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

[_MCB]

I said:
#1. That is intellectually lazy, …
Dan Said:
You should know better. Of course, I didn’t say that. That’s Roger’s strawman again.

#2. I said:
… and improbable given Joseph Smith's academic problems.
Dan said:
The Book of Mormon isn’t academic, which should have been your first clue that the learned Spalding didn’t write it.

#1. The intellectual laziness I was referring to was mostly involved in misapplication of Occam's Razor-- ascribing supernatural causation. However, it was developed to uncover fraudulent "miracles." My basic premise is that Joseph Smith could NOT have written it, although his hand can be seen in some of the early chapters.

#2. Spalding was well-read-- that did not make him a good writer. Take another look at the Oberlin manuscript. LOL. The Book of Mormon contains many themes and ideas available in 1814-1830. It is a poorly written cut and paste from many sources. Those sources weren't cited (unlike your immense bibliographies and footnotes LOL), but with some double-checking of suggestions of sources, a mountain of possibilities can be found. Some may not be direct, but they are all reflective of the mentality of that age.

To my mind, when we do not have Spalding's manuscript, we are forced to break through the back door, and uncover what may have been HIS sources, as well. I guess that makes the theory of the missing manuscript irrelevant.

Thanks, coach Dan. Sometimes I am excessively parsimonious on the internet.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Dale has no defined structure, no base line, no controls to indicate what should be significant and how to determine how much is significant.
...

Last time I looked, "signify" meant to represent some fact
or action -- or to point to some event -- or to symbolize
some truth.

If I say "1+1=2" is "significant," then I am saying that the
expression actually represents some fact, such as my
placing one apple in your hand, and then a second apple,
so that you end up with two apples.

But "significant" can also be used for less concrete
representations. I can say that a cartoon face with a
smile "signifies" happiness -- or that it is "significant"
that your fingerprints were found upon the trigger of
a murder weapon.

In those cited cases, I would be making a subjective
judgment which others may or may not agree with. In
the instance of the fingerprints, perhaps the outcome
of a court trial would determine the true significance.

When citing linguistic or thematic literary parallels, the
"significance" might be tested in plagiarism charges
brought in a court case. Or, if the parallel was obviously
beyond any possible coincidence, that judgment might
eventually be demonstrated by consensus agreement.

When I speak of "significance" in literary parallels, I am
saying that the literary evidence supports the historical
evidence, strengthening a particular theory.

I rarely use the term "significant" in place of "proof." I
am a researcher, so "significant" evidence would be the
sort of information I would find worthy of further study,
interesting enough to promote some new research.

To an historian "significant" might have to pass a higher
bar of importance. To a scientist, "significant" might have
to pass an even igher bar of probability.

Generally speaking, I would say that a "significant"
set of literary parallels would have to be present in
such a pattern of distribution, or with such intensity,
so as to arouse our investigative curiosity. For example,
if I could demonstrate that there were five lengthy
word-strings shared by Alma 5 and Alma 34, I might
say that it was "significant" that they appeared in the
same order in the two texts. By "significant," I would
mean worthy of further investigation, in order to help
determine whether or not Alma 5 and Alma 34 share
enough literary material to have come from the same
original author.

There is no quantitative test for literary significance
in that sort of instance. Even if the shared vocabulary
of Alma 5 and Alma 34 was 100%, that fact alone
would not prove anything. I might cite the percentage
as being the highest such match in the entire book, or
as matching some other quantified value --- but it
would then be up to other students of the text to
determine whether or not the discovery merited any
further analysis.

If you are looking for "significance" that rises to the
level of "proof," you'll have to tell me what proof is.

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

This is absurd. Roger doesn’t believe in logic, so he is exempt from its restrictions.

I've never stated that.

I assume those engaging in debate know or should know the fundamentals, especially those who do it as much as you guys.

I am interested in where the Book of Mormon came from. Not in engaging in debate for the sake of engaging in debate.

Whether there are logical fallacies going on or not and who is guilty of them is a subjective matter. I think there are real logical problems with your case, beginning with the fact that you hypothesize a Bible but none of the witnesses you otherwise rely on support that hypothesis. And I think it is also pretty weak to build your case on the trustworthiness of David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and the others in the first place.

You argue that a Bible would not raise suspicions, but that assumption is tautological in that it rests on part of your premise: that David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and the others are trustworthy. How do we know that Bible use would not have raised suspicions? Because the witnesses are trustworthy. How do we know the witnesses are trustworthy? Because their suspicions weren't raised when a Bible was used.

Not only is it tautological reasoning, if you are wrong in that key but unsupported assumption (that the witnesses are trustworthy) then your suspicion argument is worthless. It's also not valid if they were deceived, and I'm pretty sure your Book of Mormon production theory rests on the idea that at some level they were deceived by Joseph Smith. So it appears that you agree that deception was at play at some level, you just want the prerogative to draw the lines where you want them drawn.

Earlier I asked you:

Dan, please tell us how YOU believe the Book of Mormon got here. Specifically I would like you to tell us WHO is responsible for the content and how that content got placed on the manuscript pages. Please be as precise as possible in your descriptions so that we can carefully, thoughtfully and fairly evaluate your position. Then, please tell us why you believe as you do.

As a reply you wrote:

Roger,

I spelled out step by step how the Book of Mormon was produced in my biography. Enjoy!

I will read your biography whenever I get a copy and time permits. In the meantime, could you answer some questions?

1. How do you think the plagiarized Isaiah and Malachi sections came about? Did Cowdery copy them while Smith was away and did he produce his own variants at that time? Did Cowdery copy them while Smith was away and then Smith came back and made the changes while gazing into the stone? Did Joseph memorize large chunks of the Bible?

2. Do you think the Bible was referenced/consulted at all in the areas where there was not blatant quoting going on... for example is Jacob 1:7 a plagiarism of Hebrews 3:8?

3. Why do you think the Book of Mormon witnesses are reliable? What are some good reasons we should trust them?

4. Why do you not trust them when they claim words appeared in the stone?

5. Was Oliver Cowdery a dupe of Joseph Smith?

Thanks.

[_Roger]

Glenn wrote:

Hurlbut was pretty predictable. To make your theory work, you have to make Hurlbut act in a manner for which he was against his nature. Something for which you can provide no logical explanation except to say that he may have not done as we would think.

Actually there are two very logical reasons:

1. monetary gain
2. preservation of his life

The tide dramatically turned against Hurlbut when the trail came down in Smith's favor. At that point his options were limited and handing over a manuscript to Howe that resembled the Book of Mormon could have endangered his life. On the other hand, if the Mormons had offered him money for it--and there is reason to suspect so--his problems go away.

Hurlbut's own statements on this are bizarre. At one point he claims the manuscript he retrieved from the trunk contained the same names as the Book of Mormon and yet he thought it was all nonsense.

"Was it Spaulding' s manuscript that was burned?"

Hurlburt waited a moment before answering, his wife looking at him with a pleading, sad expression of countenance.

"Mrs. Davison thought it was; but when I just peeped into it here and there and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi, I thought it was all nonsense; why, if it had been the real one I could have sold it for $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account."

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/18 ... htm#pg062a

That is a most bizarre and unpredictable statement coming from the guy who was out to get Smith by means of implanting false memories based on a Spalding manuscript.

Obviously he's lying about something, Glenn.

1. He could not have "peeped into" the Roman story "here and there and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi." We both know that is impossible because those names aren't there.

2. If he would have "peeped into" the a Spalding manuscript "here and there and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi" he would have been able to impeach the Book of Mormon on that basis, so it does not follow that he would have "thought it was all nonsense"

3. His comment that "why, if it had been the real one I could have sold it for $3000" raises the question of where is he getting this? His interviewer had not accused of him of selling the manuscript. He was the one who brought up that idea and in doing so pulls $3,000 out of thin air. How is he so sure he could have sold it for $3,000?

And at the time of this interview, MSCC had not been rediscovered yet.

If Dickinson is reporting this conversation correctly there is reason to believe Hurlbut did what he explicitly denies.

Are you talking about Briggs for your "reasons"?

Brigg's testimony adds to the case, yes. So does Judge Dowen's testimony. So does the Palmyra newspaper account.

[_GlennThigpen]

Actually there are two very logical reasons:

1. monetary gain
2. preservation of his life

The tide dramatically turned against Hurlbut when the trail came down in Smith's favor. At that point his options were limited and handing over a manuscript to Howe that resembled the Book of Mormon could have endangered his life. On the other hand, if the Mormons had offered him money for it--and there is reason to suspect so--his problems go away.

What do you mean by "his options were limited"? He was under no duress at that point. He had been ordered legally not to be around Joseph for six months if I recall correctly. He was ordered to pay court costs and post a bond which he did with two people standing with him. There was nothing in that trial that would have put any pressure on him to turn over the document to the LDS. In fact, if he actually had a manuscript which had the names "Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi" in it, he would have been able to exact a great measure of revenge, which was his original motive, by having that manuscript published.

Hurlbut's own statements on this are bizarre. At one point he claims the manuscript he retrieved from the trunk contained the same names as the Book of Mormon and yet he thought it was all nonsense.

"Was it Spalding' s manuscript that was burned?"

Hurlburt waited a moment before answering, his wife looking at him with a pleading, sad expression of countenance.

"Mrs. Davison thought it was; but when I just peeped into it here and there and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi, I thought it was all nonsense; why, if it had been the real one I could have sold it for $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account."

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/18 ... htm#pg062a

That is a most bizarre and unpredictable statement coming from the guy who was out to get Smith by means of implanting false memories based on a Spalding manuscript.

Obviously he's lying about something, Glenn.

That is one thing that you and I agree on. However, if you accept that this is an actual statement from Hurlbut, he still gives the manuscript to Howe, even though he thinks he could have made money on it. That is the lying part. If it had contained those names, it would not have been "no account" to him.

1. He could not have "peeped into" the Roman story "here and there and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi." We both know that is impossible because those names aren't there.

Absolutely. He lied.

2. If he would have "peeped into" the a Spalding manuscript "here and there and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi" he would have been able to impeach the Book of Mormon on that basis, so it does not follow that he would have "thought it was all nonsense"

3. His comment that "why, if it had been the real one I could have sold it for $3000" raises the question of where is he getting this? His interviewer had not accused of him of selling the manuscript. He was the one who brought up that idea and in doing so pulls $3,000 out of thin air. How is he so sure he could have sold it for $3,000?

And at the time of this interview, MSCC had not been rediscovered yet.

If Dickinson is reporting this conversation correctly there is reason to believe Hurlbut did what he explicitly denies.

If Dickinson is reporting this interview correctly, the only thing that we have any reason to believe is that Hurlbut lied about the names he saw in the manuscript that he gave to Howe. That is the only thing that we have any certainty of.

Are you talking about Briggs for your "reasons"?

Brigg's testimony adds to the case, yes. So does Judge Dowen's testimony. So does the Palmyra newspaper account.

How reliable are those two? I'll have to check back on Briggs, but if I remember correctly, he later claimed that Joseph was the one put under bond at that trial, and not Hurlbut. Don't quote me on that, because I am not sure, but Briggs has been discounted for a reason by others investigating the case.

Glenn

[_MCB]

There is no quantitative test for literary significance
in that sort of instance.

One could generate a control algorithm with which to use statistical tests for significance. All one needs is two guaranteed unrelated texts from that same time period, and use a computer to generate charts on the frequency of shared word-strings of various lengths, per unit of words. One of our resident highly accomplished statisticians could easily do this. You might want to develop two-- one for narrative, the other for theological.

My methodology is a bit more subjective.

[_Uncle Dale]

There is no quantitative test for literary significance
in that sort of instance.

One could generate a control algorithm with which to use statistical tests for significance. All one needs is two guaranteed unrelated texts from that same time period, and use a computer to generate charts on the frequency of shared word-strings of various lengths, per unit of words. One of our resident highly accomplished statisticians could easily do this. You might want to develop two-- one for narrative, the other for theological.

Perhaps a crude method could be devised, whereby books
by the same author could be ranked, statistically against
books by different authors, using word-strings as a basis.

My own studies along these lines, however, indicate that
a single author may write books very much unlike one
another in vocabulary, phraseology, literary content, etc.

Perhaps one day some expert will come up with a formula
in which differing mathematical "weights" can be applied
to NSC values, shared vocabulary, shared phraseology,
grammar, etc., in authorship attribution.

Should such a computerized methodology ever be devised,
my suspicion is that the results would generally prove
indefinite -- in all but the most glaring examples of
plagiarism and re-writes of the same original text.

I say that with a measure of disappointment -- for it
is approximately the method I often make use of myself,
(without inclusion of complex mathematics) to try and
separate probable authorship attributions. I hope that
my method is suitable for pointing out those sections in
one text, MOST LIKE the writings by an author of other
texts. Beyond that limited use, I am not too optimistic
that statistical "significance" can be definitely determined.

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn:

What do you mean by "his options were limited"? He was under no duress at that point. He had been ordered legally not to be around Joseph for six months if I recall correctly. He was ordered to pay court costs and post a bond which he did with two people standing with him. There was nothing in that trial that would have put any pressure on him to turn over the document to the LDS. In fact, if he actually had a manuscript which had the names "Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi" in it, he would have been able to exact a great measure of revenge, which was his original motive, by having that manuscript published.

He had been holding public meetings and bragging how he was going to bring Smith down. Then everything changed. If Danites (or their forerunners) got to him and were able to impress upon him that his life would be in danger if he published the "trash" he had accumulated then he's going to think twice about how important revenge is to him. From the things I read about him, it seems that money was pretty important to him and as you say, he was ordered to pay court costs. If the Mormons offered to pay him $3,000 in exchange for the ms, all his problems go away. He turns the other ms over to Howe (and gets a little more cash) as if that was the only ms he ever had, his court costs are paid by the Mormons and he leaves town alive.

Obviously he's lying about something, Glenn.

That is one thing that you and I agree on. However, if you accept that this is an actual statement from Hurlbut, he still gives the manuscript to Howe, even though he thinks he could have made money on it. That is the lying part. If it had contained those names, it would not have been "no account" to him.

It's not terribly surprising that you and I agree that Hurlbut lied. I already pointed out that he would have made A LOT of money off the sale of the ms to the Mormons. He also made a little more by selling the rest to Howe.

If Dickinson is reporting this interview correctly, the only thing that we have any reason to believe is that Hurlbut lied about the names he saw in the manuscript that he gave to Howe. That is the only thing that we have any certainty of.

Why would he do that? It doesn't make sense. You are the one insisting he implanted those false memories into the minds of his gullible subjects. If he did that, then he knows those names were never there, so why claim they were there if he's then going to claim it was all nonsense?

If all we had to go on was the word of Hurlbut, we might just scratch our heads and think this guy is off his rocker, but the very real possibility exists that he's covering something up--and not doing it very well. That is certainly the impression Dickinson gives. And beyond that we have Dowen and Briggs claiming they also saw MF. I see no reason for Dowen to lie about that. He's the one who put out a writ against Hurlbut which resulted in the trial.

He states the following:

I should not be surprised if Howe sold Spaulding's Manuscript Found to the Mormons. There was all kinds of iniquity practiced at that time.

So here again we see the idea of selling the ms to the Mormons only this time Dowen suspects Howe of doing it. But Hurlbut would have had more motivation than Howe. His situation was more precarious and he needed money. And Howe's book certainly would have had a knockout punch if he would have had possession of MF.

On the other hand, there is a report of Howe turning white as a sheet when he first learns of the rediscovery of MSCC in 1884. The report has him relieved to learn that it is only MSCC and not MF. In Dickinson's interview, she claims Hurlbut showed her a letter from Howe claiming MF had been burned when his office caught fire. So possibly Howe did know more than he was letting on.

[_Roger]

UD:

Should such a computerized methodology ever be devised,
my suspicion is that the results would generally prove
indefinite -- in all but the most glaring examples of
plagiarism and re-writes of the same original text.

Indefinite because there are people who want to believe a certain way and there is enough wiggle room to claim coincidence.

Nearly everyone recognizes that a Bible was used for the obvious large chunks that are nearly verbatim. Sandra Tanner makes the case that the same Bible was used in many other places. I wonder what Ben and Dan and Glenn would think of her methods and conclusions?

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

What do you mean by "his options were limited"? He was under no duress at that point. He had been ordered legally not to be around Joseph for six months if I recall correctly. He was ordered to pay court costs and post a bond which he did with two people standing with him. There was nothing in that trial that would have put any pressure on him to turn over the document to the LDS. In fact, if he actually had a manuscript which had the names "Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi" in it, he would have been able to exact a great measure of revenge, which was his original motive, by having that manuscript published.

He had been holding public meetings and bragging how he was going to bring Smith down. Then everything changed. If Danites (or their forerunners) got to him and were able to impress upon him that his life would be in danger if he published the "trash" he had accumulated then he's going to think twice about how important revenge is to him. From the things I read about him, it seems that money was pretty important to him and as you say, he was ordered to pay court costs. If the Mormons offered to pay him $3,000 in exchange for the ms, all his problems go away. He turns the other ms over to Howe (and gets a little more cash) as if that was the only ms he ever had, his court costs are paid by the Mormons and he leaves town alive.

Obviously he's lying about something, Glenn.

That is one thing that you and I agree on. However, if you accept that this is an actual statement from Hurlbut, he still gives the manuscript to Howe, even though he thinks he could have made money on it. That is the lying part. If it had contained those names, it would not have been "no account" to him.

It's not terribly surprising that you and I agree that Hurlbut lied. I already pointed out that he would have made A LOT of money off the sale of the ms to the Mormons. He also made a little more by selling the rest to Howe.

If Dickinson is reporting this interview correctly, the only thing that we have any reason to believe is that Hurlbut lied about the names he saw in the manuscript that he gave to Howe. That is the only thing that we have any certainty of.

Why would he do that? It doesn't make sense. You are the one insisting he implanted those false memories into the minds of his gullible subjects. If he did that, then he knows those names were never there, so why claim they were there if he's then going to claim it was all nonsense?

If all we had to go on was the word of Hurlbut, we might just scratch our heads and think this guy is off his rocker, but the very real possibility exists that he's covering something up--and not doing it very well. That is certainly the impression Dickinson gives. And beyond that we have Dowen and Briggs claiming they also saw MF. I see no reason for Dowen to lie about that. He's the one who put out a writ against Hurlbut which resulted in the trial.

He states the following:

I should not be surprised if Howe sold Spalding's Manuscript Found to the Mormons. There was all kinds of iniquity practiced at that time.

So here again we see the idea of selling the ms to the Mormons only this time Dowen suspects Howe of doing it. But Hurlbut would have had more motivation than Howe. His situation was more precarious and he needed money. And Howe's book certainly would have had a knockout punch if he would have had possession of MF.

On the other hand, there is a report of Howe turning white as a sheet when he first learns of the rediscovery of MSCC in 1884. The report has him relieved to learn that it is only MSCC and not MF. In Dickinson's interview, she claims Hurlbut showed her a letter from Howe claiming MF had been burned when his office caught fire. So possibly Howe did know more than he was letting on.[/quote]

Danites for which there is no evidence, out of thin air? Dowen, who had nothing to do with anything you use as a witness because he said he "suspects". And though not mentioned, the estimable Briggs, who no less than six times said that Joseph was the one held over for assaulting Hutlbut.

You did a little better with the Conneaut witnesses, but not much.

Glenn