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

[_GlennThigpen]

[quote=
Dan the problems is that you are taking those unique studies with specific procedures and results and extrapolating that into an assumption that all memory is fragile and everyone with long term memory is susceptible to memory confusion.

The studies she did for legal cases was to replicate situations common in crime scenes in which witnesses are exposed briefly to an event. Consequently they have short term memory of an event with a number of details. Subjects are afterwards tested on a number of rather minor details but through questioning some new information false information replaces the true information. This differs in major respects from the situation with the Conneaut witnesses because through repeated exposure over time which they said occurred, they would have developed long term memory. So this particular study which is testing short term memory of brief exposure is not comparable to the Conneaut witness situation. The point of this study was simply to expose the potential for wrongful conviction in criminal cases under similar situations of witnesses viewing briefly a scene.

Her other study she terms the "rich-false" paradigm more closely is applicable to the Conneaut situation only because she deals with long term memory testing of events in individual's lives. But her results end up with a 75% failure rate of testing random individuals. This is despite the facts that she uses techniques to cause confusion and doubt such as employing help of parents to lie about an event in a subjects life. What she is also showing in her studies Dan is despite here best efforts and all the tricks she employs, and the particular contrived set up such as questioning individuals' memory at the age of 5...she fails in implanting false memories 75% of the time on average and this is when trying to implant a rather mundane event.

A an accident or crime is hardly a mundane event.

So if she was in Hurlbuts' shoes, she wouldn't have parents or some authority to help convince the Conneaut witnesses they have faulty memory of reading the Spalding manuscript, she wouldn't have the luxury or at least 3 repeated sessions, she would have to convince the Conneaut witnesses their memory in the 20's - 50's was unreliable not like her study in which she was asking subjects about the memory at 5 years of age when it is noted by E.Loftus herself the memory of the very young and very old are weakest, she would have to overcome their memory which involved repeated exposure of hearing and reading a story which in some cases would have been in the 100's of times as opposed to a one time trip to a mall..so with greater obstacles to overcome she'd have to implant the notion that the book they remembered was written in King James English and had repeated excessive phrase of it "came to pass" and rather than the measly result she had of a 75% failure rate..her failure rate would need to be virtually nil.

By the way the "observing film of a crime" in which subjects are briefly exposed to a scene is simply not comparable to the Conneaut witnesses case. In the crime case the exposure to the crime is a short term memory which hasn't had the opportunity through repeated exposure to develop in a true memory as was the case with the Conneaut witnesses.

The 25% success rate you are referring to is that of implanting completely false memories into adults about a supposed childhood experience. We are talking about people confabulating different sources into their recollections Spaulding's romance. The lost tribes theme is one such evidence since it does not appear in the Book of Mormon.
Only three of the witnesses noted repeated exposure to the Spalding manuscript and contents.

And 15 year old memories of particulars are not necessarily dim. They might take time to retrieve and in some cases it may require help such a jogging of memory..but that doesn't mean the memories long term are dim or susceptible to manipulation by others.

The time period was actually over twenty years. Spalding left Conneaut in 1812 and Hurlbut obtained his affidavits in 1833. And he actually represented himself as an authority, being deputized by a commission to obtain the truth of the matter as to Spalding's romance being the source of the Book of Mormon. Remember how he was able to convince the widow to give him the manuscript? Twenty year old memories are hardly as clear as those of just yesterday. As Dan noted, the S/R critics are not trying to prove that the Conneaut witnesses has memory confabulations. That is impossible because we have no way of verifying any their statements today. But, we are asserting that their statements show evidences of memory confabulation and prompting.

Their statements are at odds with Matilda Spalding Davison's statements and those of Redick McKee and Joseph Miller.

But those are not the only things that are against them. The body of scholarship that has been produced on the Book of Mormon also legislate against a Spalding connection. Spalding's own demonstrated literary ability is in and of itself a very good witness against anything of his writings being a part of the Book of Mormon.

And lastly, the extensions to the Jockers study by Bruce Schaalje which this thread is supposed to be about, also legislate against any Rigdon or Spalding authoring any part of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn Wrote:

Only three of the witnesses noted repeated exposure to the Spalding manuscript and contents.

So what? In the first place, you can't assume the others were not repeatedly exposed since they don't say one way or another--which is an obvious deficiency in Hurlbut's coaching skills (according to your line of logic, that is). Had Hurlbut actually been as manipulative as you want us to believe, he surely would have noted that only some of the witnesses claimed repeated exposure and would have taken steps to remedy that deficiency.

In the second place, you have three who explicitly do mention repeated exposure, so attempts at diminishing their level of familiarity with Spalding's ms don't work.

marge wrote:

And 15 year old memories of particulars are not necessarily dim. They might take time to retrieve and in some cases it may require help such a jogging of memory..but that doesn't mean the memories long term are dim or susceptible to manipulation by others.

The time period was actually over twenty years. Spalding left Conneaut in 1812 and Hurlbut obtained his affidavits in 1833.

Again, so what? The human mind is more than capable of accurately retrieving memories much longer than a mere 20 years. The obligation, in this case, is on you to demonstrate their memories were not accurate. The only thing you have to base that allegation on is the Roman story and your conjecture that that had to be the ms they were actually exposed to. But the evidence does not line up with that, and Aron Wright and unnamed others flat out deny it.

I will ask you what I asked Dan.... why should I believe you over Aron Wright?

And he actually represented himself as an authority, being deputized by a commission to obtain the truth of the matter as to Spalding's romance being the source of the Book of Mormon.

Again, so what? That does not give him license to print lies. Nor does it give them license to fabricate memories just to please Hurlbut. Your whole case rests on the notion that these witnesses were sincere, but were obviously mistaken. --or at least that's Dan's argument. You seem to be gravitating toward the notion that these witnesses were willing to lie. Is that the position you are taking?

Remember how he was able to convince the widow to give him the manuscript? Twenty year old memories are hardly as clear as those of just yesterday.

Not correct. I have vivid memories of certain events more than twenty years ago. Many times I can't even remember what I had for lunch yesterday.

As Dan noted, the S/R critics are not trying to prove that the Conneaut witnesses has memory confabulations. That is impossible because we have no way of verifying any their statements today. But, we are asserting that their statements show evidences of memory confabulation and prompting.

The only BASIS you have to make a diagnosis of "memory confabulation" from two centuries later is comparing the Roman story to the Book of Mormon. That's it. No one disputes that the witnesses were exposed to a Spalding manuscript. The dispute is over which Spalding manuscript they are referring to. When confronted with the EXACT SAME manuscript you use as the basis of your diagnosis, Aron Wright flatly denies it. So you are faced with overruling Aron Wright on the direct charges you level against him. Dan's attempt at that is to simply claim he knows better than Wright from 2 centuries down the road because he chooses to believe Whitmer instead when Whitmer assures us no Spalding ms was used in Book of Mormon production.

But that is not a good reason to overrule Wright (and the others). Your approach--I think--is at least open to the possibility that Aron Wright and the others would lie in order to impugn Joseph Smith and Mormonism. This certainly makes more sense out of their statements, but then you are obligated to show why we should not trust their word. And the reasons you give for that must be separate from the case you want to make, ie. it needs to be something more than just because my theory demands that we not trust them, otherwise your argument is tautological.

Their statements are at odds with Matilda Spalding Davison's statements and those of Redick McKee and Joseph Miller.

At odds with? I don't think so.

But those are not the only things that are against them. The body of scholarship that has been produced on the Book of Mormon also legislate against a Spalding connection.

What body of scholarship? LDS scholarship? Why would I expect anything different from LDS apologists? For the non-LDS there was a turning point after the Roman story was re-discovered that solidified at about the time of Brodie. Prior to that, most LDS critics accepted S/R. What we (and others) are saying is that the reasons for moving away from S/R at that time were premature. People did not take the time to adequately look into the data and, as Dan even admits (although perhaps not so candidly), blaming Smith alone is simply more convenient.

Spalding's own demonstrated literary ability is in and of itself a very good witness against anything of his writings being a part of the Book of Mormon.

Nonsense! Some parts of Spalding's extant writings do not appear at first glance to be similar to some parts of the Book of Mormon, but some parts of each DO resemble each other. THAT has been Dale's point FOR DECADES. Ben's response to that is to attempt to diminish those similarities by alleging that such similarities happen all the time. Note: he does not deny their existence, he simply attempts to downplay their significance.

The fatal flaw in that, however, is that the parallels had significance BEFORE they were even discovered. That is the crucial point Ben refuses to even acknowledge. The allegation of a connection was there before there was evidence to support the allegation, and the fact is, the evidence did not have to end up being there at all. The RLDS printed what they deceptively labelled The "Manuscript Found" in order to allege precisely that--that there was, in fact, finally, evidence that S/R has no evidence. But that assessment was quite premature, as Dale and others have demonstrated.

And lastly, the extensions to the Jockers study by Bruce Schaalje which this thread is supposed to be about, also legislate against any Rigdon or Spalding authoring any part of the Book of Mormon.

Most of us here do not have any authority to add anything meaningful to the discussion of what "this thread is supposed to be about." The key participants in that discussion have said what they want to say and appear to be done with further discussion in this forum. The conversation carries on, then, on items we can discuss. If Matt and/or Craig wish to come here and carry on the discussion with Bruce, I think they would have our undivided attention. As it is, I don't see that happening any time soon.

With regard to Schaalje vs Jockers, it was overreaching to argue that Jockers proved Spalding and Rigdon contributed to the Book of Mormon. It is equally overreaching to argue that Schaalje proves they did not.

All the best.

[Guest]

The time period was actually over twenty years. Spalding left Conneaut in 1812 and Hurlbut obtained his affidavits in 1833.

Again, so what? The human mind is more than capable of accurately retrieving memories much longer than a mere 20 years. The obligation, in this case, is on you to demonstrate their memories were not accurate. The only thing you have to base that allegation on is the Roman story and your conjecture that that had to be the ms they were actually exposed to. But the evidence does not line up with that, and Aron Wright and unnamed others flat out deny it.

The human mind is also perfectly capable of having completely made up memories implanted that become as real as an actual event. It is also perfectly capable modifying its memory banks as new information and misinformation interferes with the memories of the original events. These "new" memories will seem just as clear as any other memories.
I am not basing all of my opinions on a manuscript that actually does exist. The lost tribes theme noted by several of the witnesses is an evidence of possible memory confabulation. There is no lost tribe motif in the Book of Mormon.
The fact that Artemas Cunningham was the only Conneaut witness to mention that the manuscript had been found in the earth or a cave, since his statement was taken after Hurlbut returned with the manuscript.
Also, John Spalding changed his story a bit. In the original affidavit, he has Lehi and Nephi coming over together and splitting into Nephite and Lamanite factions. In a later statement, he has Lehi coming from Chaldea and landing near the Straits of Darien, with Lehi's descendants called Jaredites. He has Nephi (now of the tribe of Joseph) coming from Palestine "long after".

Their statements are at odds with Matilda Spalding Davison's statements and those of Redick McKee and Joseph Miller.

At odds with? I don't think so.

In the fact that none of those witnesses mention the names, any of the Conneaut witnesses. Miller remembered the Amalekites and the red paint on their foreheads, which has a similar episode in the Oberlin manuscript, but with no Amalekites.

But those are not the only things that are against them. The body of scholarship that has been produced on the Book of Mormon also legislate against a Spalding connection.

What body of scholarship? LDS scholarship? Why would I expect anything different from LDS apologists?

That is a cop out Roger. There is research and articles produced by competent LDS scholars. Much if not all of it is available for anyone to read and respond to. However, many critics such as yourself steadily refuse to deal with it.

Spalding's own demonstrated literary ability is in and of itself a very good witness against anything of his writings being a part of the Book of Mormon.

Nonsense! Some parts of Spalding's extant writings do not appear at first glance to be similar to some parts of the Book of Mormon, but some parts of each DO resemble each other. THAT has been Dale's point FOR DECADES. Ben's response to that is to attempt to diminish those similarities by alleging that such similarities happen all the time. Note: he does not deny their existence, he simply attempts to downplay their significance.

I am not talking about similarities or parallels. I am talking about literary expressive ability.

With regard to Schaalje vs Jockers, it was overreaching to argue that Jockers proved Spalding and Rigdon contributed to the Book of Mormon. It is equally overreaching to argue that Schaalje proves they did not.

All the best.

I don't recall any LDS, especially Bruce, has been claiming that his extensions to the Jockers methodology proves that Rigdon and Spalding had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon authorship. It does rate the chances as statistically very low. And this falls in line with other word print studies on the same subject. You may not be able to follow the math, but you can follow the logic. Bruce published his work in the same magazine in which the original Jockers study was published to appease those who refuse to accept anything from an LDS source that is not peer reviewed. In other words, his math has been checked.
I am not hanging my hat entirely on that either. As I mentioned, there is much more. Any of the scholarship that you care to dispute is there for you to find an expert to challenge for you if you cannot do so yourself.

Glenn

[_marg]

post reference: link

gge

A an accident or crime is hardly a mundane event.

Glenn when I mentioned a mundance event I was not talking about a crime or accident. There were 2 different sorts of memory studies Loftus did. One was about term memory of a crime scene and her study was an attempt to simulate a witness being exposed to a crime scene. In her simulations subjects are briefly exposed to a crime scene and later questioned. She divided the subjects into 2 groups and with one group they were asked leading questions which introduced new and different false information to the true scene. And the other group was not exposed to this new information. Her results were that the group exposed to new information were more often wrong in some details because they would claim to have observed the false information whereas the group not exposed to the false information would be more accurate on the whole compared to the other group. But this is a particular situation in which her point is that witnesses of crime scenes if later given misleading false information would be susceptible to testifying to inaccurate information and hence contribute to wrongful convictions. But note..witnessing a crime scene briefly is not the sort of situation involved with the Conneaut witnesses. These studies were described as "misinformation" paradigms.

Then there was her other type of study of implanting a memory of a one time event that never happened in subjects. It took her about 3 sessions, she enlisted the help of parents to claim an event happened to the subejcts, she tested long term memory but at their age of 5 (which is noted even by her when people's memories are uncertain) and in these sorts of studies...she had about a 25% success rate in subjects convinced that a memory such as being lost in a mall at the age of 5 really happened. She definitely deliberately chose lifetime events which were too unusual. If she has chosen something very unusually and only had 3 session her success rate would most likely have been much lower. So despite the particulars of her study such as enlisting the help of parents to cause doubt in subject's minds she failed in 75% of the subjects implanting a false memory. In some of her talks she points out that there are characteristics noted of what type of people are most susceptible to memory manipulation and she has said that people who have a tendancy to be forgetful are most susceptible. But that's about as far as she's gone..as far as determining what makes the difference in who has the sort of memory that could be easily manipulated. So when I said mundane events I was referring to the "rich -false" paradigm studies she talked about of suggesting to subjects they got lost in a mall at the age of 5. In my previous post I explained how this particular study was dissimilar to the situation with the conneaut witnesses.

The 25% success rate you are referring to is that of implanting completely false memories into adults about a supposed childhood experience. We are talking about people confabulating different sources into their recollections Spalding's romance. The lost tribes theme is one such evidence since it does not appear in the Book of Mormon.
Only three of the witnesses noted repeated exposure to the Spalding manuscript and contents.

I fail to see how a story remembered could be confabulated into thinking it was written in biblical style when it was not, nor a repeated phrase remembered if it had not been in the story they had read and some unique names clearly remembered when names in the MSCC were not in anyway the same and when exposure to the Book of Mormon may have jogged their memories enabling them to retrieve in their memory a few names actually in the book they had read 20years previously. I do not think all the Conneaut witnesses memories are as fragile as you are attempting to argue they were. With regards to your comment about the lost tribes theme..it doesn't matter if it's not in the Book of Mormon...it may have been in Spalding's book. But that isn't my focus right now, my focus is on appreciating what the Loftus's studies do indicate and why their use isn't applicable to the conneaut witness situation.

The time period was actually over twenty years.

Well Glenn please not I was addressing the words of Dan..who mentioned 15 year old memories dim. I'm quite aware that the time period is 20 years approx not 15.

And he actually represented himself as an authority, being deputized by a commission to obtain the truth of the matter as to Spalding's romance being the source of the Book of Mormon. [/qipte]

Actually Glenn I believe Hurlbut interviewed some of the witnesses before convincing a citizens committe to sponsor him to take a trip to Spalding's widow to try to find Spalding's manuscript. Be that as it may he was not an authority to any of the Conneaut witnesses.

Remember how he was able to convince the widow to give him the manuscript?

I believe she didn't trust or like him but Hurlbut had letters from some of the Conneaut witnesses as well as her brother all encouraging her to cooperate with him in giving him the manuscript.

Twenty year old memories are hardly as clear as those of just yesterday.

Actually 20 year old memories can be clearly for some people than short term memories. My mom could recite poems she'd heard in her youth only a few times but couldn't remember discussions that day with me. But yes I agree if one isn't too elderly in which short term memory is sometimes impaired most people do find their memories on average deteriorate. And the conneaut witnesses acknowledged that phenomenon. However on average most people have particular memories that remain quite clear long term. If they say the book they remembered was written in biblical language I don't see that as being subjected to dimming, nor remembering the phrase "and it came to pass". And I also appreciate that retrieval of memory in time deteriorates but that the phenomenon of having one's memory jogged can enable people to retrieve accurately long term stored memories. I really don't think I need to give examples of that, it's a common phenomenon.

As Dan noted, the S/R critics are not trying to prove that the Conneaut witnesses has memory confabulations. That is impossible because we have no way of verifying any their statements today. But, we are asserting that their statements show evidences of memory confabulation and prompting.

I agree their statement show evidence of prompting. But I also consider Hurlbut was not all the devious in trying to create a case against the Book of Mormon since he brought back the MSCC which went against such an endeavour. And based upon personal experience I've had witnesses are generally not all that cooperative unless they seem some benefit to themselves or they worry about negative ramifications to themselves if they don't cooperate. I don't get the impression from the Conneaut witnesses' statements that they worked all that hard in giving their statements, nor that they were all that keen in doing so. I get the impression they cooperated just enough to given Hurlbut the basics but I don't think they necessarily trusted him nor respected him. So I agree I think Hurlbut in order to get cooperation would show previous witnesses statements making it easier on later witnesses. However I don't think doing so created confusion in what the witnesses remembered, nor created false memories. I think what they all testified to, they had clear memories of. And when people have clear memories they are not susceptible to memory manipulation. With consensus in the witnesses statements it is even less likely their memories were wrong.

Their statements are at odds with Matilda Spalding Davison's statements and those of Redick McKee and Joseph Miller.

Roger has addressed this and I'll leave it at that. I really would have to review their statements. I have a terrible memory by the way..at least with the details of this stuff. (I'm leaving this board for today)

[_GlennThigpen]

I fail to see how a story remembered could be confabulated into thinking it was written in biblical style when it was not, nor a repeated phrase remembered if it had not been in the story they had read and some unique names clearly remembered when names in the MSCC were not in anyway the same and when exposure to the Book of Mormon may have jogged their memories enabling them to retrieve in their memory a few names actually in the book they had read 20years previously. I do not think all the Conneaut witnesses memories are as fragile as you are attempting to argue they were. With regards to your comment about the lost tribes theme..it doesn't matter if it's not in the Book of Mormon...it may have been in Spalding's book. But that isn't my focus right now, my focus is on appreciating what the Loftus's studies do indicate and why their use isn't applicable to the conneaut witness situation.

Marge, you keep asserting that the Loftus studies are not applicable at all. As I mentioned before, she has done more than one study, much more than one. What is applicable in the one you are citing is that it is possible to implant totally false memories in people and to misdirect memories with false or misleading information. She also has noted that people can remember events "clearly" even though they are completely false and believe very firmly that they are remembering correctly when it can be verified that they are not. Another item that she (and others) have noted is that the passage of time makes the memory more susceptible to misinformation misdirection.

Memory confabulation is very possible in the cases of the Conneaut witnesses. John Spalding exhibits just that in his later statements. The lost tribes motif is evidence of possible memory confabulation because it was a theme in Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" among other sources, and was of recent vintage. You say that it does not matter if it is not in the Book of Mormon, it may have been in Spalding's book. However, you then have to disregard parts of the testimony of some of your witnesses.

John Spalding said:

I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings.

Martha Spalding said:

I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than 20 years ago.

Henry lake said:

I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found."

John Miller said:

I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found."

Aron Wright said:

In conclusion, I will observe, that the names of, and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it, as most modern history.

Oliver Smith said:

no religious matter was introduced, as I now recollect. ......When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding.

All of those witnesses are saying the same thing, that the historical part of the Book of Mormon reads almost exactly like that of the Spalding romance and they say that there was no religious material in the Spalding romance, ergo, they are treating the lost tribes motif as a historical and not a religious series of events. Yet, that historical material is not in the Book of Mormon. There is one thing evident from all of this. Those witnesses were not very familiar with the Book of Mormon at the time of their interviews by Hurlbut. And memory confabulation is a very real possibility, although not absolutely proven.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Giggle. Poor Glenn. I'm working on a very promising angle. Dale, very promising New Testament stuff. Giggle. My son has puter right now, posted by cellphone.

[_GlennThigpen]

Giggle. Poor Glenn. I'm working on a very promising angle. Dale, very promising New Testament stuff. Giggle. My son has puter right now, posted by cellphone.

Look for the Shakespeare connection as well as the Book of Enoch. Good stuff there.

Glenn

[_MCB]

You mean they also borrowed from Shakespeare? Where do you see that? This is very exciting!!

[_GlennThigpen]

You mean they also borrowed from Shakespeare? Where do you see that? This is very exciting!!

They borrowed from almost all of the literature of the times. Using a computer, you can find phrases, themes and parallels all overthe place.

But here from the SHIELDS site is the reference to Shakespeare in the Book of Mormon.

The passage from the Book of Mormon in which Lehi is alleged to quote Shakespeare is the following:

Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth. (2 Nephi 1:14)

Some words in this verse will, of course, remind students of Shakespeare of lines 79 and 80 in Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1:

The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns.

Glenn

[_MCB]

I was being facetious. That is not significant.