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

[_Roger]

Dale's and Dan's posts are interesting and related. Dale writes:

...
One begins to wonder why our suspicion that Rigdon and/or Spalding may have had a part in Book of Mormon production is such a big deal
...

In a word: Conspiracy.

If Mormonism began with anyone more than just Joseph Smith
himself, then there was a secret conspiracy and a cover-up.

Even if the conspiracy went no further than Alvin and Joseph,
that would still amount to a great condemnation for the LDS.

If the origins of the fraud can be limited to the mind of Joe Smith
alone, then there was no conspiracy and no cover-up.

In that case, every single convert was a Christ-loving, honest
dupe, who simply never knew of Smith's secret schemes.

If you were running the Mormon Church today, how would you
hope that outsiders viewed you? As a political-religious fraud,
conceived with the goal of vast domination -- or, as the
creation of a single man, who was an admitted genius, able
to compose numerous lengthy texts of modern scripture and
to convince great multitudes of the righteousness of his
theological innovations?

Mormons obviously wish that their non-LDS opponents (their
Standard Works call them "enemies") hold to the most benign
view possible of the CofJCofLDS -- and that is the one put
forth by Latter Day Saint Fawn Brodie.

Spalding-Rigdon claims are a stake in the heart of the fraud, no
matter whether they be true or false. If as great a percentage
of the non-LDS public were to believe those claims, as did back
in the late 1880s, the Church would be doomed.

So Dale sees the mere concept of conspiracy to be much more threatening to the LDS church than that merely Joseph was a genius. Okay, I can see the logic to that, which might explain Glenn's adamance against S/R but not Dan's--at least as I understand Dan's position. So let's see what Dan says:

“Hostile” is too strong a word. I get irritated by the distraction that Spalding advocates cause to better approaches to the Book of Mormon. Use of the Bible by Joseph Smith has evidence, but presently there is nothing like that for other sources being used. I have written extensively using parallels between the Book of Mormon and pre-1830 sources, but I have never said that Joseph Smith had to have read any of them. Why? There is no evidence of plagiarism. I have not turned them into infallible saints. That would be your strawman. Rather, these witnesses are easier to believe than the baseless conspiracy you tout.

Dan doesn't claim to have an allegiance to the Mormon church. After 30-something pages, the best I can gather is that he thinks the Book of Mormon witnesses are more credible than the S/R witnesses. I can't for the life of me understand why he thinks that, but, regardless, that's what it seems to boil down to.

Now IF that is indeed what it boils down to, then I simply have a rather large difference of opinion with Dan. I think his own writings give evidence of why it is dangerous to take the word of the Book of Mormon witnesses at face value. And, as I have pointed out, he has done virtually nothing to support their alleged credibility. So he's not going to win me over by simply asserting that I should believe the word of David Whitmer.

And yet, he does also mention the key word "conspiracy." Earlier he argued that parsimony favors his theory. I actually agree with him on that. My argument has always been that this case is an exception to the general rule, and in fact, that is pretty much true for Dan's position as well, when we are forced to look at the content of the Book of Mormon and ask ourselves: is Joseph Smith capable of producing all of it off the top of his head? Answer: only if he was getting revelation from God OR he was some sort of boy wonder.

But this notion of conspiracy does seem to be the thing that gets the most resistance, and I'm still not quite sure why that is. If Joseph Smith came up with content alleging to be a translation of ancient scripture, in which he obviously (fraudulently) weaves himself into false "prophecy" how is that any more pious and/or commendable than thinking Rigdon really believed Spalding had translated an ancient manuscript?

[_MCB]

Dan doesn't claim to have an allegiance to the Mormon church.

Was

Joseph Smith capable of producing all of it off the top of his head? Answer: only if he was getting revelation from God OR he was some sort of boy wonder.

And he was no boy wonder-- given the testimonies of non-Mormons who knew him. He was recruited for the con by people who knew that if he and they claimed revelation, it would be the only answer, other than conspiracy.

His frustration with his academic deficits is almost a poetic description of the experience of dyslexia.

[Bedlamite]

...
But this notion of conspiracy does seem to be the thing that gets the most resistance, and I'm still not quite sure why that is.
...

From the Mormon side, it is perfectly understandable. Oliver Cowdery
really did meet Jesus Christ, face-to-face in Kirtland, Ohio in 1836;
and Sidney Rigdon really did meet Jesus Christ, in the same manner,
in Hiram, Ohio, four years before that.

So -- for the Mormon, at least -- there was no conspiracy and
those wondrous events really occurred.

I'm not quite sure how the non-Mormon accounts for the wonderful
professions of Cowdery and Rigdon -- nor even for David Whitmer's
having interacted with an angel who displayed to him the liahona,
the sword of Laban, etc. Can the non-LDS say that they were real?

I suppose that the non-Mormon, who does not accept those holy
manifestations as real, must introduce some excuse, such as
false memories, faded memories, hypnosis, and such. Either that,
or early members such as Cowdery and Rigdon occasionally told
lies as great as those told by Joe Smith (and with his support).

If the early Mormon witnesses (like Cowdery and Rigdon) were
reliable in their professions regarding the Book of Mormon, then
why would they not be equally reliable in their professions of
having encountered Jesus Christ?

In the summer of 1844 Sidney Rigdon made use of his theophany
of 1832 as the basis for his claim to the LDS leadership. Shortly
before his own death, Oliver Cowdery was writing letters to
David Whitmer, seeking to promote their claims to that leadership.

Were Cowdery and Rigdon still honest religious dupes that late in
the game? Perhaps so. If so, then maybe there was no conspiracy.

UD

[Guest]

From Gregg, 1880, p. 242. History of Hancock County.

When Joseph Smith began his career at Palmyra, New York, his motives were not honest, nor was he prompted by either revenge or ambition. His feeble imagination had not yet grasped at anything beyond a mere toying with mysterious things, by which he hoped, if anything, to earn a living without honest labor. It is evident that at first he had no higher or ambitious purpose in view. He was one of those indolent and illiterate young men to be found in all communities, who, dissatisfied with their lot, have embraced the pernicious doctrine contained in the phrase "The world owes me a living."

p. 245

We say founders, because all who knew Joseph Smith, the so-called prophet, can bear testimony that he was not, without help, capable of building up the structure to the shape and consequence it assumed. Ignorant and unlettered as he was, he managed to draw to him a few men of greater mental capacity than his own, through whose combined efforts his and their crude purposes were gradually brought into shape.

People with learning disabilities can have other compensatory abilities-- such as photographic and phonographic memory, the ability to persuade and con, the gift of being good at oral receptive and expressive language. They often get very frustrated, and feel poorly about themselves, and hone those compensatory skills to give the ego a boost.

Despite their academic problems, they can be above average in intellectual ability.

we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading and writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements.

In Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith 1989.

[_Roger]

I think Joseph was a boy wonder in the sense that he learned at an early age the art of conning people through deception in an effort to put food on the table.

The testimony of Arad Stowell, for example, is revealing in that regard. Joseph was obviously well acquainted with the art of deception. Sometimes it worked, at other times it did not.

But I don't see how THAT skill works so much in favor of Dan's theory and against S/R? On the contrary, it works equally in favor of both theories. It's just that Dan's theory also has to transform Joseph into some sort of literary genius, capable of keeping track of complex (although not terribly masterful) storylines while integrating phrases and buzzwords common to the religious disputes and secular and religious literature of his culture, producing the illusion of chaismus and alleged Hebrew structure, quoting blocks of the Bible nearly verbatim while simultaneously making on the spot doctrinal decisions about the italic words, weaving predictions of himself into the storyline, settling religious controversies, alluding to Masonry, etc. etc.

I'm not saying that isn't possible. I'm just failing to understand how that is vastly superior to the notion of Smith having some help.

But when it comes to the skill of conning people, there is certainly evidence for that in the early life of Joseph Smith. And that evidence works just as well for S/R as it does for Dan Vogel.

[_Uncle Dale]

...transform Joseph into some sort of literary genius, capable of keeping track of complex (although not terribly masterful) storylines while integrating phrases and buzzwords common to the religious disputes and secular and religious literature of his culture, producing the illusion of chaismus and alleged Hebrew structure, quoting blocks of the Bible nearly verbatim while simultaneously making on the spot doctrinal decisions about the italic words, weaving predictions of himself into the storyline, settling religious controversies, alluding to Masonry, etc. etc.

I'm not saying that isn't possible.
...

Neither am I saying that it was not possible.

But, if Smith was blessed with such great genius, then why could
he not have memorized pre-existing texts, for inclusion in his
Book of Mormon dictation?

I suppose that the logical answer must be -- that Occam's Razor
cuts away the more complex possibilities and leaves us only with
Smith as a boy genius (not a boy genius with a photographic memory)

The simplest explanation, supported by the most Mormon witnesses,
must somehow be the only logical (?) explanation.

So -- the witness testimony saying Smith had no Bible, etc., is
reliable -- but the witness testimony saying Smith had a great
memory (and thus capable of reciting pre-existing tests) is unreliable.

Go figure.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

Long term memory can be modified by leading or suggestive questions.

Give me a study that says that. It is short term brief exposure to event memory such as a witness of a crime scene..which is easily modified by leading and suggestive questions.

Marge, I am simply going to quote from "Attention and Memory" by Jennifer Golbeck:

Peterson & Peterson (1959) performed psychological studies to determine the duration, or volatility, of short term memory. Their research shows that short term memory is very volatile. In the presence of distractions, users have difficulty remembering even three elements after eighteen seconds. Further research has shown that the duration of short term memory may be much shorter, decaying after about 2 seconds (Marsh et al 1997).

In other words, if you are remembering something an hour, a day, a month, etc. you are retrieving it from long term memory. If false or inaccurate information is retrieved, it is from long term memory. If memory is altered, by time, by leading questions, or whatever, it is long term memory.

Roger has admitted that the reason the witnesses looked into the story at all was because they were trying to find out if the Book of Mormon was the same as Spalding's story.

Well that was the point, to determine is the spalding book had anything to do with the Book of Mormon.

And you do not see any problem with that? You do not think that there is a possibility that confirmation bias could have a play in this?

There is Josiah Spalding who described the Oberlin manuscript when Spalding was supposedly working on the "second manuscript".

I guess Josiah didn't get his family's memo that he was supposed to lie for Hurlbut. Or could it be that he was only exposed to the earlier manuscript which Aron Wright mentions MSCC that spalding was working on previous to Manuscript Found.

marge, that is exactly right. Josiah was never contacted by Hurlbut. Redick McKee and Joseph Miller was never contaqcted by Hurlbut. And they did not remember the names and events the way that Hurlbuts witnesses did. Why woulf Josiah have been exposed to the supposedly earlier manuscript when Oliver Smith said that Solomon was working on it in early 1810? There are contradictions every which way you look.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn wrote:

Roger has admitted that the reason the witnesses looked into the story at all was because they were trying to find out if the Book of Mormon was the same as Spalding's story.

Why would we expect anything else, Glenn? How are they supposed to judge whether there was a connection unless they "were trying to find out if the Book of Mormon was the same as Spalding's story"? I didn't "admit" anything, I simply stated the obvious.

Well that was the point, to determine is the spalding book had anything to do with the Book of Mormon.

And you do not see any problem with that?

Absolutely none. One wonders why you do?

You do not think that there is a possibility that confirmation bias could have a play in this?

ONLY if they were ONLY exposed to the Roman story. But that's what you're trying to prove. You can't argue that confirmation bias took place because they looked at the Book of Mormon. Because then you are building your case on what you're trying to prove: that there was never any other manuscript besides the Roman story.

How would you expect them to make a statement like: "I find a lot of similarities between Spalding's manuscript and the Book of Mormon" if they had never read the Book of Mormon to see whether there actually were similarities?

The fact is, IF there was a manuscript other than the Roman story that more closely resembles the Book of Mormon, then their statements are pretty much what we would expect them to be.

There is Josiah Spalding who described the Oberlin manuscript when Spalding was supposedly working on the "second manuscript".

marg wrote:

I guess Josiah didn't get his family's memo that he was supposed to lie for Hurlbut. Or could it be that he was only exposed to the earlier manuscript which Aron Wright mentions MSCC that spalding was working on previous to Manuscript Found.

marge, that is exactly right. Josiah was never contacted by Hurlbut. Redick McKee and Joseph Miller was never contaqcted by Hurlbut. And they did not remember the names and events the way that Hurlbuts witnesses did. Why woulf Josiah have been exposed to the supposedly earlier manuscript when Oliver Smith said that Solomon was working on it in early 1810? There are contradictions every which way you look.

Who says either one was earlier? Who is saying that? Like Dale mentioned, there is every reason to believe Spalding was working on the Roman story in 1813, and what remains after a letter with that date appears in the ms, would seemingly have to have been penned after that date. He could have been working on both. Or he could have started the Roman story after having given MF to Patterson/Engles to review. Aron Wright tells us that Spalding had many manuscripts. There is no reason to conclude the Roman story was a preliminary version of MF and in fact the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

Let's see what Miller actually says:

When Mr. Spalding lived in Amity, Pennsylvania, I was well acquainted with him. I was frequently at his house. He kept what was called a tavern. It was understood that he had been a preacher; but his health failed him and he ceased to preach. I never knew him to preach after he came to Amity.

He had in his possession some papers which he said he had written. He used to read select portions of these papers to amuse us of evenings.

These papers were detached sheets of foolscap. He said he wrote the papers as a novel. He called it The Manuscript Found, or The Lost Manuscript Found. He said he wrote it to pass away the time when he was unwell; and, after it was written, he thought he would publish it as a novel, as a means to support his family.

Some time since, a copy of The Book of Mormon came into my hands. My son read it for me, as I have a nervous shaking of the head that prevents me from reading. I noticed several passages which I recollect having heard Mr. Spalding read from his Manuscript. One passage, on page 148 (the copy I have is published by J. O. Wright & Co., New York) I remember distinctly. He speaks of a Battle; and says the Amalekites had marked themselves with red on their foreheads to distinguish them from the Nephites. The thought of being marked on the forehead, was so strange, it fixed itself in my memory. This, together with other passages, I remember to have heard Mr. Spalding read from his Manuscript.

Those who knew Mr. Spalding will soon all be gone and I among the rest. I write, that what I know may become a matter of history; and that it may prevent people from being led into Mormonism, that most seductive delusion of the devil.

From what I know of Mr. Spalding's Manuscript and The Book of Mormon, I firmly believe that Joseph Smith, by some means, got possession of Mr. Spalding's Manuscript, and possibly made some changes in it and called it The Book of Mormon.
March 26, 1869

So Miller mentions Nephites. When you say

Redick McKee and Joseph Miller was never contaqcted by Hurlbut. And they did not remember the names and events the way that Hurlbuts witnesses did.

...you give the impression that McKee and Miller's statements contradict the Conneaut statements. But they don't.

They can't win either way. If Miller would have mentioned Lehi or Nephi specifically you would have said he got it from either the Book of Mormon or by reading Hurlbut's witnesses. As it is, you say because he doesn't specifically mention them that means they were a creation of Hurlbut. But it doesn't. He mentions "Nephites." But of course, you will say he got that from the Book of Mormon and not from MF.

It's an endless battle. The fact is you don't want to believe them, so you have to come up with some reason to justify not believing them. But Miller's statement does not contradict the earlier witnesses.

Glenn, I have a question for you.... let's say you (and Matt Roper, which is obviously where you're getting all this) are right and the Roman story is all Spalding ever wrote on any topic even remotely resembling the Book of Mormon. How do you explain these parallels:

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

All the best.

[_marg]

Glenn: Long term memory can be modified by leading or suggestive questions.


marg: Give me a study that says that. It is short term brief exposure to event memory such as a witness of a crime scene..which is easily modified by leading and suggestive questions.


Glenn: Marge, I am simply going to quote from "Attention and Memory" by Jennifer Golbeck:
"Peterson & Peterson (1959) performed psychological studies to determine the duration, or volatility, of short term memory. Their research shows that short term memory is very volatile. In the presence of distractions, users have difficulty remembering even three elements after eighteen seconds. Further research has shown that the duration of short term memory may be much shorter, decaying after about 2 seconds (Marsh et al 1997)."

In other words, if you are remembering something an hour, a day, a month, etc. you are retrieving it from long term memory. If false or inaccurate information is retrieved, it is from long term memory. If memory is altered, by time, by leading questions, or whatever, it is long term memory.
-------------------------------


Response: Glenn...how does that study or portion you quoted support your comment " Long term memory can be modified by leading or suggestive questions." ? As far as I can see it says nothing about long term memory.

[_MCB]

I suppose that the logical answer must be -- that Occam's Razor cuts away the more complex possibilities and leaves us.... with
Smith as a... boy genius with a photographic memory

Any application of Occam's Razor must be simple. LOL at me.