Dan:
Thanks for your responses.
This is what does not make sense to me. You made a compelling case in American Apocrypha that the eyewitnesses changed their testimony over time, sometimes drastically. Why then, would you put so much stock in what they testify to?
All the best.
I don't recall having argued that?
It's always dangerous to summarize what you think an author wrote. And it has admittedly been a while since I read it. I assume you
do recall the chapter to which I am referring? If the implication is that my summation of the chapter you wrote in
American Apocrypha is not accurate, then I truly wonder how you would summarize it as contrasted with what I wrote? Surely you're not suggesting that the Book of Mormon witnesses' testimony
did not change over time? What am I missing?
Why should we conclude the eyewitness testimony is reliable
My answer is different than Dale’s. I would paraphrase David Hume’s statement on miracles: pick the lesser miracle.
Which, as a general rule I would agree with. I think the case of the Book of Mormon is rather exceptional.
Given the repeated and multiple eyewitness testimony maintained over decades, it would require a greater conspiracy to maintain a lesser speculated conspiracy. So which is easier to believe: the witnesses were telling the truth, or that they were involved in a massive conspiracy? What would Occum’s Razor have you choose? How many assumptions are needed to maintain the Spalding theory? Why replace a simple straightforward theory, for one so convoluted and ad hoc?
The short answer is because the simple, straightforward theory does not explain the data as well as the more complex one does. Of course Occam's razor tells us to choose the simplicity of Smith-alone over the complexity of S/R. But Occam's razor, like the pirate's code, is more of a guideline than a hard, fast rule.
in my opinion, the greater conspiracy you suggest is overblown and often caricatured in order to more easily refute. In the first place, conspiracies do happen, even in contrast with what would otherwise be a simpler explanation. So to rule out conspiracy in the case of the Book of Mormon on that basis alone is naïve. In the second place, there are different types of conspiracies. I am not of the opinion that, if there was a Book of Mormon "conspiracy" it happened because a few fellows got together with the goal of starting a new church by the introduction of fraudulent scripture. I think the various conspirators were in it for various reasons but those reasons converged and each man's self interest kept it alive. And I don't believe any of them thought the new scripture they were introducing to the world was fraudulent. And in the third place, what you are suggesting with regard to KJVB plagiarism
is itself a conspiracy
to not divulge that information.
The theory was spawned by those trying to remember what they head read fifteen years earlier. Obviously, the Book of Mormon witnesses’ testimony is much stronger than that kind of testimony.
Why? Because it was closer to the events?
The theory was spawned by those who believed they had heard the same thing before. The Conneaut (and subsequent) witnesses were either flat out lying or they were telling the truth. The notion, per Brodie, that they only thought they were telling the truth, is untenable in light of what they actually stated in comparison to the Book of Mormon and
Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek.
With regard to how many assumptions are needed to maintain S/R, interestingly enough, at least one key assumption has recently found documentary support in the form of the mail-waiting notice. I suspect more of the same is out there. One way S/R could be refuted is by producing a pre-1830 timeline for Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery that does not allow time for them to have been at the same place at the same time. While the picture is not complete, what we find instead are multiple opportunities.
I'm pretty sure Dan agrees with his co-author David Wright that whoever produced the Book of Mormon plagiarized from the KJVB. I agree, but acknowledging that is to reject the eyewitness testimony Dan is otherwise relying on …
Why should we conclude the eyewitness testimony is reliable when they claim every word was dictated by Smith and yet unreliable when it comes to KJVB plagiarism or even when measuring their former words against their own later words?
This is a natural question asked many times, and answered. The answer I usually give is that Whitmer’s description of the translation process was in response to claims about Spalding’s manuscript being used. Whitmer’s answer therefore is limited to that issue and does not preclude the possibility that he also saw Joseph Smith and OC using the KJV as a translation aid, or transcription shortcut. I believe it’s possible that Cowdery copied directly the longest block from Isaiah when Joseph Smith and others were away in Palmyra in early June 1829 making arrangements with Grandin to print the book. Regardless, there would be no need for the eyewitnesses to mention this in their descriptions of the translation process since strictly speaking it was not how Joseph Smith translated.
But this is a remarkable concession. What you are suggesting is itself a conspiracy not to divulge key information that would otherwise conflict with the official testimonies you suggest are more reliable than those from Conneaut. Why do you thus conclude? Apparently on the basis that it was merely a trivial detail not worth mentioning! That's certainly generous, but hardly water-tight. If Cowdery, Smith and Whitmer could simply forget to mention that a King James Bible was used in Book of Mormon production then what is to prevent them from forgetting to mention other sources that may also have been used?
All the best.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.