DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Fortigurn]

Dan, earlier you said that the phrase 'and it came to pass' didn't form part of Spalding's vocabulary. I'm interested in why we have records that a number of his friends and acquaintances said that it was. How did they get that idea?

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan, earlier you said that the phrase 'and it came to pass' didn't form part of Spalding's vocabulary. I'm interested in why we have records that a number of his friends and acquaintances said that it was. How did they get that idea?

I'm not sure, but don't you think it strange that it never appears in MS Story? I haven't checked his other writings, like his letters. But it seems to me that a nickname should have some evidence for it besides a missing MS. Several witnesses also thought they remembered certain names too. I don't expect easy answers in a case that rests entirely on memory. It's not easy establishing a memory case, and much harder countering it. Add to that the charge of conspiracy and it becomes very difficult to break out of that paradigm since all counter evidence becomes evidence of cover up. How eager are Spalding advocates to consider a Hurlbut-Howe conspiracy? How easy would it be to get out of that one? And would not every argument they formed against that theory be equally used to counter the Spalding theory?

[_Fortigurn]

Dan, earlier you said that the phrase 'and it came to pass' didn't form part of Spalding's vocabulary. I'm interested in why we have records that a number of his friends and acquaintances said that it was. How did they get that idea?

I'm not sure, but don't you think it strange that it never appears in MS Story?

No it doesn't seem strange to me.

I haven't checked his other writings, like his letters.

Perhaps there's some additional information in them.

But it seems to me that a nickname should have some evidence for it besides a missing MS.

Such as eye witness testimony from friends and acquaintances?

Several witnesses also thought they remembered certain names too. I don't expect easy answers in a case that rests entirely on memory. It's not easy establishing a memory case, and much harder countering it.

I suggest that it's difficult in this case to propose a rational reason as to why Spalding's friends and acquaintances considered the phrase 'and it came to pass' part of Spalding's vocabulary, whilst at the same time arguing that it was not part of Spalding's vocabulary. As far as I'm concerned, Occam's Razor supports only one interpretation of the data from Spalding's friends and acquaintances.

Add to that the charge of conspiracy and it becomes very difficult to break out of that paradigm since all counter evidence becomes evidence of cover up. How eager are Spalding advocates to consider a Hurlbut-Howe conspiracy? How easy would it be to get out of that one? And would not every argument they formed against that theory be equally used to counter the Spalding theory?

I believe a charge of conspiracy among Spalding's friends and acquaintances would be even more difficult to prove, and therefore dismiss it using Occam's Razor.

[_marg]

Come on Dale. You have been insulting me left and right and writing in a biting and sacrastic tone from the start, but you don't see me grandstanding Hamblin-like and stomping off in a huff. Go take a few deep breaths of ocean air ... you'll feel better.

Insults aren't the issue Dan. This is a discussion and if one party of the discussion closes off possibilities such as you have done by complete dismissal of the Spalding witnesses, the discussion can not proceed forward. You've given your reasoning for why you dismiss them. Sure Dale and others can attempt to reason with you over those points you raise but if you don't acknowledge the possiblity your conclusion regarding them might be wrong, if you dismiss them by what amounts to a personal opinion..how can the discussion proceed?

You've basically ended the discussion for all intents and purposes. If you are going to stick to your theory that the Spalding witnesses all have false memories and all other witnesses following them have been cross contaminated by their witness statements and all that evidence should be dismissed entirely ...how can the discussion proceed further? You've ended it..game over. At this point it's up the readers to decide.

by the way, I find your reasoning, the argument you present on the Spalding witnesses extremely weak. That is the conclusion I've so far reached. Before this discussion all I knew was that you proposed the Smith as sole author theory for the Book of Mormon. I didn't appreciate any reasoning you had for that why you dismissed the Rigdon Spalding theory. I now know a little more of the reasoning for your position.

Why do you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must have a closed mind? What if I concluded that because you won't admit I have a good arguement, you are the one who is stubborn? Frankly, I don't care if you accept my arguments or not. You have a right to disagree with me without personal attack.

In a fruitfull discussion Dan parties must be willing to let the evidence lead them..you do not appear to do that. You also appear for example to look for ridiculous reasons to dismiss the Spalding witnesses. Eventually I could go through your post and comment where I see ridiculous reasons against them..but for now I'll keep this short. You had a few good points against them but overall I wasn't sold by what you had to say.

[_Dan Vogel]

Fortigurn,

I suggest that it's difficult in this case to propose a rational reason as to why Spalding's friends and acquaintances considered the phrase 'and it came to pass' part of Spalding's vocabulary, whilst at the same time arguing that it was not part of Spalding's vocabulary. As far as I'm concerned, Occam's Razor supports only one interpretation of the data from Spalding's friends and acquaintances.

Well, it's a good thing my overall explanations do no require conspiracy, whereas the Spalding theory does. So how does Occam's Razor work there? The best theory is the one that explains most of the evidence with the fewest assumptions or ad hoc rationalizations. There are always going to be minor bits of information that can't be explained, mostly because of the nature of humans as opposed to the laws of physics. It's not uncommon to have mutiple witnesses disproven by the physical evidence.

Back to Occam's Razor. Rather than accept the simplest explanation of why the human testimony didn't match the physical MS evidence, we begin a series of ad hoc rationalizations in order to save the central theory, which is that Spalding wrote the historical part of the Book of Mormon. To support the human testimony, we invent a second MS. Then we invent stories to overcome the problem of how the MS could get to Joseph Smith. If it wasn't Rigdon, it would have been someone else, or someone who knew him. Cowdery et al. eventually get to the point where they propose a third MS, asserting that there was two copies MS Found--one that the printer took and the other that widow Spalding had in her trunk. This ad hoc theory becomes necessary to explain all the human testimony, because once you start dismissing some of it as faulty memory, then the rest goes with it. Occam's Razor, if it is used at all (and there is some criticism of its usefulness), should be used for complex theories, not on bits of evidence. No theory explains everything perfectly. Which is more likely to be true: Spalding witness remembering accurately what they heard 20 years earlier, or Mormon and non-Mormon witnesses saying Joseph Smith dicated with his head in the hat?

[_Fortigurn]

Well, it's a good thing my overall explanations do no require conspiracy, whereas the Spalding theory does. So how does Occam's Razor work there?

Because your overall explanations require conspiracy to account for certain evidence which does not fit neatly into your total case.

The best theory is the one that explains most of the evidence with the fewest assumptions or ad hoc rationalizations. There are always going to be minor bits of information that can't be explained, mostly because of the nature of humans as opposed to the laws of physics. It's not uncommon to have mutiple witnesses disproven by the physical evidence.

Yes, I certainly agree.

Back to Occam's Razor. Rather than accept the simplest explanation of why the human testimony didn't match the physical MS evidence, we begin a series of ad hoc rationalizations in order to save the central theory, which is that Spalding wrote the historical part of the Book of Mormon. To support the human testimony, we invent a second MS. Then we invent stories to overcome the problem of how the MS could get to Joseph Smith. If it wasn't Rigdon, it would have been someone else, or someone who knew him. Cowdery et al. eventually get to the point where they propose a third MS, asserting that there was two copies MS Found--one that the printer took and the other that widow Spalding had in her trunk. This ad hoc theory becomes necessary to explain all the human testimony, because once you start dismissing some of it as faulty memory, then the rest goes with it. Occam's Razor, if it is used at all (and there is some criticism of its usefulness), should be used for complex theories, not on bits of evidence. No theory explains everything perfectly.

To me the simplest explanation of why the human testimony doesn't match the physical MS evidence is that the wrong MS is being examined. The alternative which has been provided is a complex conspiracy theory. It's easy to choose between these two using Occam's Razor.

I also see a difference between 'inventing stories' to prove something, and demonstrating that there is sufficient evidence that something is within reasonable bounds of likelihood. Getting the MS to those involved in writing the Book of Mormon does not necessarily involve proof, but it does involve providing sufficient evidence that it was within reasonable bounds of likelihood.

I'm using Occam's Razor on both your and Dale's cases specifically because your cases are complex theories (both of them), and that includes the issue of why Spalding's friends and acquaintances would remember 'and it came to pass' as part of his vocabulary (both your arguments regarding this are complex).

Which is more likely to be true: Spalding witness remembering accurately what they heard 20 years earlier, or Mormon and non-Mormon witnesses saying Joseph Smith dicated with his head in the hat?

I don't see these two as incompatible.

[_marg]

Occam's Razor, if it is used at all (and there is some criticism of its usefulness), should be used for complex theories, not on bits of evidence. No theory explains everything perfectly. Which is more likely to be true: Spalding witness remembering accurately what they heard 20 years earlier, or Mormon and non-Mormon witnesses saying Joseph Smith dicated with his head in the hat?

One doesn't apply Occam's Razor to the Spalding theory at all in this instance. If one is going to apply Occams Razor in this case it would be to a group of theories which all explain a phenomenom (the production of the Book of Mormon in this case) equally well and the one which has the least entities for explanation is preferred. In this particular situation of "what theory best explains how and who wrote the Book of Mormon" which is the primary problem/issue..not the Spalding-Rigdon theory, all evidence needs to be evaluated for the best fit theory to be decided upon given the primary issue under consideration.

Dan please do not think that because your dismiss the spalding witnesses and then the spalding theory that the Sole author theory is left standing. Not at all. Between the 2 theories I'd say the Spalding -Rigdon theory while not perfect is still a much better fit of the evidence. It may not be the simplest but it's a better fit.

From Answer's.com

Occam's Raxor: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Insults aren't the issue Dan. This is a discussion and if one party of the discussion closes off possibilities such as you have done by complete dismissal of the Spalding witnesses, the discussion can not proceed forward. You've given your reasoning for why you dismiss them. Sure Dale and others can attempt to reason with you over those points you raise but if you don't acknowledge the possiblity your conclusion regarding them might be wrong, if you dismiss them by what amounts to a personal opinion..how can the discussion proceed?

This is quite ironic since it is Dale who wants to inject personal opinion about how the ten tribe theory can be harmonized with the witnesses. He keeps asking for me to approve of his speculations. Speculations aren't evidence. Does he acknowledge the contradictions and problems I have pointed out. No. So why the ad hominem? He takes the light off the debated issue, and accuse me of being stubborn for not accepting his speculations. So insults are the issue.

I haven't dismissed the witnesses by personal opinion either. My position is that there was no Spalding-Rigdon MS during Joseph Smith's dictation of the Book of Mormon. Who has dealt with those witnesses? Given that, I think it is appropriate to look for other explanations for the Spalding witnesses. I have therefore suggested that the witnesses have mixed vague memories of MS Story, possible discussions with Spalding about the ten tribe theory and Mound Builder Myth, and inaccurate and popular misunderstanding of the Book of Mormon's content. I also suggest that the names and some other memories are actually false memories. I have invited Dale to read about those studies (the links of which I have at the beginning of this thread).

I argued that some of the witnesses saying that the lost tribes came out of Jerusalem was an indication that they were being influenced by the Book of Mormon. Dale gave a weak response. Does he acknowledge he might be wrong? Do I even care? We are trying to bring out the pros and cons for readers to this thread to decide. So stop the ad hominal attacks. Dale needs to focus on the readers, not me.

You've basically ended the discussion for all intents and purposes. If you are going to stick to your theory that the Spalding witnesses all have false memories and all other witnesses following them have been cross contaminated by their witness statements and all that evidence should be dismissed entirely ...how can the discussion proceed further? You've ended it..game over. At this point it's up the readers to decide.

I'm not finished. Dale is responsible for making his case. Not me.

by the way, I find your reasoning, the argument you present on the Spalding witnesses extremely weak. That is the conclusion I've so far reached. Before this discussion all I knew was that you proposed the Smith as sole author theory for the Book of Mormon. I didn't appreciate any reasoning you had for that why you dismissed the Rigdon Spalding theory. I now know a little more of the reasoning for your position.

It doesn't surprise me, really. But that's what this is about. You get to hear both sides and make up your own mind.

In a fruitfull discussion Dan parties must be willing to let the evidence lead them..you do not appear to do that. You also appear for example to look for ridiculous reasons to dismiss the Spalding witnesses. Eventually I could go through your post and comment where I see ridiculous reasons against them..but for now I'll keep this short. You had a few good points against them but overall I wasn't sold by what you had to say.

I think you are not following the evidence. The evidence says there was no MS used in Joseph Smith's dictation. It's not up to me to disprove the Spalding theory; it's up to Spalding advocates to prove their case. Joseph Smith dictating with his head in the hat is not subjective evidence. Are 20+ year-old memories and the very real possibility of false memory syndrom stronger than that? So I have tried to give explanations for the Spalding witnesses that is consistent with what I think is the strongest evidence. If you think that is weak, so be it.

[_Dan Vogel]

I just wanted to announce to anyone who cares that in two or three days I will post my analysis of Matilda Spalding Davison's testimony, as well as that of her daughter Matilda McKinstry.

In this post, I will show:--

1. There was only one MS in the trunk--MS Story, which they called MS Found.

2. This provides a unique control that is absent from other witnesses since Davison and McKinstry (and some other incidental witnesses) are describing a specific MS that went into the trunk--which we know was MS Story.

3. Yet, we find them making some of the same claims as the Conneaut witnesses, particularly with regard to names. This is clear demonstration that 20+ year-old memories about the contents of a book can be infected with knowledge about the Book of Mormon.

4. The ad hoc theory given out by Dale Broadhurst and the authors of Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon that widow Spalding placed two MSS in the trunk--a second draft of MS Found and MS Story--is false.

[_marg]

I just wanted to announce to anyone who cares

I will eventually get back to this thread. I wrote a long post to you Dan but the connection timed out and I lost it when I went to post. Since then I've felt burned out on this topic and decided to take a bit of a break.