK since I do it too? If the latter is the case, then you are using an ad hominem called tu quoque (i.e., “you too”), or an appeal to hypocrisy. This approach doesn’t free you of the obligation to defend your position and possibly acknowledge your own logical errors.

Second, as Mikwut said, giving a naturalistic response to a supernatural claim is not ad hoc. This should be obvious to you. The burden is on those asserting the supernatural explanation, and their failure makes their theory ad hoc. If the phenomenon can be explained naturalistically, then the supernatural theory is an unnecessary theory because it requires more assumptions to maintain.

My position is that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon with head in hat, which is supported by the witnesses, his inability to restore the lost MS, and his ability to so in other situations for his revelations. This is not ad hoc. So far, you have attempted sidestep the evidence for the witnesses by attacking them as interested, deluded, or liars—none of which you have supported. You also tried to explain Joseph Smith’s inability to restored the lost MS by speculating that he added to S/R MS himself along the way—which is another ad hoc escape.

Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No? If not, on what basis do you reject it? And would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why not? It's the same Rigdon!

Historians take one issue at a time. I have quoted Gottschalk’s historical primer several times on this. Historians don’t operate like attorneys and polemicists, who want to impeach testimony by impugning the character of the witness. Each element of the testimony is handled separately. In this instance, you have left Rigdon’s early denials and traveled far into the future where Rigdon evidently had a revelation about the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. You apparently assume he is lying about this, and therefore can’t be trusted on anything he said during his entire life. That’s how a polemicist operates to win an argument and escape acknowledging his use of ad hoc escapes against adverse evidence. Why, in your mind, does Rigdon’s getting revelation decades later prove he lied when he denied is authorship of the Book of Mormon? Why do you not accept Pratt’s testimony that he was the one who brought the Mormon gospel to Rigdon? Rigdon’s and Pratt’s denials ARE adverse evidence against your theory, and your response that they were conspirators is ad hoc.

No it is not, Dan, and I won't let you get away with proclaiming that it is, as though your proclamation makes it so. It is extremely relevant because it directly confronts the fallacy of your logic which claims that I should consider the word of Sidney Rigdon to be "adverse evidence" to the S/R theory. I absolutely do not consider the word of a man who lies by claiming he speaks for God to be adverse evidence. On the contrary, I should almost take the denials of such an individual as affirmation that I'm on the right track.

How can you talk about “the fallacy of [my] logic” when we about to on to the third level of your illogic? First, your assumption that Rigdon has to be lying when it comes to his revelation about the sealed plates is totally and utterly absurd and illogical. It just proves you are out of your depth and an embarrassment to skeptics everywhere.

It is as honest as it gets Dan, and I'm tired of you attempting to paint me as disingenuous. It has lost it's zing and, frankly, it's arrogant of you and rude. The fact of the matter is that you cannot directly confront the logic because you can see it's validity so you resort to calling me a dishonest polemicist. That's an ad hom fallacy, Dan. It's a diversion.

My pointing out your fallacious argument (which was an ad hominem circumstantial or accusation of hypocrisy) is not an ad hominem but rather another ad hominem from you. This is what I said:

Nevertheless, rather than acknowledging the use of ad hoc response to adverse evidence, you are trying to argue that my position is contradictory or hypocritical. This is not an honest response, but a polemical ad hominem maneuver.

As I said at the beginning, you are trying to escape the ad hoc label by accusing me of hypocrisy, which isn’t true, but in doing so you have tried to deflect criticism using ad hominem. I would strongly suggest that you study the informal fallacies—it will not only improve your arguments but do us all a great favor by not wasting our time.

The fact is, you can't claim that the word of Sidney Rigdon constitutes "adverse evidence" for my theory but the word of the same man does not constitute "adverse evidence" for yours. A child could see the truth in this. And a child could note that you utterly ignored the specific questions I asked and instead merely resorted to name-calling.

The only facts here are that Rigdon denied your theory and decades later got what he believed to be a revelation. My theory has no problem with that—yours however still needs help. I find it ironic how you whine about name calling and in the same breath imply I’m more ignorant than a child. What you think seems so plain only does so because you have given yourself permission to ignore the rules of logic. While you might think your arguments have the support of an ignorant child, I have just as much confidence that anyone acquainted with logic and reason will see your arguments for what they are—disingenuous polemics. Just my opinion!

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Sorry to disappoint you Roger, but I have been busy with other pursuits. I'm not going to go into a detailed response to your responses. But a couple of notes.

Sorry Glenn, you're too late. Victory has been declared. Peace and harmony have been restored to the galaxy.

You cited B. H. Roberts as an expert on the Book of Mormon. However, that part is irrelevant to the discussion although he did make a mistake in his presentation. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is Ishmael's lineage lineage noted. Roberts performs and ad hoc worthy of Roger in asserting that Ismael was of the tribe of Ephraim.

That's a pretty bold assertion on your part. I'd be careful. Regardless, as you concede, B. H. Roberts was indeed an expert on the Book of Mormon and you are therefore incorrect to assert that is irrelevant. On the contrary, it is quite relevant.

He was not an expert on the Spalding witnesses.

Correct, although he was certainly aware of their claims.

His ideas did not coincide with what the witnesses said.

Nor have I ever asserted as much! On the contrary, he was as anti-S/R as you are! And as firm a believer in and defender of the Book of Mormon as you are! In fact, more so! All the more reason for you to come to grips with what he did say.

That is your measuring stick.

No it isn't. That's ridiculous.

His, and your explanation still does not comport with the general understanding of the lost tribes theme of the time and place we are talking about.

What are you talking about? Just a few posts back you were claiming Roberts for your Book of Mormon-believers team! Now you have him on mine? Here's what you wrote:

Roberts accurately predicted the reductionist methods that critics would use draw parallels to the View of the Hebrews. Reductionist theories are inaccurate, no matter who uses them, including B. H. Roberts.

And that was after posting the Roberts quote where he's defending his faith in the BOM--on the basis of his testimony. Then you went on to write:

B.H. Roberts was not one of those witnesses. But he did very well show how critics would contort the normally accepted meaning of something and ignore what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself to promote their agenda.

...which, of course, he did nothing of the kind. But it serves your purpose to present Roberts as a faithful LDS who never lost his faith in Mormonism but was a really good devil's advocate. And yet, at the same time, you understand that that is a double-edged sword since he was so good he stumped the brethren!

The fact is that Roberts was much closer to the actual time frame in question than either you or me--being only one generation removed. He had been studying the Book of Mormon all his life. And he also understood very well what was meant by "lost tribes" and its significance to the plot of the Book of Mormon. You can't get around that, Glenn. And that point takes virtually all the wind out of your sails. I have stated it several times and you either still don't get it or you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.

What you and marge are proposing is not supported by the evidence when you say that Solomon Spalding likely would not have believed any of the story. That is in direct contradiction to Martha Spalding's statement that "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question."

Nonsense. In the first place you're mischaracterizing what we have said. Spalding himself says that he has come to reject religion. That's not us saying that, that is Spalding saying that. But at the same time, he also says he's more than willing to let believers remain believers and he also sees a lot of good in religious values. So it's not a black and white, either/or question. In the second place, there is a difference between accepting religion and the notion "that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel." Even a hard core atheist (which Spalding was not) could have agreed with that. And in the third place, the witnesses tell us that the religious material in the Book of Mormon did not come from Spalding. So, once again, your argument simply falls flat on its face.

If Solomon had indeed lost his faith, he was very careful not to divulge any hint to his neighbors. I will call on Redick McKee to illustrate this point. In a letter to A.B. Deming which was reproduced in Deming's "Naked Truths" book, McKee said, "In Amity I know he was a moral man, a strict observer of the Sabbath, and an attendant upon public worship; and I had no cause to doubt his being a true believer".

So? I agree. He hid it well.

You have produced no evidence in the form of literature of the times nor from the statements of any of the witnesses associated with the Spalding saga that his ideas were any different from the prevailing ideas of the time. You have had ample opportunity to research this and have produced nothing.

I've already shown why there is no need to do that, yet you keep demanding it. The answer hasn't changed, Glenn. There is no need. No one (except you) is arguing that Spalding's ideas about the lost tribes had to be radically different from those of his peers.

Redick McKee's letter to A.B. Deming which was printed in Deming's "Naked Truths" tome went like this, "This romance he afterwards abandoned and set about writing a more probable story founded on the history of the ten lost tribes of Israel."

Correct. And there is nothing in McKee's statement that is out of sync with what either marg or I have been saying. Also, please note McKee's phraseology: "founded on." That's exactly what marg and I have been suggesting. That doesn't mean that Spalding's narrative had to have been--or even included--a primer on the prevailing lost tribes thesis. All it means is that he used the the thesis as a backdrop for his fictional account.

Also John Spalding, in a statement published in the June 1851 Issue of the Yankee Mahomet said, "Long after this, Nephi, of the tribe of Joseph, emigrated to America with a large portion of the ten tribes whom Shalmanezer led away from Palestine, and scattered among the Midian cities."

This is more evidence that the ideas of the witnesses were thinking along a ten lost tribes theme, and not just one or two. And those witnesses evidenced a viewpoint which was in line with the ideas and literature I have cited.

Fine. No problem. They are describing Spalding's manuscript. And they certainly don't get that from MSCC! And as you have pointed out, they also don't get that detail from the Book of Mormon. Hence, as I have been suggesting since page 15, they are either lying or telling the truth. And there are good reasons to conclude they are telling the truth. You can't blame that assertion on Hurlbut! He was long out of the picture when John made that assertion. So where did it come from? Either John's memory had been jogged or he was making it up. But if so, then it was a pretty stupid thing to make up if one was attempting to claim a similarity to the Book of Mormon, wasn't it?! So he was either really stupid, not knowing what was actually in the Book of Mormon and thinking his made up assertion established a similarity that wasn't really there--OR--he was simply accurately describing what was in his brother's fictional account. That's what it boils down to.

So what you have actually (but possibly unwittingly) established here is that group memory confabulation, as presented by Brodie and defended by Dan and Mikwut, is out of the question.

Like the others, John Spalding was either lying or accurately describing a no longer extant Spalding manuscript.

My evidence comes from the witnesses you rely on to establish a prima facie case for the S/R theory. Portions of two tribes does not equate to ten or large portions of ten tribes.

Nor does it have to, as B. H. Roberts astutely points out.

Whatever rewrites that anyone did to the Book of Mormon, what ever they supposedly put in or took out, would have had to leave the Book of Mormon reading essentially like Spalding's mythical second story in the historical aspects, if the witnesses are to be believed. But it is not there. Especially the Bering Straits portion.

No Glenn. That's another area where your whole argument loses much needed punch. It would only have to do that if the witnesses had claimed the Book of Mormon was a verbatim copy of Spalding's work. None of them ever do that. The most they claim is that some of it is nearly verbatim. You're really, really trying to milk that for all its worth, but the milk has run dry.

It does not matter whether the witnesses were lying, or were just conflating several stories together.

Actually it makes all the difference in the world. If they are lying, then there is no reason to believe there was ever any second manuscript.

There is no lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon and no migration via the Bering Straits.

And as B. H. points out, nor does there have to be. It is a matter "of slight importance."

As I noted before, this is one of the few things that can actually be checked out as to their statements, and it fails rather miserably.

The only thing that has failed miserably is your attempt to try to ride a dead horse.

Glenn, I appreciate that you've spent some time on this, researching and thinking it through. I commend that. But the facts are simply not there to support you. Roberts is correct to point out that:

The racial traits--language, traditions, customs, physical characteristics and the like--that would tend to prove the American race to be the "ten lost tribes," would be just as available to prove that they were of Israel through families of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah. And hence I say the variations from being the "ten lost tribes," to being descendants from these three tribes of the same people, is of slight importance.

This is why Roberts was concerned (as you should be) that the Book of Mormon may have borrowed ideas from View of the Hebrews. If your argument is correct, then the brethren could have simply pointed out your argument to B. H. and dismissed it as nonsense on that basis. None of them did so. And B. H. himself explains why your lost tribes approach just doesn't work in the quote I provided. The issue you are trying to make into a massive contradiction, is, in reality, of slight importance.

But then adding to that, I also have the fact that one of your witnesses lost the first draft--the only hard evidence that might have supported (or refuted) the case you are trying to make. It's not the fault of my witnesses that your's lost the evidence you need to support your thesis. And then, adding more to that, is the fact that your witnesses are forced to acknowledge that they changed the story! Nothing you have asserted changes any of that.

[_Roger]

Dan:

This goes back to the testimony of unreliable witnesses. You yourself reject the notion that Joseph actually read words from a stone by coming up with some other explanation you think is more plausible, ie. that Smith had a great imagination. So your theory comes up with an ad hoc response--to explain away a portion of the testimony of the very witnesses you want to think of as being honest! The fact is, unreliable testimony does not constitute "adverse evidence."

Let me try again. First, are you denying that you use ad hocs or are you saying it’s OK since I do it too?

Neither. I am saying that there is something wrong with the way you use "ad hoc" because you get to choose what is defined as "ad hoc" and what is not. Not surprisingly, you define testimony that falls in line with your theory as being adverse evidence to S/R which then requires an "ad hoc" response; whereas you do not define additional testimony from the same witness as being adverse evidence to your theory which then relieves you of any obligation to respond in an ad hoc manner. If you want to call that hypocrisy, fine. You might know better than me when it comes to your reasoning. I simply call it selective characterization of testimony which not coincidentally favors your theory.

If the latter is the case, then you are using an ad hominem called tu quoque (i.e., “you too”), or an appeal to hypocrisy.

No. I'm not. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your approach and then rejecting your approach entirely as should be clearly evidenced by my assertion that: "The fact is, unreliable testimony does not constitute 'adverse evidence.'" This is the serious problem underlying your entire approach. Under your thesis, everything hinges on the testimony of witnesses who are not reliable witnesses.

This approach doesn’t free you of the obligation to defend your position and possibly acknowledge your own logical errors.

Agreed. But in this case we're establishing the fact that your inconsistent approach does not obligate me to agree that S/R responds in an ad hoc manner. The reality is that it has no obligation to treat the testimony of an unreliable witness as being adverse evidence in the first place. If the word of Sidney Rigdon is not adverse evidence, then there is no need for an ad hoc response to it.

Second, as Mikwut said, giving a naturalistic response to a supernatural claim is not ad hoc. This should be obvious to you.

It is.

The burden is on those asserting the supernatural explanation, and their failure makes their theory ad hoc. If the phenomenon can be explained naturalistically, then the supernatural theory is an unnecessary theory because it requires more assumptions to maintain.

Agreed. But your position relies on exactly the same witnesses. That is the problem for your version of S/A. You merely attempt to extract truthful elements from their testimony. That might be okay if they actually were--as you want to believe of them--incredibly honest, objective reporters who were merely duped by Joseph Smith. But they were not. They were highly biased, highly interested, unobjective devotees of a very charismatic cult leader. And we've established that they were willing to embellish and, yes, even lie, to support the cause. That is the great underlying problem your position is left with.

My position is that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon with head in hat, which is supported by the witnesses,

No one disputes that he did this occasionally, but you can't prove that the entire Book of Mormon was produced in this manner. And even if you could, it would not rule out memorization.

his inability to restore the lost MS, and his ability to so in other situations for his revelations. This is not ad hoc.

I'm not the one attempting to use ad hoc as a means of dismissing an opposing point of view. I am simply pointing out how your own definition of what constitutes an example of an ad hoc response can be used against you when it comes to additional testimony from the very same witness you cite. Therefore, you should come to realize that there might be something wrong in your attempted usage. If the word of Sidney Rigdon constitutes adverse evidence for S/R, then the word of Sidney Rigdon constitutes adverse evidence for S/A. You can't have it both ways. If the word of Sidney Rigdon is not adverse evidence for S/A, then it is also not adverse evidence for S/R.

So far, you have attempted sidestep the evidence for the witnesses by attacking them as interested, deluded, or liars—none of which you have supported.

Nonsense. All of which is abundantly supported. Marg, for example, has clearly demonstrated how Emma was lying in order to bolster the account of Book of Mormon translation and her husband's key role in it. Dale has pointed to a clear example of Oliver's testimony that can't possibly be accepted if S/A is true. David Whitmer & Martin Harris also include content in their testimonies that cannot possibly be true under S/A since the only way to interpret it is that God was correcting errors. The only way you can account for such statements is to claim that these witnesses were 100% fooled by Joseph Smith rather than being willing to embellish for him because they believed in the same cause. That's a fine line to be walking and, in the end, it's irrelevant to what is known... namely that they were followers of Joseph Smith and Mormonism and amply demonstrated a willingness to embellish their testimonies with supernatural elements that cannot possibly be true under S/A. Whether those claims are outright lies or delusions becomes somewhat irrelevant to the fact that either way, they can't be accurate. Therefore, even under your strained attempt to see them in the best possible light, we are forced to recognize that their testimony is unreliable.

You also tried to explain Joseph Smith’s inability to restored the lost MS by speculating that he added to S/R MS himself along the way—which is another ad hoc escape.

No it's not. Marg is correct that you do not seem to really understand ad hoc. That Joseph Smith likely added to a manuscript that Rigdon had supplied him is not an ad hoc response to adverse evidence! The evidence is by no means adverse. The only way to make it adverse would be to assume with no basis (which is what you're doing, not me) that Joseph was copying word for word and then retaining the Rigdon supplied manuscript. There is no warrant for so speculating. And what point would there have been to that? My speculation is certainly as reasonable--in fact based on the Book of Mormon text itself which includes prophecies of Joseph Smith not likely to have been put there by Rigdon, it is more reasonable, and not surprisingly, consistent with the evidence rather than adverse to it!

Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No? If not, on what basis do you reject it? And would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why not? It's the same Rigdon!

Historians take one issue at a time. I have quoted Gottschalk’s historical primer several times on this. Historians don’t operate like attorneys and polemicists, who want to impeach testimony by impugning the character of the witness. Each element of the testimony is handled separately. In this instance, you have left Rigdon’s early denials and traveled far into the future where Rigdon evidently had a revelation about the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon.

Evidently? LOL. Well he sure claimed he did! But then that's the point, isn't it?! Neither of us believe his claims when it comes to knowing what's on the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon plates! However, since his previous testimony supports your thesis, you choose to accept that portion of it and then characterize it as adverse evidence for my theory.

Dan, why can't you just answer the questions? You keep ignoring them and resorting to ad hom by calling me a polemicist.

How about giving it a shot? I'll make it easy for you:

1. Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No?

2. If not, on what basis do you reject it?

3. Would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why or why not?

These are simple questions, Dan.

You apparently assume he is lying about this, and therefore can’t be trusted on anything he said during his entire life. That’s how a polemicist operates to win an argument and escape acknowledging his use of ad hoc escapes against adverse evidence.

Yadda, yadda.... we are well aware (by now) that you want to characterize me as an evil polemicist. I get it. Here, you attempt to do this by characterizing my response to Rigdon while overlooking your own. So.... please answer the above questions and then we can analyze your own response to Rigdon while analyzing mine.

Why, in your mind, does Rigdon’s getting revelation decades later prove he lied when he denied is authorship of the Book of Mormon?

Why, in your mind, does Rigdon's testimony constitute adverse evidence for S/R?

I'll answer your question and we'll see if you answer mine.

First, I do not believe Rigdon got revelation. Ever. Whether he was deluded enough to believe he did is irrelevant. But what it clearly shows is that his testimony is not reliable. There is no way he could know what was on the sealed plates since we agree that the plates never existed in the first place. So it clearly shows that he's willing to present unreliable testimony with regard to his knowledge of content on the Book of Mormon plates.

Under your thesis, you must conclude that Rigdon's claim to know what was on the sealed plates and his presentation of that material is totally unrelated--coincidental--to well known charges that he also knew what was on the rest of them since he helped to create the Book of Mormon.

Under my thesis, the fact that he did so is not coincidental but highly consistent with what we would expect. If Rigdon had contributed content for the Book of Mormon then it is only reasonable that he should claim to be able to produce content for the sealed plates that would serve his purpose. Hence, S/R explains Rigdon's actions better than S/A or S/D.

Furthermore, since the content Rigdon produced served his purpose, it is reasonable to conclude he was intentionally deceiving--much like you so conclude about the self-serving Book of Mormon prophesies of Joseph Smith. If so, then his denials of involvement in Book of Mormon production were likely also self-serving.

Why do you not accept Pratt’s testimony that he was the one who brought the Mormon gospel to Rigdon?

I already explained this. Pratt might have believed he was telling the truth. Or he might have known otherwise.

Rigdon’s and Pratt’s denials ARE adverse evidence against your theory, and your response that they were conspirators is ad hoc.

Wrong. The testimony of both Rigdon and Pratt are not reliable precisely because they were both heavily invested in the cause of Mormonism and had good reasons not to be forthcoming. That fact is more harmful to S/A and S/D than it is to S/R.

No it is not, Dan, and I won't let you get away with proclaiming that it is, as though your proclamation makes it so. It is extremely relevant because it directly confronts the fallacy of your logic which claims that I should consider the word of Sidney Rigdon to be "adverse evidence" to the S/R theory. I absolutely do not consider the word of a man who lies by claiming he speaks for God to be adverse evidence. On the contrary, I should almost take the denials of such an individual as affirmation that I'm on the right track.

How can you talk about “the fallacy of [my] logic” when we about to on to the third level of your illogic?

I am merely pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You can't declare that the word of Sidney Rigdon is adverse evidence to my theory while denying that the word of the same witness is adverse to yours. That is indeed a fallacy. I am saying his word is unreliable in both cases.

First, your assumption that Rigdon has to be lying when it comes to his revelation about the sealed plates is totally and utterly absurd and illogical.

So then you do believe that Rigdon knew and accurately described what was on the sealed plates of the Book of Mormon?

It just proves you are out of your depth and an embarrassment to skeptics everywhere.

Keep piling on the ad homs.

My pointing out your fallacious argument (which was an ad hominem circumstantial or accusation of hypocrisy) is not an ad hominem but rather another ad hominem from you. This is what I said:

Nevertheless, rather than acknowledging the use of ad hoc response to adverse evidence, you are trying to argue that my position is contradictory or hypocritical. This is not an honest response, but a polemical ad hominem maneuver.

As I said at the beginning, you are trying to escape the ad hoc label by accusing me of hypocrisy, which isn’t true, but in doing so you have tried to deflect criticism using ad hominem. I would strongly suggest that you study the informal fallacies—it will not only improve your arguments but do us all a great favor by not wasting our time.

You're back to your old tactics. I have not accused you of hypocrisy, rather, it was you who said:

If the latter is the case, then you are using an ad hominem called tu quoque (i.e., “you too”), or an appeal to hypocrisy.

What you seemingly fail to recognize that I was using your own standard--an example of what you claimed to be an ad hoc response by S/R to a specific witness, namely Sidney Rigdon--to show that the same witness you appeal to presents additional testimony that, under your standard, you would then have to consider adverse to your thesis, which would then require you to come up with an ad hoc response to it.

Therefore, this is your standard we're talking about. Now, after an inconsistency has been pointed out if we were to accept your standard, you're characterizing that observation as an appeal to hypocrisy. So you are the one using the term "hypocrisy" and I am simply saying, well, since you put it that way, you would surely know that better than me since you know your own motivations better than I do. I haven't used the word "hypocrisy" rather I have stated that your approach is inconsistent (selectively so) and therefore not valid.

The more reasonable approach is to consider the testimony of Sidney Rigdon as unreliable in general. We might be able to glean some truth from what he says, but we must take his word with great caution. Therefore, his denials of S/R do not constitute adverse evidence for it.

The fact is, you can't claim that the word of Sidney Rigdon constitutes "adverse evidence" for my theory but the word of the same man does not constitute "adverse evidence" for yours. A child could see the truth in this. And a child could note that you utterly ignored the specific questions I asked and instead merely resorted to name-calling.

The only facts here are that Rigdon denied your theory and decades later got what he believed to be a revelation. My theory has no problem with that—yours however still needs help.

Very clever way of phrasing it! Which is why it is sometimes necessary to ask specific questions in order to clear up ambiguity. Your answers to these questions will do that:

1. Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No?

2. If not, on what basis do you reject it?

3. Would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why or why not?

I find it ironic how you whine about name calling and in the same breath imply I’m more ignorant than a child.

Well I didn't see it that way. My point is that a child could clearly see what you seem to be denying. That doesn't mean you're more ignorant than a child, just that you're apparently being stubborn not to admit what a child could clearly see.

What you think seems so plain only does so because you have given yourself permission to ignore the rules of logic. While you might think your arguments have the support of an ignorant child, I have just as much confidence that anyone acquainted with logic and reason will see your arguments for what they are—disingenuous polemics. Just my opinion!

Which, for some reason, you have felt obligated to express many times now. I think we get the point by now. The fact is, you do this frequently, as anyone can see by reading your responses on this thread, and there is really no need for it.

[_GlennThigpen]

You cited B. H. Roberts as an expert on the Book of Mormon. However, that part is irrelevant to the discussion although he did make a mistake in his presentation. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is Ishmael's lineage lineage noted. Roberts performs and ad hoc worthy of Roger in asserting that Ismael was of the tribe of Ephraim.

That's a pretty bold assertion on your part. I'd be careful. Regardless, as you concede, B. H. Roberts was indeed an expert on the Book of Mormon and you are therefore incorrect to assert that is irrelevant. On the contrary, it is quite relevant.

I made an assertion about Ishmael's lineage not being noted in the Book of Mormon. If you think it is a bold assertion, then prove me wrong. Being an expert on the Book of Mormon does not necessarily make a person right, as you will find if you try to find a link between Ishmael and Ephraim in the Book of Mormon. Whatever Roberts may have believed, that has no impact upon what the witnesses believed and thought.

What you and marge are proposing is not supported by the evidence when you say that Solomon Spalding likely would not have believed any of the story. That is in direct contradiction to Martha Spalding's statement that "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question."

Nonsense. In the first place you're mischaracterizing what we have said. Spalding himself says that he has come to reject religion. That's not us saying that, that is Spalding saying that. But at the same time, he also says he's more than willing to let believers remain believers and he also sees a lot of good in religious values. So it's not a black and white, either/or question. In the second place, there is a difference between accepting religion and the notion "that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel." Even a hard core atheist (which Spalding was not) could have agreed with that. And in the third place, the witnesses tell us that the religious material in the Book of Mormon did not come from Spalding. So, once again, your argument simply falls flat on its face.

Roger, I am not the one saying that Solomon wrote a history about the ten lost tribes migrating to the Americas via the Bering straits and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. And indeed you are bound by what the witnesses said, or else you do not even have the beginnings of a theory. Without them, you have nothing. But with them, you have a mess of contradictions. I produced evidence from the witnesses that show you ad hoc theory to be just that.
You have not quoted any of the witnesses to back up your assertion. Your ideas do not describe what the witnesses said.

Your point about the witnesses saying that the religious material did not come from Spalding is immaterial because they did say that the ten lost tribes material and a migration via the Bering Straits did come from Spalding. Citing B. H. Roberts all day long will not save you from that. The witnesses never said that the migration had anything to do with God directing that migration or that it contained any religious themes at all.

You have yet to produce any statements from anyone of the time and place that reflect you viewpoint. I have produced several statements by witnesses of the time and place as well as the literature of the time that backs up my assertions. Your rhetoric does not equal evidence. You are declaring me wrong based upon nothing.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Neither. I am saying that there is something wrong with the way you use "ad hoc" because you get to choose what is defined as "ad hoc" and what is not. Not surprisingly, you define testimony that falls in line with your theory as being adverse evidence to S/R which then requires an "ad hoc" response; whereas you do not define additional testimony from the same witness as being adverse evidence to your theory which then relieves you of any obligation to respond in an ad hoc manner. If you want to call that hypocrisy, fine. You might know better than me when it comes to your reasoning. I simply call it selective characterization of testimony which not coincidentally favors your theory.

You obviously aren’t following the concepts I have been presenting in this discussion. Marg’s discussions haven’t helped either.

No. I'm not. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your approach and then rejecting your approach entirely as should be clearly evidenced by my assertion that: "The fact is, unreliable testimony does not constitute 'adverse evidence.'" This is the serious problem underlying your entire approach. Under your thesis, everything hinges on the testimony of witnesses who are not reliable witnesses.

You have not proven the testimony is unreliable. We have overcome every attempt by you and Marg, and you haven’t responded to evidence of independent corroboration. Many of your contradictory attempts to explain away the eyewitness testimony were ad hocs. Trick hats, etc.

Agreed. But in this case we're establishing the fact that your inconsistent approach does not obligate me to agree that S/R responds in an ad hoc manner. The reality is that it has no obligation to treat the testimony of an unreliable witness as being adverse evidence in the first place. If the word of Sidney Rigdon is not adverse evidence, then there is no need for an ad hoc response to it.

You never proved the multiple witnesses were unreliable except through ad hocs like Joseph Smith locking the door, using a blanket in a way you couldn’t document, etc. I presented testimony for David Whitmer’s honesty from many who knew him, but you never responded. Rigdon denied his involvement. If that’s not adverse to your thesis, I don’t know what is. But you tried to escape this by ad hominal argument.

Agreed. But your position relies on exactly the same witnesses. That is the problem for your version of S/A. You merely attempt to extract truthful elements from their testimony. That might be okay if they actually were--as you want to believe of them--incredibly honest, objective reporters who were merely duped by Joseph Smith. But they were not. They were highly biased, highly interested, unobjective devotees of a very charismatic cult leader. And we've established that they were willing to embellish and, yes, even lie, to support the cause. That is the great underlying problem your position is left with.

Here you go again. People who have paranormal experiences aren’t disqualified as witnesses. This is another thing you have never addressed but keep repeating. You never established that they were liars—you’ve only asserted it based on the assumption that they lied about their visions and their beliefs about the supernatural.

No one disputes that he did this occasionally, but you can't prove that the entire Book of Mormon was produced in this manner. And even if you could, it would not rule out memorization.

The burden is yours to prove that what came out of his mouth wasn’t his. Without such proof, your assertion is ad hoc.

I'm not the one attempting to use ad hoc as a means of dismissing an opposing point of view. I am simply pointing out how your own definition of what constitutes an example of an ad hoc response can be used against you when it comes to additional testimony from the very same witness you cite. Therefore, you should come to realize that there might be something wrong in your attempted usage. If the word of Sidney Rigdon constitutes adverse evidence for S/R, then the word of Sidney Rigdon constitutes adverse evidence for S/A. You can't have it both ways. If the word of Sidney Rigdon is not adverse evidence for S/A, then it is also not adverse evidence for S/R.

I don’t need to resort to ad hoc escape, because Rigdon’s getting revelation about the sealed plates decades later is irrelevant. You are assuming his claims to revelation are lies. Sorry, you can’t do that.

Nonsense. All of which is abundantly supported. Marg, for example, has clearly demonstrated how Emma was lying in order to bolster the account of Book of Mormon translation and her husband's key role in it. Dale has pointed to a clear example of Oliver's testimony that can't possibly be accepted if S/A is true. David Whitmer & Martin Harris also include content in their testimonies that cannot possibly be true under S/A since the only way to interpret it is that God was correcting errors. The only way you can account for such statements is to claim that these witnesses were 100% fooled by Joseph Smith rather than being willing to embellish for him because they believed in the same cause. That's a fine line to be walking and, in the end, it's irrelevant to what is known... namely that they were followers of Joseph Smith and Mormonism and amply demonstrated a willingness to embellish their testimonies with supernatural elements that cannot possibly be true under S/A. Whether those claims are outright lies or delusions becomes somewhat irrelevant to the fact that either way, they can't be accurate. Therefore, even under your strained attempt to see them in the best possible light, we are forced to recognize that their testimony is unreliable.

Marg, didn’t show that Emma had lied. She tried to make the same assumption you did about people who claim supernatural experiences. Rather, I showed her through the video on magic how easy it is to overstate an observation. Also, neither of you considered the historical situation with the reporting of Emma and the time lapse, which you tried to criticize. Regardless, it does matter if they lied or were dupes. But in saying they were dupes doesn’t make them incapable of making observations. You were fooled by the magic trick, but were nevertheless quite capable of describing it, even if some fine points were inaccurate and your description wouldn’t help anyone solve the mystery.

Evidently? LOL. Well he sure claimed he did! But then that's the point, isn't it?! Neither of us believe his claims when it comes to knowing what's on the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon plates! However, since his previous testimony supports your thesis, you choose to accept that portion of it and then characterize it as adverse evidence for my theory.

The point is that neither is adverse to my thesis.

Dan, why can't you just answer the questions? You keep ignoring them and resorting to ad hom by calling me a polemicist.

Roger, it’s not ad hominal; it’s what you are doing. You aren’t trying to reconstruct the historical situation, but rather you are preoccupied in entrapping your opponent in contradiction—even if you have to bring up events decades later.

How about giving it a shot? I'll make it easy for you:

1. Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No?

I can accept that Rigdon believed he had a revelation. Do I believe he had a revelation? No.

2. If not, on what basis do you reject it?

3. Would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why or why not?

These are simple questions, Dan.

I don’t believe like you that Rigdon lied. My rejection of the supernatural is not ad hoc as I have already explained. None of this makes your position any less ad hoc. This whole line of reasoning is obviously fallacious. Yet you persist in it!?!?!?

Yadda, yadda.... we are well aware (by now) that you want to characterize me as an evil polemicist. I get it. Here, you attempt to do this by characterizing my response to Rigdon while overlooking your own. So.... please answer the above questions and then we can analyze your own response to Rigdon while analyzing mine.

Not “evil” but unrepentant. I can’t tell you how silly you sound in the above paragraph. Really?

Why, in your mind, does Rigdon's testimony constitute adverse evidence for S/R?

I'll answer your question and we'll see if you answer mine.

He denied your theory and there is no evidence connecting him with the Spalding MS or with Joseph Smith before 1830. He also had Pratt for corroborative testimony.

First, I do not believe Rigdon got revelation. Ever. Whether he was deluded enough to believe he did is irrelevant. But what it clearly shows is that his testimony is not reliable. There is no way he could know what was on the sealed plates since we agree that the plates never existed in the first place. So it clearly shows that he's willing to present unreliable testimony with regard to his knowledge of content on the Book of Mormon plates.

Again, Roger, seriously, your assumption expressed above is illogical and silly.

Under your thesis, you must conclude that Rigdon's claim to know what was on the sealed plates and his presentation of that material is totally unrelated--coincidental--to well known charges that he also knew what was on the rest of them since he helped to create the Book of Mormon.

Well, let me put it this way. Some Christians go to church and speak tongues. Totally irrational if you ask me, but I wouldn’t hesitate accepting their testimony in court. Your bias is out of control.

Under my thesis, the fact that he did so is not coincidental but highly consistent with what we would expect. If Rigdon had contributed content for the Book of Mormon then it is only reasonable that he should claim to be able to produce content for the sealed plates that would serve his purpose. Hence, S/R explains Rigdon's actions better than S/A or S/D.

You are making connections that aren’t there. I’m under no obligation to distort earlier history to make it conform to your interpretation of a later event.

Furthermore, since the content Rigdon produced served his purpose, it is reasonable to conclude he was intentionally deceiving--much like you so conclude about the self-serving Book of Mormon prophesies of Joseph Smith. If so, then his denials of involvement in Book of Mormon production were likely also self-serving.

If a revelation is self-serving, it’s a lie? People are only deluded in ways that aren’t self-serving? Where do you get that assumption?

I already explained this. Pratt might have believed he was telling the truth. Or he might have known otherwise.

Which is it? Was part of the conspiracy, or wasn’t he? If he wasn’t, you need to explain how that could be—because that would probably lead you into ad hoc territory.

Wrong. The testimony of both Rigdon and Pratt are not reliable precisely because they were both heavily invested in the cause of Mormonism and had good reasons not to be forthcoming. That fact is more harmful to S/A and S/D than it is to S/R.

Like I said, you are using conspiracy to explain away testimony.

I am merely pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You can't declare that the word of Sidney Rigdon is adverse evidence to my theory while denying that the word of the same witness is adverse to yours. That is indeed a fallacy. I am saying his word is unreliable in both cases.

And I’m saying Rigdon’s word is reliable in both instances. It’s up to your to prove otherwise, but in both instances you offer nothing but unfounded assertion.

So then you do believe that Rigdon knew and accurately described what was on the sealed plates of the Book of Mormon?

No, it has nothing to do with my belief. It’s what Rigdon believed.

Keep piling on the ad homs.

You are an embarrassment to skeptics like me because you rely too heavily on calling people who experience the paranormal liars. I repeat, this is absurd and silly.

You're back to your old tactics. I have not accused you of hypocrisy, rather, it was you who said:

I’m using the language of logic. Hypocrisy means contradiction.

What you seemingly fail to recognize that I was using your own standard--an example of what you claimed to be an ad hoc response by S/R to a specific witness, namely Sidney Rigdon--to show that the same witness you appeal to presents additional testimony that, under your standard, you would then have to consider adverse to your thesis, which would then require you to come up with an ad hoc response to it.

Therefore, this is your standard we're talking about. Now, after an inconsistency has been pointed out if we were to accept your standard, you're characterizing that observation as an appeal to hypocrisy. So you are the one using the term "hypocrisy" and I am simply saying, well, since you put it that way, you would surely know that better than me since you know your own motivations better than I do. I haven't used the word "hypocrisy" rather I have stated that your approach is inconsistent (selectively so) and therefore not valid.

The more reasonable approach is to consider the testimony of Sidney Rigdon as unreliable in general. We might be able to glean some truth from what he says, but we must take his word with great caution. Therefore, his denials of S/R do not constitute adverse evidence for it.

What you need to realize is this tactic is fallacious and not valid.

Very clever way of phrasing it! Which is why it is sometimes necessary to ask specific questions in order to clear up ambiguity. Your answers to these questions will do that:

1. Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No?

2. If not, on what basis do you reject it?

3. Would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why or why not?

I answered these. It should be clear that it’s irrelevant to the issue and a distraction from facing your errors in logic.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, I am not the one saying that Solomon wrote a history about the ten lost tribes migrating to the Americas via the Bering straits and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. And indeed you are bound by what the witnesses said, or else you do not even have the beginnings of a theory. Without them, you have nothing. But with them, you have a mess of contradictions. I produced evidence from the witnesses that show you ad hoc theory to be just that.
You have not quoted any of the witnesses to back up your assertion. Your ideas do not describe what the witnesses said.

You're all over the place. Which ideas of mine "do not describe what the witnesses said"? Be specific.

Your point about the witnesses saying that the religious material did not come from Spalding is immaterial because they did say that the ten lost tribes material and a migration via the Bering Straits did come from Spalding.

It is not immaterial. It shows that the case you are trying to make is fallacious because the only way your charges would hold is if Smith was making a word for word copy of Spalding's manuscript. None of them ever claim that.

And with regard to the historical material, not only did Smith & Co. change the story, as B. H. points out, even with the changes, the difference you are trying to make a mountain out of is trivial.

Citing B. H. Roberts all day long will not save you from that. The witnesses never said that the migration had anything to do with God directing that migration or that it contained any religious themes at all.

So what?? So now Spalding's manuscript would have to have the same religious themes as the Book of Mormon (even though the witnesses said the religious material was added!) before you would consider a possible connection? Convenient.

You have yet to produce any statements from anyone of the time and place that reflect you viewpoint.

Glenn, what are you talking about? What viewpoint? Are you reading my posts?

I have produced several statements by witnesses of the time and place as well as the literature of the time that backs up my assertions. Your rhetoric does not equal evidence. You are declaring me wrong based upon nothing.

I'm saying you're attempting to make something out of nothing.

Let's review.

1. You want there to be a huge difference between the premise of the Book of Mormon and a lost tribes theory, and, as B. H. Roberts points out, there isn't. Instead, the difference is trivial.

2. You want the witnesses to claim that every word in the Book of Mormon was exactly like Spalding's and they don't.

3. You want to believe the lost 116 pages contain exactly the same account as the current opening books in the Book of Mormon and they don't.

4. You wish Martin Harris would not have lost the only piece of evidence that could possibly support your case (or refute it) but he did.

5. You want to believe that if you had those pages they would support your case, but even if they did (which I doubt) that would still not prove your case since Rigdon could have changed Spalding's lost tribes premise to what we see now in the Book of Mormon and the difference would still be trivial.

Like I keep pointing out... you're beating a dead horse.

[_Roger]

Dan:

Not surprisingly, we just disagree.

You have not proven the testimony is unreliable. We have overcome every attempt by you and Marg, and you haven’t responded to evidence of independent corroboration. Many of your contradictory attempts to explain away the eyewitness testimony were ad hocs. Trick hats, etc.

Of course I have already shown that every element of these claims is not correct. We have demonstrated the testimony is unreliable. We have responded to independent corroboration (namely: the elements corroborated are not disputed) and I have shown how none of the responses you wish to describe as ad hoc, actually are.

The mere fact that these are highly interested witnesses establishes that their testimony is unreliable. But beyond that, we have pointed directly to elements in their testimony that simply cannot be accurate if S/A is correct--and your response is to:

1. make excuses or blame non-LDS reporters; or
2. claim that false supernatural elements do not spoil the rest of the statement

Number 1 is exactly what LDS apologists do and number 2 is simply extremely weak. You might have more of a case here if these were not people who were heavily invested in the cause, but they were.

People who have paranormal experiences aren’t disqualified as witnesses.

They certainly are if what they are testifying to rests on the truthfulness of their paranormal experience! Your witnesses leave you no other option but to accept the paranormal experiences they claim. No one disputes the mundane element that Joseph put his head in a hat and rattled off some words.

Marg, didn’t show that Emma had lied. She tried to make the same assumption you did about people who claim supernatural experiences.

Actually marg did show that Emma lied. Which is consistent with the lies about Joseph's participation in polygamy. Both lies were an attempt to bolster her husband's reputation.

Rather, I showed her through the video on magic how easy it is to overstate an observation. Also, neither of you considered the historical situation with the reporting of Emma and the time lapse, which you tried to criticize. Regardless, it does matter if they lied or were dupes. But in saying they were dupes doesn’t make them incapable of making observations. You were fooled by the magic trick, but were nevertheless quite capable of describing it, even if some fine points were inaccurate and your description wouldn’t help anyone solve the mystery.

We've been over this before. The analogy to marg and I fails (miserably) because we are not heavily invested in promoting Blaine's magic. That's why I said you would need to interview Blaine's wife. Here's some of what I said:

The wife analogy is spot on when it comes to Emma's testimony. You want us to believe the best about a witness who's not only heavily invested in the cause, she's even married to the magician.

This is the problem you continually run into--your witnesses are not objective, Dan. Again, that should be obvious. But for some reason, you want to overlook that and think the best about them.

How about giving it a shot? I'll make it easy for you:

1. Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No?

I can accept that Rigdon believed he had a revelation. Do I believe he had a revelation? No.

Why would you accept that Rigdon believed he had a revelation? What compels you to come to that conclusion? --especially when the content of the revelation serves his purpose?

Regardless, your straight answer (finally) is "no." You do not accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages. Good. Therefore we both reject that claim.

2. If not, on what basis do you reject it?

3. Would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why or why not?

These are simple questions, Dan.

I don’t believe like you that Rigdon lied. My rejection of the supernatural is not ad hoc as I have already explained. None of this makes your position any less ad hoc. This whole line of reasoning is obviously fallacious. Yet you persist in it!?!?!?

As might be expected, you did not answer question #2 and gave only an ambiguous response to question #3. Could you please answer question #2? On what basis do you reject Rigdon's claim to know what was on the sealed pages of the Book of Mormon plates? Especially if you don't think he lied. On what grounds do you reject his testimony?

Your response to #2 will help us analyze #3.

Why, in your mind, does Rigdon's testimony constitute adverse evidence for S/R?

He denied your theory and there is no evidence connecting him with the Spalding MS or with Joseph Smith before 1830. He also had Pratt for corroborative testimony.

So for Dan, Rigdon's testimony constitutes adverse evidence for S/R because:

1. he denied my theory (!)
2. Dan thinks there is no evidence connecting him with the Spalding MS or with Joseph Smith before 1830.
3. Pratt corroborates Rigdon

Obviously point number 1 is ridiculous since anyone who has anything to hide could get off the hook by simply denying any involvement--which, of course, is what we would expect them to do.

Point number 2 would be less ridiculous if your assertion that there is no evidence was correct. The problem is there is plenty of testimonial evidence connecting both Rigdon to a Spalding ms and Rigdon to Joe Smith prior to 1831. I can't help it that you choose to reject that testimony, but given your point number one, you shouldn't since witnesses claimed it was so and that seems to be good enough for you when it comes to Book of Mormon witnesses. Regardless, beyond the testimonial evidence, there is circumstantial evidence in the form of convenient (or pesky depending on your point of view) gaps in both Rigdon and Smith's itineraries that would have allowed them to meet. And still more circumstantial evidence in the form of doctrines in the Book of Mormon that conveniently support Rigdon's side of the hot theological debates he was involved in. And still more circumstantial evidence in the form of predictions of a spokesman for Joe Smith that were later claimed by Rigdon. You respond in an ad hoc manner that it was referring to Cowdery, but that is only based on your assumption that it could not have been intended for Rigdon since your thesis does not allow it--which, of course, is circular.

In any event, we clearly see that your point #2 is not valid since you do not get to decide what is and is not acceptable evidence for S/R.

Point number 3 is not valid because, as I have stated at least 3 times now, Pratt might have been a dupe or Pratt could have known more than he admitted. In either case we would expect him to give supporting testimony, so, given that he does exactly what S/R predicts he would do in either case, the fact that he did so, does not constitute adverse evidence for S/R.

Therefore, having disposed of Dan's three stated reasons for believing Rigdon's testimony is adverse for the S/R theory, we find that, in actuality, there is no logical reason why I should agree.