DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

... 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....

Exactly my thoughts on the matter, marg.

If I am told that I MUST believe that Joseph Smith dictated the entire Book of Mormon text (which he himself had created)
while his head was in a hat, then I first of all wish to understand the witnesses who report that information.

If the sum total of these witnesses' testimony leads inevitably to the ONLY possible conclusion, of
Joseph Smith dictating from the hat, as the ONLY means of constructing the Book of Mormon, then I need to understand
how observant and reliable those witnesses were. How much can I trust their testimony, IF.....

1. Some of them reported seeing the sword of Laban.

2. Some of them reported seeing the liahona.

3. Some of them reported seeing the Nephite breastplate.

4. Most of them reported seeing and handling golden plates.

5. Most of them reported hearing voices from Heaven.

6. Some of them reported seeing angels and a little bearded Moroni.

7. Some of them reported seeing the biblical urim & thummim.

8. Three of them reported seeing the Cumorah stone box.

9. Two or three reported English translations magically appearing
beneath the Nephite characters, during the "translation" process.

10. One of them said Joseph Smith used no MS nor books while translating.

11. One of them reported a hollow Cumorah, full of Nephite artifacts.

12., 13. etc. --------- add your own additional points to ponder.


Now -- perhaps there really WAS a liahona and a Nephite breastplate, etc. And perhaps the ONLY means of
construction for the Book of Mormon that early witnesses ever saw was the head-in-the-hat dictation process. I do not
know; but I do need to determine some sort of standard by which I can judge the witness testimony.

If I cannot prove the liahona and the breastplate to be frauds, then must I, as a consequence, ACCEPT
that testimony as truthful, valid and authentic? And, of I cannot prove that the head-in-the hat process
was something other than the EXCLUSIVE means of constructing the book, must I also ACCEPT that?

If so, then should I also halt my alternative research immediately, and simply endorse the old Mormon witnesses
as having provided all the basic early testimony that we ever need uncover and report upon???

I am uncomfortable, facing that sort of intellectual constraint and investigative restriction.


UD

[_Dan Vogel]

... 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....

Exactly my thoughts on the matter, marg.

If I am told that I MUST believe that Joseph Smith dictated the entire Book of Mormon text (which he himself had created)
while his head was in a hat, then I first of all wish to understand the witnesses who report that information.

If the sum total of these witnesses' testimony leads inevitably to the ONLY possible conclusion, of
Joseph Smith dictating from the hat, as the ONLY means of constructing the Book of Mormon, then I need to understand
how observant and reliable those witnesses were. How much can I trust their testimony, IF.....

1. Some of them reported seeing the sword of Laban.

2. Some of them reported seeing the liahona.

3. Some of them reported seeing the Nephite breastplate.

4. Most of them reported seeing and handling golden plates.

5. Most of them reported hearing voices from Heaven.

6. Some of them reported seeing angels and a little bearded Moroni.

7. Some of them reported seeing the biblical urim & thummim.

8. Three of them reported seeing the Cumorah stone box.

9. Two or three reported English translations magically appearing
beneath the Nephite characters, during the "translation" process.

10. One of them said Joseph Smith used no MS nor books while translating.

11. One of them reported a hollow Cumorah, full of Nephite artifacts.

12., 13. etc. --------- add your own additional points to ponder.


Now -- perhaps there really WAS a liahona and a Nephite breastplate, etc. And perhaps the ONLY means of
construction for the Book of Mormon that early witnesses ever saw was the head-in-the-hat dictation process. I do not
know; but I do need to determine some sort of standard by which I can judge the witness testimony.

If I cannot prove the liahona and the breastplate to be frauds, then must I, as a consequence, ACCEPT
that testimony as truthful, valid and authentic? And, of I cannot prove that the head-in-the hat process
was something other than the EXCLUSIVE means of constructing the book, must I also ACCEPT that?

If so, then should I also halt my alternative research immediately, and simply endorse the old Mormon witnesses
as having provided all the basic early testimony that we ever need uncover and report upon???

I am uncomfortable, facing that sort of intellectual constraint and investigative restriction.


UD

Dale and Marg,

You both are totally off base here. Because someone has visionary experiences does not make them unreliable witnesses of everyday experiences, unless you can show they have some psychiatric problem that renders them incapable to tell the difference between a vision and ordinary events. From all appearances, the witness had not lost touch with reality; they knew when they were experiencing second sight and when they weren't. This is called Pseudohallucination.. There are two generalized categories of hallucination: true and pseudo. True hallucinations are experienced and accepted by the person as real, usually occur in psychotic states and organic mental disorders, and involve an impairment of reality testing. Pseudohallucinations, on the other hand, "are experienced by the subject who, at the time of the experience, is fully aware of the unreality of the perceptions" (Dr. Ghazi Asaad, Hallucinations in Clinical Psychiatry (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1990). As described by Ghazi Asaad, Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College (Valhalla, New York),

Pseudohallucinations ... may occur as single experiences in the individual's life, as in the case of grief reactions, or they may occur frequently under various circumstances. Such perceptions are usually clear with full sensory details. In the initial part of the experience, the person may not be able to make a critical judgment concerning the unreality of the perception, but in a few moments, that distinction becomes clear (Asaad 1990, 12).

Because there was evidently no impairment in reality testing and a clear understanding that what they were experiencing was extraordinary, I would suggest that the Three Witnesses experienced what Asaad calls pseudohallucinations.

Since the taking of The International Census of Waking Hallucinations in 1894 (Sidgewick 1894), repeated surveys have shown that 10 to 15 percent of ordinary, functioning people have experienced some kind of hallucination at least once in their lives. The nineteenth-century study, which excluded anyone with obvious mental or physical illness, interviewed more than 15,000 people and found, as summarized by Bentall, that "7.8% of men and 12% of women reported at least one vivid hallucinatory experience, the most common type being a visual hallucination of a living person who was not present at the time of the experience. ... [and] appeared to occur most commonly in people between 20 and 29 years of age, a period that approximately corresponds to the subsequent established high-risk period for psychotic illness" ( Richard P. Bentall, "Hallucinatory Experiences," in Etzel Cardena, Steven Jay Lynn, and Stanley Krippner. Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2000), 94). These early findings were nearly replicated in a 1991 survey that involved more than 18,000 people, which found that 11.1% of ordinary people have experienced some kind of hallucination.

Since courts do not routinely ask witnesses if they have experienced hallucination or have seen apparitions, why should you? The only important thing is: has the witness lost touch with reality. Imagine a defense attorney overturning eyewitness testimony based on previous hallucination: "Sure, this witness says she saw the accident. But you can't trust her because she also says she once saw an apparition of her father! How does she know she wasn't hallucinating about the accident ... or even now!" Well, the answer is: she does know the difference. Only those who are unacquainted with the subject can make such statements.

So, Dale, the witnesses testifying to Joseph Smith's method of dictation with head in hat has nothing to do with the vision of Three Witnesses. Emma, Elizabeth Ann Cowdery, Isaac Hale, Michael Morse were not Book of Mormon witnesses. David Whitmer and Martin Harris could certainly distinguish between their vision and everyday experiences. They knew it was an extraordinary event. Whatever theory you have about the origin of the Book of Mormon, it must be consistent with the historical data, in particular the descriptions of these multiple witnesses.

by the way, I hope your health is relatively tolerable.

[_Uncle Dale]

So, Dale, the witnesses testifying to Joseph Smith's method of dictation with head in hat has nothing to do with the vision of Three Witnesses. Emma, Elizabeth Ann Cowdery, Isaac Hale, Michael Morse were not Book of Mormon witnesses. David Whitmer and Martin Harris could certainly distinguish between their vision and everyday experiences. They knew it was an extraordinary event. Whatever theory you have about the origin of the Book of Mormon, it must be consistent with the historical data, in particular the descriptions of these multiple witnesses.

I would still be interested in looking over any old source, where a witness stated that Joseph Smith made use of
a Bible during "translation;" whether a "regular" Bible, or one with the KJV Apocrypha and excerpts from
Josephus added in -- or whatever. The old witnesses go to great lengths to describe how the urim & thummim
fit into the Nephite breastplate, for translating purposes, etc. etc. --- but I would trade 10,000 words of that
sort of testimony for a single sentence, from a contemporary 1829 source, who witnessed Smith and Cowdery
working together, with a Bible close at hand --- (in the same way that Smith and Rigdon were doing a few
months later).

by the way, I hope your health is relatively tolerable.

I have good days and bad days -- good weeks and bad weeks. Sure wish I could type with two fingers
again (I'm down to using the ring finger of my very stiff left hand for all keyboarding these days).

Have invitations from Marquardt, Kenney and Midgley to stop by and chat in "The Valley" week after next.
It would be really nice if I could make it there. ----- We shall see how the stamina and alertness hold up....

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

I would still be interested in looking over any old source, where a witness stated that Joseph Smith made use of
a Bible during "translation;" whether a "regular" Bible, or one with the KJV Apocrypha and excerpts from
Josephus added in -- or whatever. The old witnesses go to great lengths to describe how the urim & thummim
fit into the Nephite breastplate, for translating purposes, etc. etc. --- but I would trade 10,000 words of that
sort of testimony for a single sentence, from a contemporary 1829 source, who witnessed Smith and Cowdery
working together, with a Bible close at hand --- (in the same way that Smith and Rigdon were doing a few
months later).

I think you allude to William Smith's imaginings about the breastplate and Urim and Thummim. As far as we know, he wasn't an eyewitness. Historians are always going to want more information. The problem is that those in the past didn't know what questions we were going to ask. So, we are going to have to make due with what we got. I think we should be thankful that they at least answered the questions about a Spalding MS.

I have good days and bad days -- good weeks and bad weeks. Sure wish I could type with two fingers
again (I'm down to using the ring finger of my very stiff left hand for all keyboarding these days).

Have invitations from Marquardt, Kenney and Midgley to stop by and chat in "The Valley" week after next.
It would be really nice if I could make it there. ----- We shall see how the stamina and alertness hold up....

UD

Perhaps you should get voice recognition software?

[_Uncle Dale]

I would still be interested in looking over any old source, where a witness stated that Joseph Smith made use of
a Bible during "translation;" whether a "regular" Bible, or one with the KJV Apocrypha and excerpts from
Josephus added in -- or whatever. The old witnesses go to great lengths to describe how the urim & thummim
fit into the Nephite breastplate, for translating purposes, etc. etc. --- but I would trade 10,000 words of that
sort of testimony for a single sentence, from a contemporary 1829 source, who witnessed Smith and Cowdery
working together, with a Bible close at hand --- (in the same way that Smith and Rigdon were doing a few
months later).

I think you allude to William Smith's imaginings about the breastplate and Urim and Thummim. As far as we know, he wasn't an eyewitness. Historians are always going to want more information. The problem is that those in the past didn't know what questions we were going to ask. So, we are going to have to make due with what we got. I think we should be thankful that they at least answered the questions about a Spalding MS.

Indeed --- and, as I am typing in this reply box, I have another window open on my PC, where I am transcribing
previously unpublished questions and answers directed to Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde, in Boston in 1832.
Samuel may also have had his "imaginings" -- but I find it interesting that one of the answers given holds open
the possibility that an "unbeliever" present, when the miraculous events of Mormon origins were first happening,
might not have seen or heard anything unusual. Cowdery and Pratt search for the location of the New Jerusalem
on the banks of the Missouri --- but an accompanying Gentile might not have fathomed the Divine Revelations
which guided them --- nor have seen Joe Smith's angel --- nor have heard the voices from heaven. -- Interesting.

Unfortunately, the source I am transcribing does not quote Samuel precisely nor at length ---- so I will continue
my search for other early witness material.

Perhaps you should get voice recognition software?

I have some "speak-write" stuff on disk -- but it interferes with my 1998 scuzzi scanner. When I get rich I'll upgrade
to some modern equipment, perhaps. Or, once the Rigdon book is finalized, maybe just put all of this behind me and
spend my time enjoying my garden and the beach.

UD

[_marg]

Pseudohallucinations ... may occur as single experiences in the individual's life, as in the case of grief reactions, or they may occur frequently under various circumstances. Such perceptions are usually clear with full sensory details. In the initial part of the experience, the person may not be able to make a critical judgment concerning the unreality of the perception, but in a few moments, that distinction becomes clear (Asaad 1990, 12).

Dan: Because there was evidently no impairment in reality testing and a clear understanding that what they were experiencing was extraordinary, I would suggest that the Three Witnesses experienced what Asaad calls pseudohallucinations.

And I suggest they didn't have pseudohallucinations. A person who hallucinates and then realizes that the hallucination wasn't real, that it was only a figment of their imagination had what might be termed a pseudohallucinations. That is they actually did hallucinate but then appreciated it wasn't physical or beyond their conscious thoughts. That's not what the 3 witnesses claimed. They didn't claim the vision was a figment of the imagination, was only a result of their conscious mind. They claimed they saw an angel, they heard the voice of God. The voice they heard existed outside their bodies, the angel they saw existed. Consequently they are not differentiating reality from fantasy. It doesn't mean they are insane, but in this instance the evidence is that when it comes to what they claim with regards to Mormonism one must be highly skeptical of their statements because they are not highly reliable. They may be credulous, they may be intellectually dishonest, I don't know nor do I care in evaluating their reliability.

by the way, I did write a much longer post but lost it so I'm keeping this one short.

[_Merry]

quit after that book is written. There will be more. There is a lot of adaptive software out there. Wish you all the best.

I suspect I am retired from the war. Got better things to do than fight people whose culture is so alien from mine.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Unfortunately, the source I am transcribing does not quote Samuel precisely nor at length ---- so I will continue
my search for other early witness material.

by the way, thanks for all the great research and sources. I know how hard field research is, and you have pursued it admirably and tirelessly. Regardless of one's position on the Spalding theory, your sites are and will continue to be very valuable resources for researchers. If you can manage it, I hope you continue your work, perhaps on a simi-retired basis. You should enjoy the garden and beach a little more.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale,

Unfortunately, the source I am transcribing does not quote Samuel precisely nor at length ---- so I will continue
my search for other early witness material.

by the way, thanks for all the great research and sources. I know how hard field research is, and you have pursued it admirably and tirelessly. Regardless of one's position on the Spalding theory, your sites are and will continue to be very valuable resources for researchers. If you can manage it, I hope you continue your work, perhaps on a simi-retired basis. You should enjoy the garden and beach a little more.

You say you've got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We are doing what we can -- (John Lennon)

By the way, Dan, the 1832 Samuel H. Smith item is here:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE ... htm#081032

If you backtrack a little on the same web-page, you'll find a less useful item
in that same newspaper, re Orson Pratt and Lyman E. Johnson.

An enjoyable hobby, I think --- then again, I admittedly have weird tastes.

Dale in Hawaii

[_Dan Vogel]

And I suggest they didn't have pseudohallucinations. A person who hallucinates and then realizes that the hallucination wasn't real, that it was only a figment of their imagination had what might be termed a pseudohallucinations. That is they actually did hallucinate but then appreciated it wasn't physical or beyond their conscious thoughts. That's not what the 3 witnesses claimed. They didn't claim the vision was a figment of the imagination, was only a result of their conscious mind. They claimed they saw an angel, they heard the voice of God. The voice they heard existed outside their bodies, the angel they saw existed. Consequently they are not differentiating reality from fantasy. It doesn't mean they are insane, but in this instance the evidence is that when it comes to what they claim with regards to Mormonism one must be highly skeptical of their statements because they are not highly reliable. They may be credulous, they may be intellectually dishonest, I don't know nor do I care in evaluating their reliability.

I think you missed the point here. The designation of pseudohallucination has nothing to do with whether or not the hallucinator believes in ghosts, for example, but whether or not the subject knows that what is being experienced is not ordinary. When Asaad says "the person may not be able to make a critical judgment concerning the unreality of the perception, but in a few moments, that distinction becomes clear," he means that the apparition might at first seem real because the person is unaware that they are hallucinating and takes the hallucination as part of ordinary experience. That realization doesn't mean that the person experiencing the apparition won't through beliefs and cultural expectations interpret the experience as supernatural.

If your definition were true, then everyone who interpreted a hallucination as metaphysically real would be out of touch with reality and psychotic. And that's not so.

Now, if one reads only the published Testimony of Three Witnesses, one might get the impression that the vision was as close to normal as possible. But from subsequent statements, it is clear that the witnesses understood that what they were experiencing was preternatural or anomalous. After interviewing David Whitmer in 1885, James Henry Moyle noted in his journal:

"Mr D. Whitmer Sen did not handle the plates. Only saw them. ... Says he did see them and the angel and heard him speak. But that it was indiscribable that it was through the power of God. ... he then spoke of Paul hearing and seeing Christ but his associates did not. Because it is only seen in the Spirit."

-- (James Henry Moyle, Diary, 28 June 1885, LDS archives).

Moyle "asked if the atmosphere about them was normal." In other words, did the angel appear in normal surroundings or had the vision entirely obscured the natural world? According to Whitmer, "t was indescribable, but the light was bright and clear, yet apparently a different kind of light, something of a soft haze." Moyle, a Mormon and recent law school graduate, noted his disappointment: "I was not fully satisfied with the explanation. It was more spiritual than I anticipated."

According to Stephen Burnett, Harris told an Ohio congregation in 1838 that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination," adding that the witnesses had seen the plates "spiritually or in vision with their eyes shut" (S. Burnett to L. E. Johnson, 15 Apr. 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook, 2:64, 65 [EMD 2:291, 292-93]). Reuben P. Harmon, a neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision" ([i]Naked Truths About Mormonism 1 [Apr. 1888]: 1 [EMD 2:385]). While living in Utah, Harris told Anthony Metcalf that he saw the angel and the plates in a "visionary or entranced state" (Ten Years before the Mast, 70 [EMD 2:346]

So the witnesses clearly knew the difference between what they had experienced and everyday reality. If what the witnesses experienced was the result of strong suggestion, or something like hypnosis, then the witnesses would not have to be abnormal people.

It doesn't mean they are insane, but in this instance the evidence is that when it comes to what they claim with regards to Mormonism one must be highly skeptical of their statements because they are not highly reliable. They may be credulous, they may be intellectually dishonest, I don't know nor do I care in evaluating their reliability.

This is the point that I'm making. Many people experience hallucination, but that has nothing to do with their ability of assess everyday experiences and accurately report them. Courts don't bother with people who have religious experiences. The fact that someone who has experienced a vision is not considered unreliable in court should cause you to question your position on this matter. Only when there is psychosis or an organic brain disorder should the issue of competency come into play.

But now you say that you are not concerned about reliability. So the only basis you have for rejecting the testimony of multiple witnesses is because they later had visions. That sounds more like YOUR biased opinion, than an argument. At this point, you need to explain explicitly what you imagine happened. How do you explain multiple witnesses? You don't seem to have a coherent position. Did they all hallucinate Joseph Smith dictating with his head in the hat? If not, why bring up the issue hallucination and imply that it has something to do with their accounts? Or, are they all liars in conspiracy with Joseph Smith? If they were, then how does the accusation of credulity relate to that claim? So, what is it that you are arguing?