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

[_MCB]

LOL with Chris. This error analysis is moderating my viewpoint. Anyway, I got involved in all this simply because I don't have a personality that gets off on heated debate---- (unless I can't hold in the anger any longer)-- and that adherence to rationality and avoidance of hostility allowed people to grind me down to a pulp.

Bigotry and irrational belief systems in Mormonism are only one source for the problems in this country. If we can tame that down, maybe things will be better.

We have been discussing the incarceration rate in the US on another board. The highest in the world!!! Why?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't really believe that MCB's statement is true, at least any more so than the general US population.)

For all to see.

Back to work.

[_Roger]

Dan:

Again, thanks for responding.

I argued that the experience of the Eight Witnesses was more subjective than implied in printed Testimony of Eight Witnesses. My argument was more about how subtle and ambiguous wording in the Testimony allowed for different readings. I did not argue that the testimonies of the Eight changed. I don’t think there is enough information for that conclusion. I also argued that the Testimony of Three could be misread for similar reasons.

I was speaking primarily of the three, since they were also the key players in Book of Mormon production, and, of the three, primarily Whitmer as regards changing testimony. Are you saying that you don't think Whitmer's testimony changed over time?

The principal of parsimony favors the theory that answers most of the data with the least elaboration and assumptions. Of course an elaborate theory can explain everything, but most of the elaboration comes about to save the theory from demise, rather than to explain the data.

Well you hit on the key here, in my opinion. Is the Book of Mormon simple enough that the least elaborate theory adequately explains it?

Conspiracies do happen, but one should have evidence for that assertion. Conspiracy should not be used to explain the lack of evidence or to explain away evidence.

But it isn't. It is simply integral to the allegations.

So you have no motive for the conspiracy and nothing specifically to argue or defend? Not that it would matter since it would amount to circular reasoning and nothing that could be used as evidence.

When did I say I have no motive to argue or defend? On the other hand if it doesn't matter, why would I need to have one?

And in the third place, what you are suggesting with regard to KJVB plagiarism is itself a conspiracy to not divulge that information.

No, not at all. There is nothing demanding that the witnesses mention the use of a Bible. This is an argument from silence, and the silence is perfectly understandable. Interviews of the witnesses, especially by outsiders, are only as good as the interviewer. There are many questions I wish they had asked, but they didn’t know what we would demand of these sources two hundred years later. They asked what was timely and meaningful to them, and that included the possible use of Spalding’s manuscript.

I find this remarkable. There is "nothing demanding that the witnesses mention the use of a Bible" when we agree they used one and yet never mentioned it?

With all due respect, by that logic, what was to demand whether they mention the use of any resource not specifically asked about? You think if someone had specifically asked if a Bible was used they would have said, well sure, we thought that was obvious? Are you really making the case that they simply felt that copying large blocks of text from a King James Bible was a trivial matter not worth mentioning?

Why? Because it was closer to the events?

No. It’s because of the nature of the experience. It is not difficult to explain how the Conneaut witnesses sincerely thought they had head the Book of Mormon text read fifteen years earlier, but were nevertheless mistaken. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon witnesses are not so easily explained in the same manner—hence the conspiracy theories.

This is simply not correct. The claims made by the Conneaut witnesses are not compatible with the witnesses sincerely but incorrectly thinking they had heard material from the Book of Mormon earlier. Their claims are too specific to be sincerely mistaken. They were either lying or telling the truth.

No. That’s a false dichotomy. I think constructive memory theory explains what the Spalding witnesses experienced.

And I think it is entirely lacking. Where did they come up with the notion that Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek grossly overused the phrase "and it came to pass"? On what basis did they conclude they had repeatedly been exposed to the names "Lehi" and "Nephi"?

A letter waiting is not necessarily evidence that the person was there at that time.

Agreed, but it certainly is evidence that someone was under the impression he would be. Beyond that, it supports Rebecca Eichbaum's testimony.

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?

This paragraph is incoherent. You are using conspiracy in a way different than what is asserted by Spalding advocates.

Well my prose may not be particularly noteworthy, but I fail to see any incoherence. I am saying Rigdon, Smith and Cowdery (not Whitmer) worked together to bring forth what they likely believed to be scripture, sometimes in secret, sometimes as a show for public consumption, and they neglected to give every detail of every hour they spent working on the text. I'd say it's essentially the same thing. I don't care if the word "conspiracy" is used to describe that in either case.

There was no conspiracy to keep this information from public discussion. I did not say that.

Call it whatever you want. A KJVB was used, but nothing was ever said that would indicate that a KJVB was used. And in fact at least one of the witnesses claimed every word appeared in the stone. I don't see any way around that, and frankly, I don't see any difference in that from what S/R proposes. A Spalding manuscript was used but nothing was ever said that would indicate that a Spalding manuscript was used. That Whitmer denied use of a Spalding manuscript is of little consequence.

Rather, I said that there was nothing to evoke that response from the witnesses. It was not forgotten or intentionally withheld.

This is pure speculation on your part in order to support what you have chosen to believe, which is what you are criticizing Spalding advocates for doing, no?

There is no way to know that. But they were asked about the possible use of Spalding’s MS, and the answer was that it was impossible since the translation was done in full view of those in the room.

David Whitmer was asked. He was likely not in a position to know. Regardless, I don't trust the word of David Whitmer. Nor do I particularly trust the others.

All the best.

[_GlennThigpen]

LOL with Chris. This error analysis is moderating my viewpoint. Anyway, I got involved in all this simply because I don't have a personality that gets off on heated debate---- (unless I can't hold in the anger any longer)-- and that adherence to rationality and avoidance of hostility allowed people to grind me down to a pulp.

Bigotry and irrational belief systems in Mormonism are only one source for the problems in this country. If we can tame that down, maybe things will be better.

It would seem to this admittedly biased person that your selection of the LDS religion to "tame down" is irrational in and of itself. Why not start with the Islamic radicals (and just the radicals, not the mainstream) who are wreaking havoc and destruction in different parts of the world? Why not direct your efforts at the Westboro Baptist congregation who gain such perverse pleasure in protesting at funerals where grieving families and friends are attempting to find solace and closure?
Or maybe you could start with the congregation whose pastor was publicly declaring that he was going to make a bonfire with copies of the Koran?
Or maybe you could be the first in the vanguard of non LDS who remonstrate with the hecklers at LDS temples and General Conferences and try to get them to allow the LDS to worship peacefully?
or maybe just yet, you could use your rational thought processes to reason with those few who cling to the Rigdon/Spalding theory of authorship in the Book of Mormon, yet who, after years and years of research have produced nothing in the way of a coherent, evidence based theory and who have failed utterly to deal with the actual scholarship that has been produced that legislate against any nineteenth century person or persons as the author(s) of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[Guest]

A letter waiting is not necessarily evidence that the person was there at that time.

Agreed, but it certainly is evidence that someone was under the impression he would be. Beyond that, it supports Rebecca Eichbaum's testimony.

But what is that evidence of in and of itself as regards the any Rigdon to Spalding connection? This was 1816, the year that Spalding died. He had been living in Amity the past two years, yet someone still though he might be getting his mail in Pittsburg. The reason we know about those letters is because they had not been picked up and the fact was being reported in the newspaper.
Rebecca Eichbaum's testimony was refuted by the wife of Lambdin.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...Bruce's paper did go through the review process by reviewers selected by LLC, if I understand it correctly before being accepted for publication.
...

I have detected some confusion/misconception among LDS MB
posters who have cited Bruce's paper.

Passing peer review does not automatically mean that the
assertions voiced in one paper cancel out the findings already
published in another paper.

Thus -- if you publish a peer-reviewed paper stating that
a new species of bird has been discovered -- and if I
subsequently publish a second paper, saying that you are
wrong -- then my peer-reviewed paper does not immediately
cancel out your assertions.

Rather than that summary effect, BOTH assertions will remain
extant within the professional literature for a while -- maybe a
week -- maybe a year -- maybe for several years. Eventually
a professional consensus will be formed, and a scholarly
acceptance of one of the peer-reviewed assertions will form.
Perhaps in my hypothetical case, your new bird discovery
will be relegated to the status of a sub-species, rather than
being widely accepted as evidence for a brand new species.

Bruce's paper does not automatically cancel out Matt's paper's
conclusions. The effects of Bruce's paper are threefold:

1. Perhaps pca charting can rule out potential author-candidates
2. Perhaps open set NSC analysis is the best analytical method
3. Perhaps Sidney Rigdon did not write some texts receiving his
relatively high authorship attribution via closed set NSC analysis.

While peer-review of Bruce's paper has allowed its acceptance
for publication -- for professional consideration, that is ----
such publication does not automatically annul Matt's findings.

UD'

[_MCB]

It would seem to this admittedly biased person that your selection of the LDS religion to "tame down" is irrational in and of itself. Why not start with the Islamic radicals (and just the radicals, not the mainstream) who are wreaking havoc and destruction in different parts of the world? Why not direct your efforts at the Westboro Baptist congregation who gain such perverse pleasure in protesting at funerals where grieving families and friends are attempting to find solace and closure? Or maybe you could start with the congregation whose pastor was publicly declaring that he was going to make a bonfire with copies of the Koran?

What makes you think I am not? My book addresses all forms of abusive religion/religious abuse. It uses LDS as an example because of my own personal experience. I have seen spiritual abuse among Pentecostals and Baptists, as well. What?? You think there is a relationship? Well, gosh-be-darned, there just might be.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread, analysis of the Book of Mormon.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Are you saying that you don't think Whitmer's testimony changed over time?

I did not argue that he did in my essay, and I don’t know that it did in any significant way, only that it might have appeared that way to outsiders given the sparse description in the printed Testimony of the Three Witnesses.

Is the Book of Mormon simple enough that the least elaborate theory adequately explains it?

I believe it is. But scholars can make anything complex.

But it isn't. It is simply integral to the allegations.

Conspiracy is integral to the allegations, but Spalding apologists also use it to explain the lack of evidence and to explain away negative evidence.

When did I say I have no motive to argue or defend? On the other hand if it doesn't matter, why would I need to have one?

My point is that the assertion that there were multiple motives goes hand in hand with slipperiness and impossibility of disproving conspiracy theories generally.

I find this remarkable. There is "nothing demanding that the witnesses mention the use of a Bible" when we agree they used one and yet never mentioned it?

With all due respect, by that logic, what was to demand whether they mention the use of any resource not specifically asked about? You think if someone had specifically asked if a Bible was used they would have said, well sure, we thought that was obvious? Are you really making the case that they simply felt that copying large blocks of text from a King James Bible was a trivial matter not worth mentioning?

Do you not understand that your argument is one from silence? You are also trying to get out of negative evidence by formulating an argument from analogy, which you hope to coerce me into accepting based on my need to be consistent. Do you not understand that this maneuver is an ad hominem (circumstantial)—a favorite of Mormon apologists.

This is simply not correct. The claims made by the Conneaut witnesses are not compatible with the witnesses sincerely but incorrectly thinking they had heard material from the Book of Mormon earlier. Their claims are too specific to be sincerely mistaken. They were either lying or telling the truth.

No so. That’s a false dichotomy. Memory is constructive and can be changed through suggestion. It’s not like the Conneaut witnesses revealed what they remembered before hearing the Book of Mormon read. Do you really think they could remember a names like Nephi, Moroni, and Lehi fifteen years later. When they heard Spalding read his MS, they didn’t know they were going to have to remember these names. I believe they could remember general things about the story and that there were made-up names like the Book of Mormon, but I find it difficult to believe they could remember specifics like names. On the other hand, I don’t find it difficult to believe the Book of Mormon witnesses could remember an event that occurred repeatedly in their lives. To question Book of Mormon witnesses verges on unreasonable doubt, whereas reasonable doubt exists for the Spalding witnesses. That doesn’t mean that memory theory can be evoke every time we don’t like something, but the theory explains the disparity between the Spalding witnesses and the MS and the difficulties introducing a MS during Joseph Smith’s dictation.

And I think it is entirely lacking. Where did they come up with the notion that Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek grossly overused the phrase "and it came to pass"? On what basis did they conclude they had repeatedly been exposed to the names "Lehi" and "Nephi"?

You should read up on memory theory, especially the tests done by Elizabeth Loftus. Suggestion can quickly become what seems like an actual memory. Such exact memory of difficult things to remember should be a red flag. The disparity between their memories and the MS found opens the door for memory theory to explain it.

Well my prose may not be particularly noteworthy, but I fail to see any incoherence. I am saying Rigdon, Smith and Cowdery (not Whitmer) worked together to bring forth what they likely believed to be scripture, sometimes in secret, sometimes as a show for public consumption, and they neglected to give every detail of every hour they spent working on the text. I'd say it's essentially the same thing. I don't care if the word "conspiracy" is used to describe that in either case.

There is no evidence that what was seen by Book of Mormon witnesses was special. Rather, Harris was a scribe and saw it daily for the lost MS and on other occasions, and Whitmer said the whole thing occurred in full view of anyone who happened to walk in—hence he also mentions the hanging of a curtain to keep out the prying eyes of trouble-making visitors.

Call it whatever you want. A KJVB was used, but nothing was ever said that would indicate that a KJVB was used. And in fact at least one of the witnesses claimed every word appeared in the stone. I don't see any way around that, and frankly, I don't see any difference in that from what S/R proposes. A Spalding manuscript was used but nothing was ever said that would indicate that a Spalding manuscript was used. That Whitmer denied use of a Spalding manuscript is of little consequence.

What! There is a huge difference. Whitmer specifically denied any MS was present during the translation, and no such denial exists for the Bible. You are simply not using the historical sources properly. You are attempting to use an argument from silence again (see my comments above for the several fallacies used in such an argument).

This is pure speculation on your part in order to support what you have chosen to believe, which is what you are criticizing Spalding advocates for doing, no?

No! I said, “there was nothing to evoke that response from the witnesses. It was not forgotten or intentionally withheld.” It’s up to you to show that the information was intentionally withheld. You haven’t done that. My statement in context is that no one asked a question that would evoke mentioning the Bible, and there is no evidence that the witnesses either forgot or intentionally withheld such information. You have no compelling argument to conclude the witnesses were involved in a conspiracy of silence because they didn’t mention the use of a Bible, and I have offered reasonable explanations for why they didn’t. You have an argument from silence, give it up.

David Whitmer was asked. He was likely not in a position to know. Regardless, I don't trust the word of David Whitmer. Nor do I particularly trust the others.

Whitmer certainly was in a position to know what he was saying about the absence of a MS. What did Whitmer do to make you distrust his word?

[_Uncle Dale]

...Whitmer certainly was in a position to know what he was saying about the absence of a MS.
...

And perhaps he was telling the truth. Perhaps he never noticed
Joseph Smith, Jr. consulting any literary material external to
the purported "plates." The Whitmers quite possibly never saw
Smith consulting a Bible, nor the Westminster Confession, nor
Josiah Priest's writing's, nor Ethan Smith's -- nor any other of
the several pre-1830 texts which the Nephite record seems
to echo at various points in its narrative.

It's also possible that the Whitmers never noticed manifestations
of Joseph's reported extraordinary memory. Clayton later said
that Joseph could recall the entire text of D&C 132 from his own
mind -- quite a feat, and one that explains William Law's claim
that the Mormon leader possessed something like a photographic
memory. A friend of Joseph's father recalled that the elder Smith
could recite the contents of an entire book, after one reading.
Martin Harris demonstrated a notable retention of lengthy
biblical texts. Memory can be a helpful tool to the con-man who
wishes to favorably impress his gullible audience.

But there remains the very real possibility that David Whitmer
was reluctant to divulge any historical oddities which could
have drawn hostile notice to early Mormonism. He certainly
knew more about the beginnings of polygamy (or Smith adultery)
than his preserved statements divulge. He seems to have said
little about early Mormon paramilitary activities -- even though
he once served as the LDS Secretary of War.

Suppose David Whitmer had once noticed Joseph Smith, Jr.
reading through the KJV Preface -- as if to memorize much
of its content -- and further suppose that David later heard
Smith dictate some very similar verbiage to scribe Cowdery.
What reason would Whitmer have had, to make reference
to such a seemingly minor occurrence. Should we expect that
he MUST then have tempered his testimony by an admission
of Smith's possible influence from a pre-existing textual source?

I doubt that David Whitmer even took the trouble to recall
such seemingly minor (but possibly important) events. The
Whitmers did notice that Smith sometimes interrupted his
dictation to leave their presence. What was Joseph doing at
such times? Was he out in the Whitmer back yard, praying to
God for guidance -- or studying a secreted text of his own
manufacture -- or memorizing Isaiah chapters -- or perhaps
even consulting a secret communication from a co-conspirator?

Is there some reason why we should now advise students of
early Mormon history to avoid asking such questions? or to
avoid pursuing new investigations?

Has the jigsaw puzzle of 1826-1830 been so well re-assembled,
that we can state with confidence that all the major portions
are in coherent view -- and that no additional theories for past
events need ever again be set forth?

Perhaps that is really so -- but I also hope folks will excuse me
for doubting that we've uncovered all significant Mormon secrets.

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

Again, thanks for the response.

I did not argue that he did in my essay, and I don’t know that it did in any significant way, only that it might have appeared that way to outsiders given the sparse description in the printed Testimony of the Three Witnesses.

It certainly appears that way to this outsider. Nevertheless, I don't have the book at the moment, but when I get it back I will reread your essay in light of this conversation.

Is the Book of Mormon simple enough that the least elaborate theory adequately explains it?

I believe it is. But scholars can make anything complex.

So then it's case closed as far as you are concerned? Or would you be supportive of further historical research to determine whether or not Joseph Smith copied elements from the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and the KJV "Preface" into the Book of Mormon?

Conspiracy is integral to the allegations, but Spalding apologists also use it to explain the lack of evidence and to explain away negative evidence.

How so?

My point is that the assertion that there were multiple motives goes hand in hand with slipperiness and impossibility of disproving conspiracy theories generally.

But you concede that conspiracies do happen. You seem to be suggesting that multiple possible motives is a negative that makes accepting the possibility that a conspiracy of some sort may have occured in the case of Book of Mormon production makes the idea less likely.

Is it the obligation of S/R theorists to read the minds of Rigdon, Cowdery and Smith? And if we attempt to do so and come up with more than one possible motivation, that fact alone is enough to reject that any conspiracy took place?

Do you not understand that your argument is one from silence? You are also trying to get out of negative evidence by formulating an argument from analogy, which you hope to coerce me into accepting based on my need to be consistent. Do you not understand that this maneuver is an ad hominem (circumstantial)—a favorite of Mormon apologists.

Whatever maneuvers I may or may not be guilty of are operating at a subconscious level. In other words it is not my intention to maneuver you or manipulate your answer or trap you or anything of the kind. My intention is not to "win" an argument, here, it is to understand your position and after doing so to challenge you in areas where I think your conclusions are wrong. I respect your opinion and I think we actually agree on several things. In fact, quite honestly, I really don't think there is much difference between your position and mine when it comes right down to it. Best as I can tell, you do not believe Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon translation from God through an angel. You think Joseph Smith came up with at least some of the content we see in the Book of Mormon and you acknowledge that a King James Bible was consulted and plagiarized. Assuming that is a fair description of what you believe, I agree with all of that. Where we disagree is whether Joseph Smith had help producing content. I think there are good reasons to believe he did. We know, for example, that Oliver officially attempted to produce content.

You acknowledge that a KJVB was used but that no one ever mentioned that. You suggest that because they failed to mention that important detail that my argument is therefore weak. If I were an LDS I could argue that your argument is the weak one since you are merely using deductive reasoning to conclude that a KJVB was used in the first place contrary to Whitmer's assertion that every word appeared in the stone and was corrected by God.

Needless to say, I disagree with you here. I am saying if that if you are correct, then there is no telling what else was used because they never mentioned using anything but a seer stone and whatever an "Urim and thummim" might have been.

And I am also saying that taking your argument to it's conclusion leaves us with the notion that the witnesses did not think their use of a KJVB was worth mentioning yet if they would have been asked they would have certainly acknowledged that a KJVB was indeed used, because they were obviously honest people who would not have intentionally withheld vital information.

That is placing way too much confidence in the word of these witnesses. And I would have expected you to agree--or at least see the logic--given what you wrote in American Apocrypha.

Again, I don't have much confidence in the word of David Whitmer but the curious thing is that apparently you also reject the portion of his testimony that every word of the Book of Mormon appeared in the Stone? Or am I missing something?

This is simply not correct. The claims made by the Conneaut witnesses are not compatible with the witnesses sincerely but incorrectly thinking they had heard material from the Book of Mormon earlier. Their claims are too specific to be sincerely mistaken. They were either lying or telling the truth.

No so. That’s a false dichotomy. Memory is constructive and can be changed through suggestion. It’s not like the Conneaut witnesses revealed what they remembered before hearing the Book of Mormon read. Do you really think they could remember a names like Nephi, Moroni, and Lehi fifteen years later.

Yes. In fact I am quite confident of that and can draw from my own personal experience.

When they heard Spalding read his MS, they didn’t know they were going to have to remember these names.

Agreed. It was not like they were studying for a test. Instead it was repeated exposure to material they took an interest in because it was providing a (fictional) and in some cases comical history of the mounds and moundbuilders that surrounded their area.

I believe they could remember general things about the story and that there were made-up names like the Book of Mormon, but I find it difficult to believe they could remember specifics like names.

On the contrary, the names of the leading characters--the heroes--is exactly what we would expect them to remember, coupled with some anecdotes that stood out to them at the time, as well as the general outline. And that's exactly what we find in their testimonies.

On the other hand, I don’t find it difficult to believe the Book of Mormon witnesses could remember an event that occurred repeatedly in their lives. To question Book of Mormon witnesses verges on unreasonable doubt, whereas reasonable doubt exists for the Spalding witnesses.

But many of the Spalding witnesses were repeatedly exposed and they were all keenly interested in the content. In addition, there is no reason to conclude the Conneaut and subsequent witnesses were giving inconsistent testimonies as there is with the Book of Mormon witnesses. There is no reason for "outsiders" to find space for "different readings" because of the "subtle and ambiguous wording in the[ir] Testimony." On the contrary! Brodie complains about the consistency which she finds too consistent.

In addition, the original testimony of the Conneaut witnesses was later supported by unsolicited yet credible witnesses

You should read up on memory theory, especially the tests done by Elizabeth Loftus. Suggestion can quickly become what seems like an actual memory. Such exact memory of difficult things to remember should be a red flag. The disparity between their memories and the MS found opens the door for memory theory to explain it.

I agree that false memories occur and people can believe they were real. But I highly doubt that memory substitution accounts for the disparity when it comes to the names of the lead characters in a book one takes an interest in and is repeatedly exposed to. Again, I have personal experience to draw from and I'm just not buying it. The witnesses adamantly claim they were repeatedly exposed to "Nephi" and "Lehi" (as we would expect if they were, or if they were lying) and we see nothing even close to that in Spalding's extant manuscript. They claim he overused the phrase "and it came to pass" and we see nothing like that in Spalding's extant manuscript, and yet that is certainly something we would expect to have stood out to them during their initial exposures--or that they would make up to bolster their stories.

Well my prose may not be particularly noteworthy, but I fail to see any incoherence. I am saying Rigdon, Smith and Cowdery (not Whitmer) worked together to bring forth what they likely believed to be scripture, sometimes in secret, sometimes as a show for public consumption, and they neglected to give every detail of every hour they spent working on the text. I'd say it's essentially the same thing. I don't care if the word "conspiracy" is used to describe that in either case.

There is no evidence that what was seen by Book of Mormon witnesses was special. Rather, Harris was a scribe and saw it daily for the lost MS and on other occasions, and Whitmer said the whole thing occurred in full view of anyone who happened to walk in—hence he also mentions the hanging of a curtain to keep out the prying eyes of trouble-making visitors.

I don't see how that responds to the point I was making?

Call it whatever you want. A KJVB was used, but nothing was ever said that would indicate that a KJVB was used. And in fact at least one of the witnesses claimed every word appeared in the stone. I don't see any way around that, and frankly, I don't see any difference in that from what S/R proposes. A Spalding manuscript was used but nothing was ever said that would indicate that a Spalding manuscript was used. That Whitmer denied use of a Spalding manuscript is of little consequence.

What! There is a huge difference. Whitmer specifically denied any MS was present during the translation, and no such denial exists for the Bible. You are simply not using the historical sources properly. You are attempting to use an argument from silence again (see my comments above for the several fallacies used in such an argument).

And Whitmer is the same guy who claimed every word appeared in the stone. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to believe Whitmer how can you simultaneously believe that a KJVB was used contra Whitmer's testimony?

This is pure speculation on your part in order to support what you have chosen to believe, which is what you are criticizing Spalding advocates for doing, no?

No! I said, “there was nothing to evoke that response from the witnesses. It was not forgotten or intentionally withheld.”

But you don't know that. You are simply inferring it because no one ever pointedly asked. And yet you agree that a KJVB was indeed used. That leaves us with the question of why they never mentioned it. Apparently with no or little support you assume "it was not forgotten or intentionally withheld" apparently only based on the trust you have in what the witnesses did say--which I find remarkable given your essay on how easy it is for outsiders to come up with "different readings."

It’s up to you to show that the information was intentionally withheld. You haven’t done that.

Wow. So we agree that a KJVB was used and we agree that no one ever mentions it, but because no one in the nineteenth century had the foresight to ask a direct question about it, the burden is now on me to show that the witnesses you trust were intentionally withholding vital information! And yet I'm the one resorting to LDS apologetic maneuvers? Other than simply pointing out the obvious, which I have already done, how would you suggest I do that?

My statement in context is that no one asked a question that would evoke mentioning the Bible, and there is no evidence that the witnesses either forgot or intentionally withheld such information.

The evidence is well laid out in the case David Wright makes in American Apocrypha. It is because of that evidence (I assume) that you agree that a KJVB was used. It is a fact that no witness ever acknowledges using a KJVB and it is another fact that David Whitmer asserts every word appeared in the stone. I think it should be obvious that is a case of intentionally withholding key information. Apparently you prefer to simply give the witnesses a benefit of the doubt they haven't otherwise earned.

You have no compelling argument to conclude the witnesses were involved in a conspiracy of silence because they didn’t mention the use of a Bible, and I have offered reasonable explanations for why they didn’t. You have an argument from silence, give it up.

With all due respect, you have done nothing of the kind. Your "reasonable explanations" amount to "no one ever asked." I put that on about the same level as Bill Clinton's definition of "is."

David Whitmer was asked. He was likely not in a position to know. Regardless, I don't trust the word of David Whitmer. Nor do I particularly trust the others.

Whitmer certainly was in a position to know what he was saying about the absence of a MS. What did Whitmer do to make you distrust his word?

Well for one thing, his testimony seems to give outsiders like me ample opportunity for different readings.

What did the Conneaut witnesses do to make you distrust their word?

All the best.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
What did the Conneaut witnesses do to make you distrust their word?
...

I'll hazard a guess on that one, Roger.

Conneaut witness Erastus Rudd evidently reported that the
Solomon Spalding manuscript was one --
"pretending that the ten tribes crossed from the eastern hemisphere via the Behring Straits to this continent, and that said mounds were built by a portion of them, to bury the dead after some hard fighting."

While another Conneaut witness, John Spalding, said --
"Nephi, of the tribe of Joseph, emigrated to America with a large portion of the ten tribes whom Shalmanezer led away from Palestine, and scattered among the Midian cities. This remnant of Joseph was soon after its arrival divided into two nations, the Nephites and the Lamanites."

Several of the witnesses from the Conneaut area related their
memories of Spalding having written about the Ten Tribes of
Israel, coming to America, across the Behring Straits, etc.

None of this is to be found in the Book of Mormon, and thus
can be offered up as proof that these people from the Conneaut
area did not even know the Book of Mormon text.

Secondly -- the Conneaut witnesses (almost all of them) cite
the first part of the Book of Mormon as being the narrative
that reminded them of Spalding's writings. However, it is
precisely this same "small plates" section of the text that
Jockers' methodology determined to be the most UNLIKE the
word-print of Solomon Spalding. And my own vocabulary and
phraseology studies indicate that this part of the book is
also the text most UNLIKE Spalding's language and themes
(with only a few short exceptions).

IF the Conneaut witnesses were reliable in their testimony,
would we not expect that the parts of the Nephite record
cited by them would greatly overlap those parts of the book
that Jockers (and myself) determined to be the most LIKE
Solomon Spalding's writings?

Case closed?

UD