Marg,
Correct we are not examining for the most part religious claims. But Book of Mormon witnesses who make claims of seeing angels or other religious supernatural events, or who tend to be highly credulous and appear to have a penchant or eagerness to believe in the supernatural does reduce the reliability and credibility of their statements. My comment though was mainly in response to your post in which you equated apologist’’s offhand dismissal of critic's arguments as being no different logically to critics who are critical and dismiss the eyewitness ““head in the hat absent MS.”” testimonies. You wrote: I fail to see why shrugging off the eyewitness testimony as Mormon and untrustworthy is any better than apologists who dismiss all testimony they don't like as anti-Mormon bias or outright falsehood. Because you didn’’t specify that you were referring to ““dilettante”” only and because you don’’t accept any critic’’s argument against eyewitness version of events for "head in the hat absent any source written material" , I took it that you were essentially grouping most critics on this issue as being just as biased and closed minded as apologists. That appeared to be your argument. If you don’’t consider most critics who are at odds with your point of view on this particular issue to be at odd with you due to bias and closed mindedness, then I stand corrected.
My comment was specifically in response to Dilettante's statement: "The eyewitness testimony you value most seems to me to be mostly Mormon members."
I believe I and any historian of Mormonism accept the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses because it is commensurate with the claims being made. Only the Spalding theorists want to engage in special pleading because the eyewitness testimony is very damaging to their claims. The burden is on them to overturn that testimony and to prove their case.
You are going off on a tangent by bringing in Spalding theorists to this issue. At issue in this particular discussion is whether or not Smith realistically could have and would likely have dictated from his mind only, without the use of any written material present.
You are going on a tangent by brining in the burden of proof argument with regard to eyewitness testimony. Eyewitnesses are eyewitnesses. The only thing that is relevant is the trustworthiness of the witnesses. You can't overturn multiple witnesses because you think Joseph Smith could not have dictated the Book of Mormon without notes. The eyewitnesses prove that your assumptions are wrong. It's backwards to make acceptance of the eyewitness testimony contingent on proving Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon without notes. The fallacy of
obscurum per obscurius consists in attempting to explain the more certain with the less certain. Historians are quite familiar with assessing the value of testimony, especially multiple witnesses, but on what grounds can one confidently conclude Joseph Smith could not have dictated the Book of Mormon without notes?
The Spalding theory is irrelevant to the issue of ““head in the hat absent manuscript”” and rejection of the Spalding theory does not add any support to the ““head in the hat, absent manuscript theory””.
In the context of the previous 20 pages, the Spalding theory is relevant. I brought up eyewitness testimony for the head in the hat and no MS as a counter to the Spalding theory. Emma Smith and David Whitmer made their comments in direct response to the Spalding theory. So, Spalding theorist--like you--are highly motivated to account for this testimony. Now you want to pretend that it has nothing to do with this thread? So far, I haven't hear any cogent arguments for why historians should reject this multiple eyewitness testimony.
As I mentioned above I didn’’t realize you were referring to dilettante only. I highly doubt that dilettante’’s rejection of eyewitness testimony is due to bias, closed mindedness and lack of critical evaluation of the evidence, but it’’s possible. I also highly doubt that most critics and actually I prefer the term skeptics, I was using ““critics”” because it was the term you used, but I highly doubt most skeptics who are critical of eyewitness testimony of ““head in the hat”” are critical simply because of bias, closedmindedness or poor critical evaluation of evidence.
The only group that questions the eyewitness testimony that I know of are the Spalding theorists. But I really don't care why they are wrong.
The fact that many of the testimonies were from the start up supporters of Smith who had vested interest in the Mormon organization, does reduce the reliability of their statements. As you appreciate a hostile witness who supports the ““head in the hat”” is a much more reliable, much stronger witness. I only know of one hostile witness Mr. Hale.
I have also quoted in this thread Joseph Smith's non-Mormon brother-in-law Michael Morse. We're lucky to have these hostile witnesses, but they are not essential. Another way to check biased testimony is to have more than one witness. And we do. You bring up vested interest. But you are not accusing the witnesses of distorting the truth due to their bias, but you are accusing multiple witnesses of lying. How you imagine that occurred is puzzling since it's not like they all got together and agreed on a false story they would tell many years later. Emma, Harris, Whitmer tell the same story independently.
Dan, if we assume Smith didn’’t memorize the Bible portions and it was present in the process then the fact that no scribe in particular Cowdery mentioned it presents a problem because the ommision of something important reduces their reliability. It would be a gross omission on their part.
You would have a point if they were asked about the Bible specifically, and they denied it. They were mainly concerned to counter the Spalding theory, and in no case did they give a sufficiently detailed statement as to accuse any of them of being evasive. You can't use the argument that if they didn't mention the Bible, then there could have also been the Spalding MS, because that's exactly what they were denying.
Because something may be a possibility does not make it a probability. There are people with amazing abilities, but those abilities are typically duplicated to many individuals who have no personal connection or involvement. In particular, I’’m thinking of savant geniuses. While it may be a possibility that Smith could automatic write it is not a likely probability. But if Smith could do this automatic writing, then there was no necessity for such secrecy in the process. He was a con man, smart enough to realize that if he had this amazing automatic writing ability as you suggest it would have been to his advantage to perform the dictation to scribes in front of whomever wished to observe, out in the open completely. And of course it would have been to his benefit to get many more witnesses than he had and witnesses who were less involved with the entire start up organization. If Smith wasn’’t such an established liar, a con man, if he didn’’t have such a vested interest in being a religious leader, if he wasn’’t so secretive of the dictation process I might consider that he had this amazing automatic writing ability. But other explanations than that extraordinary one seem much more probable.
There's nothing probable about genius. I don't think his method was like automatic writing, but that the existence of automatic writing should stand as a caution against assessing Joseph Smith based on our limitations. I think "secrecy" is the wrong word; more like privacy, so as concentrate on the work at hand. You have too many assumptions: Joseph Smith was a con man; a con man would have put on a performance with a room full of skeptics; since he didn't do that, he must have been reading from a MS. That's quite a convoluted way of thinking.
I don’’t know the Book of Mormon well, but I know that the Book of Mormon’’s storyline is complex. The site below explains and illustrates just how complex the narrative is. I would agree with you the text is rather simple however it is still quite complicated for Smith given his educational level at the time.
There are some complexities, but none so complex that the author, who is really into what he is creating, can't keep track of. Most of the year-by-year account is unconnected and can stand alone; the same is true for 188 non-Biblical names.
The reason why there is a presumption that the text was not a dictation from Smith’’s mind without any written notes or text to read from is because it would require an extraordinary feat to accomplish writing such a complex narrative with such few rewrites, in such little time, with so few errors as far as mixing up characters and events. It requires an extraordinary feat to dictate large portions of the KJV Bible from someone who was not known or observed objectively to have this ability. Automatic writing is an extraordinary ability, it is not something which should be presumed without sufficient evidence to warrant its acceptance. So the presumption is not that Smith dictated the entire Book of Mormon from his mind only using automatic writing. To claim he did that by that method is the extraordinary claim. Hence one would need highly credible witnesses in sufficient numbers to warrant acceptance of this particular extraordinary claim or theory. If the theory or claim wasn’’t so extraordinary then the fact that the eyewitnesses were related to one another or had vested interest in Mormonism wouldn’’t be such as important. The best witness that I’’m aware of is Isaac Hale, but he didn’’t observe for extended periods of time, and he didn’’t necessarily catch them off guard being that they were working in a different house to his on his property.
What I have already said above should be sufficient to see the illogical nature of this statement.
Why should I be desperate Dan? I don’’t have a vested interest in any particular theory. I gain nothing from one theory winning out over another. I’’m not writing any book, I have no family members in Mormonism, I have no family members in any religion, nor do I belong to any religion. Mormonism doesn’’t affect my life at all, other than my participation on the Net. My main interest on message boards dealing with Mormonism has always been ““critical thinking.”” And I only participate on 2 boards on the Net..at least for 2 years now this one and 2 think.org And this one I write on average about 2 posts per day since I started in Nov 2006 and on 2.think I average much less than that. So I'm your average, pretty much objective, skeptic who has taken a bit of interest in Mormonism. I certainly appreciate I’’m no expert. And frankly the main reason I responded to your post is that I object to your view that critics of the "head in the hat absent written material" theory are simply dismissing without critical evaluation the eyewitness testimonies. I know myself, that's not the case.
Well, I'm trying to draw out reasons Spalding theorists dismiss the eyewitness testimony. Dilettante only said they were Mormons. And it is just the Spalding theorist who object, because critics--like myself--have tried to get this information out to the average LDS, who still believes Joseph Smith was wearing the breastplate with Urim and Thummim. Any way, I'm still trying to get you to critically evaluate the testimony. You haven't evaluated the testimony at all, but have tried to dismiss it indirectly. This is what you said:
Looking at a hostile witness, Emma’’’’s dad who would have high reliability versus non hostile witnesses, I don't find the evidence sufficient. Cowdery at the time of Hales’’’’ observations was the scribe working with Smith and he was the main scribe of the Book of Mormon manuscript in current existence. At the time Hale observed Smith with "head in the hat" Cowdery and Smith were working together in a separate house on Hale’’’’s property. It is quite conceivable they were prepared for Mr. Hale’’’’s visits which were not frequent. It is conceivable that they could observe him approaching the house and put on a temporary act of this process. They had a vested interest in doing so and would be an easy task.
I called this desperate, because it is total fiction. You pulled it out of think air to escape evidence.
Your response I note, addressed nothing I said with regards to Mr. Hale. And I am not in this discussion to promote the Spalding theory. It may seem to you that the reason I don’’t accept the Book of Mormon witness testimonies is because I want to promote the Spalding theory but even if the Spalding theory didn’’t exist, even if I couldn’’t figure out another alternative besides Smith being the sole creator of the Book of Mormon, given the evidence that exists I wouldn’’t accept the theory that Smith dictated the Book of Mormon from his mind only. It’’s not something the evidence indicates he had an ability to do, nor an interest to do.
Yes, you are a Spalding advocate. This thread was started in part because you thought I neglected the Spalding theory. The testimony of the witnesses was offered against the theory, and you now are rejecting that evidence. If it doesn't relate to the Spalding theory, then you should not have brought it up on this thread. But you really expect me to believe this has nothing to do with Spalding? Nevertheless, you don't know the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith well enough to make the judgement you are trying to make.
Dan I’’ve made the argument that the theory or claim that Smith dictated the Book of Mormon entirely from his mind is an extraordinary one. Of course you can reject that but I do notice you bringing up "automatic writing" do you do appreciate how unlikely any person could do what was claimed. Being an extraordinary claim, it requires highly credible, reliable and sufficient in number witnesses. I don’’t dismiss the few witnesses which Smith picked out for the most part, because of the Spalding theory. I have evaluated their statements, evaluated other evidence and have determined what they claim to have observed is highly improbable. The process they describe does appear to indicate he was reading off of something. I don’’t buy that Smith was capable of automatic writing, as I said there would have been no need to be so secretive and at no other time did he indicate having this extraordinary ability. I can accept for brief periods of time, Smith might have pretended to be reading off a seer stone. Perhaps on the credulous Harris, Smith might have hidden some source material. But all the witness other than Mr. Hale were not objective, skeptical, inquisitive, highly reliable witnesses. They had vested interest at the time.
This is getting monotonous, because all you have is a belief that Joseph Smith could not do it without a written source. You have no evidence for that. You have dismissed the witnesses without evidence for doing so. You have simply and arbitrarily substituted eyewitness testimony for your opinion. What you need is evidence and a cogent argument. So far, you don't have that.
Dan I am interested in the witnesses’’ critical thinking skills. It tells me quite a lot about an individual if they claim to see angels, or aliens, or ghosts etc. It tells me that with high probability they are credulous, not particularly good critical thinkers. And yes it is quite possible some witnesses lied.
You are now using any weapon at hand. Were they credulous or liars? Critical thinking skills? What does that have to do with observing something and reporting it? You need to prove multiple and independent witnesses all lied; not one blew the cover, and somehow they all got the same story. This is really the fallacy of possible (dis)proof.
In this discussion Dan when I've said critic I’’ve referred to those who don’’t accept the ““head in the hat absent manuscript theory””. And one reason they don’’t is they don’’t regard the eye witness testimonies for it as strong and reliable. I’’ve gotten the impression from you that you think critics of this theory dismiss it due to bias rather than critically fair evaluation of evidence. I will repeat and you can disbelieve me of course, but I do not dismiss the witnesses, I have evaluated their claimes in light of other data. If there were no Spalding, I still would not accept Smith as sole author who rattled off the complex Book of Mormon story to scribes. This is why by the way the church is able to promote Smith as sole author and claim it must be by divine intervention, because it is so highly improbable, so extraordinary that Smith could accomplish such a feat. They are absolutely right in this regard.
The more you learn about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, the easier it will be to see Joseph Smith as sole author. The improbable argument comes from Mormon apologists, and you have bought their line. That's all.
Yes it is possible that some were liars and co-conspirators. Do you think people who lie are a rarity? What about people who have a vested interest in that which they are promoting, and perhaps who may believe their lies are for the greater good? Dan if Smith was truly honest, truly could dictate the Book of Mormon under the given circumstances he would have obtained better witnesses instead of essentially using his family and another family who were friends and he would have sought many more witnesses. It was in his interest to do so. Instead the majority of the relatively few witnesses he had of the dictation process had a vested interest in promoting Mormonism and were related to one another. That reduces their reliability. Added to this is the fact that such a feat of dictation without a manuscript or other written source material present given the complexity of the Book of Mormon and lack of rewrites would be extraordinary which therefore should increase one’’s skepticism of the witnesses' claims. With regards to the two witnesses you mention who were somewhat independent with no vested interest Isaac Hale and Michael Morse, they only observed a few times. Of course, it is easy to stage an act occasionally for a few unsuspecting individuals.
Let’’s look at M. Morse’’s statement "When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon I had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes —— Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
What I’’d like to know as a skeptic besides the character of M. Morse is how long did he observe, and how often. His statement on this is extremely vague. If he’’s actually observed the process numerous times you’’d think he’’d say and be more specific as to the actual number of times. He does appear eager to support the ““head in the hat dictation process because he makes a claim to have knowledge of the process used for all scribes in his last line when in fact he didn’’t have personal knowledge and didn’’t observe all the scribes in the process. So while he’’s conveniently vague about the actual number of times he did observe, he is certainly not a hostile witness. He is a witness who likely observed only a few times and briefly, hence it would have been easy to stage what he observed.
At least you are looking at the testimony here. But all you say amounts to quibbling. You want to dismiss the source, assert that it was staged, because it doesn't anticipate your speculations? You have no evidence for staging.
Yes I said "without a manuscript" which was not what I truly meant. I used the subject heading given. What I really think is that Smith must have used written material be it notes, draft work, Bible, etc. I do subscribe to the Spalding theory and consider it a best fit theory given all the data. But I did not dismiss the eyewitnesses out of hand, nor because I want to promote the Spalding theory. I'm certainly no expert on all the data but given what I've read of the eyewitness statement I don't find them strong nor highly reliable.
Let’’s consider for a moment that we know nothing about witnesses statements, let’’s even take Smith and the Book of Mormon out of the equation and consider for a moment that someone presents to the public a book, the size of the Book of Mormon and a similar complexity in storyline of the Book of Mormon and we’’re told the author dictated into a recorder over a few months using no notes, no rough working copy, no writing down anything and no revisions to the storyline as he proceeded. And this person was also not a noted writer previously, never shown any inclination or interest in writing, didn’’t even like to read and no one observed this person preparing or working on any draft nor discussions of the storyline with friends and family previous to recording it. Do you think you’’d presume this to be a likely scenario. How many authors in this world do you think could operate this way? A process, in which no one, not even their wives know before hand the storyline they present, no draft, no revisions, no notes. I think such a scenario is pretty extraordinary. That is why Dan the burden of proof is on those who present such a scenario. You have mentioned automatic writing but I’’ve explained why I don’’t accept that extraordinary explanation.
I'm not suggesting that Joseph Smith dictated cold. I think he had years to think about it. He also could work out his story as he went. What he produced is a great imitation of scripture, but it's not great literature.
I haven’’t just arbitrarily dismissed the witnesses Dan. I have evaluated their statement in light of other data and have determined they are not strong witnesses and with the claim made strong highly reliable witnesses are necessary. There is no good reason why if Smith were honest, if that truly was the process that he used that he couldn’’t have obtained better and even more witnesses. He certainly was interested in getting witnesses. However he obtained relatively few, they mostly had close connection to him personally, and vested interest in the start up organization.
The other data is you opinion about what Joseph Smith was capable of, and there is no way of objectively testing your theory. Eyewitness testimony is more certain than your assumptions about Joseph Smith's abilities. So rather than making wild and unsupported accusations about the witnesses, which involves a theory of conspiracy and coverup that actually exceeds the difficulty you are trying to resolve, it is easier to discard your opinion about Joseph Smith's abilities.