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

[_Uncle Dale]

...
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.

Wesley Walters spent quite a hunk of his time studying the use
of the KJV in the Book of Mormon narrative. Other students of
Mormon history, like Mike Marquardt, understand very well the
process whereby biblical language was appropriated into the
Nephite record -- and not just from any Bible, but from the
KJV (and perhaps a few snippets from Alex Campbell's New Testament).

We see these scholars assigning word-strings as short as
three or four words in a row to specific KJV borrowings, shown
by chapter and verse.

The traditional RLDS view has been that the similarity in
language was all due to coincidence. God speaks the same
message to all ages, and is simply coincidence that two
biblical writers make use of "come to pass;" or that two
Book of Mormon prophets make use of "and now behold..."
It is no more strange that the Bible and Nephite record
share such language, than it is odd that those two books
internally share similar language between separate prophets.

I don't buy that apologetic -- but most of my co-religionists
in the Reorganized Church and CoC were convinced by it. Of
course there are also more experienced, better educated
scholars from those groups who recognize massive language
(and doctrinal) dependence of the "Nephites" upon the KJV.

I wonder what Ben and Dan and Glenn would think of her methods and conclusions?

I'm only guessing -- but perhaps they would say that such
examples as those presented by Sandra Tanner lack any real
"significance;" because she did not make use of a scientific,
rigorous and exhaustive methodology, in order to determine
plagiarism. Therefore, it is only Sandra's "guess," and not
anything that the rest of us need take note of.

Of course, in the cases of the Isaiah, Malachi and Matthew
textual correspondence, the match is so perfect and so
extensive, that even Ben and Dan and Glenn would have to
come up with some better reply than that the early Mormon
witnesses saw no Bible in Joe Smith hands, yadda, yadda, yadda.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Joseph was the one held over for assaulting Hutlbut.
...

Where did anybody say that Smith was arrested?

Do you wish to provide your explanation of what happened
between Hurlbut and Smith, in the Kirtland Flats schoolhouse,
in the last days of Dec., 1833 -- when a complaint was
registered with the Gentile Justice of the Peace in Kirtland?

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn:

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.

I was pointing to things I thought you were already aware of. Apparently you are not. There is more to Dowen's statement if you care to take a look at it. And of course there is a lot more from Briggs as well. You seem to have already made up your mind. I don't know whether a ms was sold to the Mormons or not. All I am saying is that there is evidence to suggest that might have occurred, and if it did, then a lot of things make sense.

[_Roger]

UD:

Wesley Walters spent quite a hunk of his time studying the use
of the KJV in the Book of Mormon narrative. Other students of
Mormon history, like Mike Marquardt, understand very well the
process whereby biblical language was appropriated into the
Nephite record -- and not just from any Bible, but from the
KJV (and perhaps a few snippets from Alex Campbell's New Testament).

We see these scholars assigning word-strings as short as
three or four words in a row to specific KJV borrowings, shown
by chapter and verse.

I think if we care at all about establishing common ground with Smith-alone proponents, we need to start with the Bible. It's pretty difficult, however, if all they are willing to acknowledge is dependence when it comes to the larger chunks and still (stubbornly) proclaim that the smaller word-strings are the result of familiarity with Biblical language.

The traditional RLDS view has been that the similarity in
language was all due to coincidence. God speaks the same
message to all ages, and is simply coincidence that two
biblical writers make use of "come to pass;" or that two
Book of Mormon prophets make use of "and now behold..."
It is no more strange that the Bible and Nephite record
share such language, than it is odd that those two books
internally share similar language between separate prophets.

Sure but Sandra points to other word strings beyond just "come to pass" or "and now behold." For example, the one I brought up in my question to Dan reads as follows:

Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness (Heb 3:8)

...they should not enter in, as in the provocation in the days of temptation while the children of Israel were in the wilderness. (Jacob 1:7)

So I think any rational person can look at those two phrases and see similarities. And that is just one of many. While LDS and RLDS may believe that God speaking the same language explains all that, people like Dan and Sandra do not. If they agree that a Bible was used to produce the longer chunks, shouldn't they agree that a Bible was used for the many smaller word-strings as well?

I'm only guessing -- but perhaps they would say that such
examples as those presented by Sandra Tanner lack any real
"significance;" because she did not make use of a scientific,
rigorous and exhaustive methodology, in order to determine
plagiarism. Therefore, it is only Sandra's "guess," and not
anything that the rest of us need take note of.

Of course, in the cases of the Isaiah, Malachi and Matthew
textual correspondence, the match is so perfect and so
extensive, that even Ben and Dan and Glenn would have to
come up with some better reply than that the early Mormon
witnesses saw no Bible in Joe Smith hands, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Well Dan goes so far on this thread as to speculate that Cowdery might have copied those sections when Smith was away! But if Smith-alone advocates are willing to go that far, then I truly wonder where they draw the line and on what logical basis?

My point, and I presume Sandra's point, is that any rational person can look at the above parallel between Hebrews and Jacob and see something that appears to require more of an explanation than coincidence--hence, God speaks the same, which works for believers. We don't need scientific methodology to see that. But when skeptics are willing to agree that the larger chunks demonstrate dependence, then on what basis do they conclude the Bible was set aside when it comes to the smaller word strings?

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

I was pointing to things I thought you were already aware of. Apparently you are not. There is more to Dowen's statement if you care to take a look at it. And of course there is a lot more from Briggs as well. You seem to have already made up your mind. I don't know whether a ms was sold to the Mormons or not. All I am saying is that there is evidence to suggest that might have occurred, and if it did, then a lot of things make sense.

I am aware that J.C. Dowen claimed in 1885 that he had looked at the manuscript that Hurlbut had with him on his lecture tours and that it was (historical parts again) the same as the Book of Mormon, but no supporting details. In 1885. Not a word before to anyone. I am sure that you have read the rest of his statement also.

Brigg's noted that Joseph Smith was put on the stand in what appears to have been a preliminary hearing and questioned about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Here was the perfect opportunity to spring that manuscript on Joseph Smith and the world, to expose Joseph for the fraud that he supposedly was. And not a word. Nothing about Spalding and his wonderful story. J. C. Dowen spoke in Hurlbut's defense, yet he spoke not a word about having compared the Spalding manuscript to the Book of Mormon. Bigg's, in his cross examination of Joseph did not spring the trap. Hurlbut still had the manuscript at the time and could have produced it as evidence. He later stated that he had seen two manuscripts which Hurlbut had showed him and the rest of the group that had deputed Hurlbut in the first place.
If Hurlbut had such a document, reading the same as the Book of Mormon in the historical parts,
it could have been produced at that hearing and Joseph would have been the one disgraced. It did not happen, and the years later statements are not incredible.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...a preliminary hearing and questioned about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
...

What was the date and location of this hearing? How many
judges presided over the case? How many cases were heard?

Where was D.P. Hurlbut kept in confinement just prior to
this hearing you are talking about? What possessions did he
then have with him? On what date did he turn over his
Mormon research materials to E.D. Howe?

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

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

I've never stated that.

[/quote]

I know. Marge said that.

You said:

And I told you from the beginning that I am not concerned about following pre-determined rules for the formal structure of arguments or formally identifying logical fallacies.

Well, I am. You can’t find the truth (or the most defensible position) without it.

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

But that’s exactly what you are doing. And without logic and reason you will never get the answer you say you seek.

Whether there are logical fallacies going on or not and who is guilty of them is a subjective matter.

It might seem that way to you since you are unfamiliar with them. Your opening argument (if the witnesses were silent about the Bible, then they could have been silent about the Spalding MS too) is one from silence. Silence is silence. Any building on that argument is polemics. Any attempt to save that argument by pointing out what you think are hypocritical positions in your opponent’s position is ad hominem. And any farther you go down that road is only going to get worse for you not better. Moreover, I’m under no obligation to go down that road with you since your arguments are only fruits of a corrupt tree.

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.

You are free to think that if you want. But you only think that because you are trying to save your “argument from silence” by finding contradictions by imposing a polemical reading of sources. If you weren’t trying to do that, and your goal was to understand historical events through imperfect sources, your approach to this question would be different.

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.

It’s even more weak to assume they lied without cause.

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.

The argument as you formulate it is circular, sure enough—but it’s not mine. Little wonder we’re not communicating. How could the witnesses’ trustworthy be part of this formulation since they didn’t mention a Bible? My argument was that the Bible would not raise suspicion in the same way that a Spalding MS would since everyone knew the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible.

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.

Your argument here is nearly incoherent. Nevertheless, you need to prove they were untrustworthy, not just Whitmer, but all who gave similar statements, both friendly and unfriendly witnesses (like Michael Morse). You’ll also have to pick one line of argument since they can’t be both liars and deceived about the same matter. But their incorrectly believing Joseph Smith was translating through the stone doesn’t have any bearing on what they observed.

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?

I don’t discuss this in my book because it’s too speculative. Speculation is interpretation, not evidence to be used to overturn something that is more certain. I don’t believe Joseph Smith memorized the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon. If we had the original Book of Mormon MS of those portions that quote Isaiah, we would probably know more about the process. We would be able to see if the variant words were above the line or integral to the text. But the fact that there are variant readings implies that the KJV was “corrected”, probably through the stone in some way.

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?

No. Joseph Smith had the ability to weave scripture into very complex texts. His revelations were given through the stone, in the early years, and later in the presence of others. His letters in 1829 also exhibit this quality.

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

On this subject, I would refer you to Richard Anderson’s book on the witnesses. He gathered all the relevant sources on the witnesses’ character, although I disagree with some of his analysis dealing with the vision of the Three Witnesses. Another reason is the multiple testimony of what was observed while Joseph Smith was translating.

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

I don’t. That part was undoubtedly supplied by Joseph Smith. That’s what he told them he was seeing in the stone. What they observed and their interpretation of what was going on are two different things. Witnesses in court are frequently reminded to testify to what they heard or observed and not to speculate.

5. Was Oliver Cowdery a dupe of Joseph Smith?

Yes. He had a vision of the plates before he met Joseph Smith in Harmony, PA. Lucy Smith talks about how he became fanatical about the plates and insisted on helping Joseph Smith. He wasn’t the logical school teacher that Anderson makes him out to be. He was a rod worker and received revelations.

[Bedlamite]

...
5. Was Oliver Cowdery a dupe of Joseph Smith?
...

By that term, do you mean to ask whether Cowdery was an
honest Christian, who was fooled into believing that Smith
never acted in a secretive and duplicitous manner?

Suppose that Cowdery was an honest, reliable fellow all through
his life as a Mormon -- never suspecting for a moment that Smith
was telling lies and conning people into a religious fraud -- what
evidence might we consult in order to establish that conclusion?



How might we explain his several purported Divine manifestations,
if they were not real (as Mormons profess they were)?

What should we make of this recollection: "I can also state,
that Oliver Cowdrey proved himself to be a worthless person
and not to be trusted or believed when he taught school in
this neighborhood," (from David Stafford of Manchester)?
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm#pg250

What should we make of this reporting -- from the period prior
to Oliver's removal to Harmony and Fayette: "I was frequently at
the house of Joseph Smith from 1827 to 1830... I saw Oliver
Cowdery writing, I suppose the "Book of Mormon" with books
and manuscript laying on the table before him," (from Lorenzo
Saunders of Manchester, and later Palmyra)?
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA ... 010088-2c4

What about this report: "Oliver Cowdery taught School in our
district before Joe Smith said he found the golden plates [Sept,
1827?]... it was the winter school... Cowdery was in the habit of
staying in the school house late nights writing about something,
no one knew what." (From Fayette, c. 1827-28, EMD 5:287ff).



May a non-LDS investigator be allowed to doubt Cowdery's veracity
and his reliability? May a non-Mormon be allowed to consult the
opinions and testimony of early witnesses who were hostile to Mr.
Cowdery? One such early reporter was Orsamus Turner, who in
1831 stated that Cowdery was entrusted to translate the Book of
Mormon by the use of supernatural power. Turner later added to
his initial report, by saying that Cowdery colluded with Lucy Smith
to set the Mormon fraud in motion.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#053131
http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1851Trn1.htm#turn1850

An 1830 Ohio newspaper report blamed the authorship of the Book
of Mormon upon both Cowdery and Smith. Now that accusation
may have been speculative, but it fits well with Eber D. Howe's
1830 report of Cowdery acting like a prophet.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#112530
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#111630

If Cowdery received revelation (whether real, imagined or fake),
on what basis can we exclude him from authorship of any portion
of that "modern revelation" -- the Book of Mormon?

Can we say that he attempted to engage in the "translation"
process, and failed utterly? Or should we say that he made the
attempt; did well at first; but then faltered and quit the work?

If Benjamin Winchester and D. H. Bays were convinced that
Cowdery had a hand in composing the Nephite record, what
investigative methods do we rely upon to prove them wrong?
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT ... htm#092289
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/ ... htm#pg021a

Might we consult writing styles and word-prints in our research?
Might we be allowed to chart out those sections of Book of
Mormon text (and Book of Commandments text) in order to see
which parts of latter day scripture most resemble Cowdery's writings?

Or, should we employ Occam's Razor -- seeking the simplest and
best evidenced conclusion? Might that conclusion be worded as:
"There is zero chance that Cowdery contributed to the text" ???

Speaking of Cowdery, here is a glimpse into his relationship with
Mother Smith that is not commonly found in LDS histories:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL ... htm#042311

And here is some testimony on Mother Smith, from her next door
neighbor in Manchester:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#031604



But, perhaps Cowdery really did believe he met Jesus Christ in 1836,
and perhaps he really did believe that Joe Smith never told a lie.

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

Thank you for answering my 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?

I don’t discuss this in my book because it’s too speculative. Speculation is interpretation, not evidence to be used to overturn something that is more certain. I don’t believe Joseph Smith memorized the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon. If we had the original Book of Mormon MS of those portions that quote Isaiah, we would probably know more about the process. We would be able to see if the variant words were above the line or integral to the text. But the fact that there are variant readings implies that the KJV was “corrected”, probably through the stone in some way.

Fair enough. So "use of the stone" (and whatever that specifically entails), in this case at least, is speculative. I am not familiar enough with how much of the original ms survived. Apparently not enough to determine whether the variants were integral to the text. I assume they are in the printer's copy?

If we don't have evidence either way, then what basis is there to conclude that the variants were created at a later point in time? Is this how Pratt claims the Inspired Version changes came about?

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?

No. Joseph Smith had the ability to weave scripture into very complex texts. His revelations were given through the stone, in the early years, and later in the presence of others. His letters in 1829 also exhibit this quality.

So to be clear... you are saying the only external material that was blatantly plagiarized was the obvious large-scale, nearly verbatim KJVB quotations. Correct? When Sandra Tanner produces a large amount of word-string comparisons like the one I listed, you don't think an open Bible was used to produce any of them?

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

I don’t. That part was undoubtedly supplied by Joseph Smith. That’s what he told them he was seeing in the stone. What they observed and their interpretation of what was going on are two different things. Witnesses in court are frequently reminded to testify to what they heard or observed and not to speculate.

So then, the short answer is, when it comes to words appearing in the stone, your opinion is that the witnesses were deceived by Joseph Smith.

5. Was Oliver Cowdery a dupe of Joseph Smith?

Yes. He had a vision of the plates before he met Joseph Smith in Harmony, PA. Lucy Smith talks about how he became fanatical about the plates and insisted on helping Joseph Smith. He wasn’t the logical school teacher that Anderson makes him out to be. He was a rod worker and received revelations.

When you say things like: "He had a vision of the plates before he met Joseph Smith in Harmony, PA." I am at a loss as to how to interpret that. Does that mean you believe he actually did have "a vision of the plates before he met Joseph Smith in Harmony, PA" that was presumably given to him by God? If not, then how are we to interpret it?

I agree that he "wasn’t the logical school teacher..." but why does that imply that he was deceived rather than being a part of the deception?

One more question....

Where do you think the characters Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon came from? Who would have drawn/copied them?

Thanks.

[_GlennThigpen]

...a preliminary hearing and questioned about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
...

What was the date and location of this hearing? How many
judges presided over the case? How many cases were heard?

Where was D.P. Hurlbut kept in confinement just prior to
this hearing you are talking about? What possessions did he
then have with him? On what date did he turn over his
Mormon research materials to E.D. Howe?

UD

Wherever Hurlbut was kept in custody is not relevant, nor what possessions he would have had with him. He would have been allowed to retrieve any evidence that he wished to present. His lawyer, James Briggs was one of he people who claimed to have seen the manuscript that the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been similar to. Briggs had Joseph Smith on the stand during the three days the hearing lasted, 13-15 January of 1834. I have been unable to confirm the actual date that Howe received the manuscript and the other materials from Hurlbut. But that would not have been a deterrence to a legal proceeding, especially since that was not supposed to be the "Manuscript Found".

Glenn