It may be that Dan Vogel has left the building, but if you are still out there, Dan, here are a few observations.
First, I enjoyed the opportunity to better understand where you’re coming from so thanks for interacting with me. This conversation will certainly help to clarify what I read from you from this point forward.
On the argument from silence:
This seems to function primarily as a distraction from the larger question which I see as:
why accept that a Bible was used but never acknowledged, yet reject that anything else could have been used?On ad hom:
Another distraction. I am not attacking you, your personal beliefs or biases.
On the Book of Mormon witnesses:
I find it interesting that you characterize the discrepancies in various Book of Mormon witness statements as “different readings” rather than simply inconsistent testimonies. That is perhaps the most revealing aspect of this conversation for me.
On the Spalding witnesses:
Like Brodie, you assume you know better than they do and apparently simply disregard the specific denial (by Aron Wright) of the charge (false memories) you level against them, choosing instead to believe other witnesses (David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery). Yet, like Brodie, you are hesitant to characterize them as outright liars, but instead choose to think of them as sincerely mistaken, even though the specificity of the claims they make does not fit that mold.
Based on what I find to be a surprising acceptance of early Mormon testimony on your part and an equally surprising—and I would say unwarranted—rejection of non-Mormon testimony, it is much clearer to me now why you have chosen to edit references to Spalding out of the witness statements you cite in some of your publications.
For me, the key questions that remain are:
1. If Smith, Cowdery and Whitmer could simply forget to mention that a Bible was used in Book of Mormon production, what was to prevent them from forgetting to mention any other sources that may have been used? I think the answer is clearly:
nothing. 2. Do you welcome and encourage further research into other possible sources that may have been used in Book of Mormon production?
Specifically addressing the question of your acceptance of Book of Mormon witnesses vs. your rejection of Spalding witnesses, here are some things you wrote in
American Apocrypha:
Yet there are contradictions among the various accounts of Whitmer's testimony. p 85-86
and
Concerning what the angel said, Whitmer's interviews are perhaps irreconcilable. p 86
On page 89 you show that in 1882 Whitmer claimed: "These hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel and these ears heard his voice; and I know it was of God." And then subsequently in 1885 Whitmer reported: "We did not touch nor handle the plates."
Of this apparent contradiction you conclude:
"Of course, like Harris, Whitmer could have handled the plates while covered on an occasion separate from his vision." - p 89
I'm not a trained historian, but this appears to be an argument from silence. In any event, it appears you are simply giving Whitmer the benefit of the doubt. On what basis is unclear.
On page 102 you talk about John Whitmer's testimony and that, as an apostate, he not only rejected Smith but also the Book of Mormon. Wanting to know how this was possible, Theodore Turley, you report, asked Whitmer who reaffirmed his testimony of the plates before his anti-Mormon friends. When asked about the apparent contradiction of rejecting the Book of Mormon while reaffirming his testimony of the plates, Whitmer responded that "he could not read the original script and therefore had no guarantee that Smith had translated it correctly."
So yes, I agree, when outsiders such as myself run into these kinds of discrepancies, it seems apparent that these are not the kind of people who have earned the benefit of the doubt. To an outsider like me, John is obviously trying to salvage whatever is left of his public image after losing faith in Smith. In effect, John is saying,
my testimony is still true, even though Smith's is not. Smith, however, obviously had the upper hand, since Whitmer's previous testimony had affirmed Smith's claims. That was the paradox faced by all the Book of Mormon witnesses as they became disgruntled with Joseph Smith. If they turned on him, their own honor and word was at stake. To me, this dilemma is clearly illustrated in John Whitmer's words and explains the reluctance of the others to go so far as John Whitmer did in not only rejecting Smith, but the Book of Mormon as well. Such an action was ultimately contrary to Whitmer's own self-interest and the response he gives to solve the dilemma comes off as a desperate attempt to save face.
You write more, such as Abner Cole's observation that: "there appears to be a great discrepancy, in the stories told by the famous three witnesses to the Gold Bible," (p107) but I think what I have posted here is enough to emphasize the point.... given all this ambiguity that leads to "different readings" what basis is there to accept the testimony of the early Book of Mormon witnesses at all?
When considering that you suggest Smith may have had the power to induce corporate hallucinations in the minds of these impressionable witnesses, such that whatever "they saw" was likely "visionary" --how is this entire scenario any more believable than that of the Spalding witnesses? How is Hurlbut allegedly coaching witnesses any more egregious?
We can produce an actual example of a Spalding document that at least supports the claims that Spalding wrote fiction and that the witnesses were exposed to it. There is no such tangible support on the part of the Book of Mormon witnesses. All we have to go on is their word, and that appears problematic at best.
I suppose you may have too much invested in the Smith-alone premise to give any of this much of a second thought. In any case, the exchange has been enlightening.
All the best.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.