Dan:
This discussion is getting too lengthy and time consuming. I’m not sure further discussion is beneficial. You keep repeating your arguments from silence and push for their acceptance with ad hominem.
I am less concerned than you are, apparently, with identifying whatever argument style either of us are using as opposed to simply understanding your reasons for rejecting the claims of the S/R witnesses while accepting those of the Book of Mormon witnesses.
You suggest that I am making an argument from silence and that in and of itself you apparently consider a fallacy.
According to this website:
http://www.textexcavation.com/argumentfromsilence.htmlHowell and Prevenier, then, propose three conditions for the proper use of an argument from silence:
1. The author withholding the alleged information was in a position to have that information.
2. The author withholding the alleged information intended to give a full account of the event from which he or she omitted that information.
3. The author withholding the alleged information had no compelling reason to have omitted the information.
...and...
The burden on the historian who wishes to invoke the argument from silence, then, is heavy. Such an historian must show both (A) that a given author should have known about the disputed event (if it really happened) and (B) that this author should have written about it (if it really happened and he or she knew about it). The burden on the historian who wishes to ignore the argument from silence, however, is relatively light. Such an historian has only to show either (A) that the author in question may not have known about the disputed event or (B) that the author in question was not compelled to write about it.
I'm not sure how you think this discussion fits into that mold, but apparently you see your burden as the light one: "(B) that the author in question was not compelled to write about it." I'm not entirely sure if that is the point you wish to make by continually invoking the argument from silence, but if so, you have not shown that the witnesses were simply not compelled to write about the use of a KJVB (rather than a wish to conceal), rather, you've simply asserted it. You seem to think that had they been pressed they surely would have written about it. But as you acknowledge, there is no way to know that.
According to the following from wiki:
The argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.[1] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it.[2] When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning.
I am not making that argument. I am not suggesting any of the witnesses would have been ignorant of KJVB use, other than possibly Whitmer. But the chronology of Book of Mormon production suggests he likely would not have been since the large KJVB chunks were presumably produced when the translation was taking place at the Whitmers. Regardless, I am saying that the lack of references to the subject of KJVB use in Book of Mormon production likely indicates a wish to conceal that information. Of course I can't prove that any more than you can prove otherwise.
Again from the previous website:
After using an argument from silence in an example involving Israeli involvement in the 1982 attack on refugee camps in Beirut, Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier write on pages 74-75 of From Reliable Sources:
Of course, an argument from silence can serve as presumptive evidence of the "silenced" event only if, as in this case, the person suppressing the information was in a position to have the information, and was purposing to give a full account of the story from which he omitted the crucial information, and if there were no compelling reasons why he should have omitted the information (other than the wish to conceal).
The only reason I am hearing you give for Smith and Cowdery to omit the information about a KJVB being used (other than the wish to conceal) is that no one ever asked them about it. I don't find that reason very compelling.
This is also stated:
Furthermore, Garraghan is more correct in his second condition than Howell and Prevenier are in their third. To have no compelling reason to omit a particular fact is not necessarily to be compelled to state that fact. Sometimes an author is negligent or forgetful. Rather, as Garraghan puts it, it is up to the person formulating and using the argument from silence to show that the author would certainly have mentioned the datum in question, and that therefore his or her silence on the matter is an indication that he or she did not know about that datum.
This seems to be what you are arguing. If so, my response is what I have been asserting all along... that copying large chunks of a KJVB
is not the trivial matter you make out it be, unworthy of mention by at least one witness, especially in light of other testimony that asserted the entirety came from God through the stone lest any man should boast. Our dispute seems to center around whether copying large chunks of a King James Bible is worthy of mention or was simply a trivial matter. Oliver and Joseph surely would have known about it. In light of that and the volume of material in question, the "silence on the matter is an indication that" the witnesses likely had a wish to conceal that information.
My discussion on these maneuvers is purely matters of logic, nothing personal. Look up ad hominem circumstantial. Instead of supporting your argument from silence with real evidence, you argue that I should accept the idea that the Spalding MS was used by Joseph Smith because no one mentioned the Bible and we all know it was used. Thus, instead of offering real evidence supporting your contention, you attempt to coerce me to accept your proposition based on my other beliefs. That’s a fallacy.
I have little desire to get bogged down in discussion over the nuances of logical fallacies, but it seems to be important to you. This from wiki:
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[4]
This does not apply to my argument. I am neither attacking your bias nor suggesting that you are disposed to take a particular position. Instead I am taking your logic at face value and asking, if, as you suggest, Cowdery, Smith and Whitmer could simply forget to mention that a King James Bible was used in Book of Mormon production
then what was to prevent them from forgetting to mention other sources that may also have been used?Unless I missed it, I have seen no answer from you to that question.
You seem to think Whitmer's denial that a Spalding manuscript was used is a satisfactory answer. It isn't. A.) It does not address the question of KJVB usage B.) Whitmer was likely not in a position to know about a possible Spalding manuscript since he was probably not a co-conspirator (if a conspiracy took place) but was more likely a dupe C.) Whitmer's testimony is not otherwise consistent and D.) he acknowledges that he was not an eyewitness to everything:
I testify to the world that I am an eyewitness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon. Part of it was translated in my father's house in Fayette, Seneca County, N.Y. Farther on I give a description of the manner in which the book was translated.
If, on the other hand, the KJVB chunks were indeed produced at the Whitmer residence, one wonders how Whitmer could have failed to notice?
With regard to silence, however, I am more concerned about Smith and Cowdery's than Whitmer's.
Joseph himself is quite reluctant to give us any significant details:
Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God.
He never adds: "except for the parts I copied from the Bible."
Joseph's silence becomes even more suspect when he refuses to provide details even when prompted by his brother. In a general conference in October 1831, in response to Hyrum's request for more translation details, Joseph simply replied that it was "not expedient for him to tell more than had already been told about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and it was not well that any greater details be provided."
The bottom line to all of this is that you are the one asserting these witnesses are reliable in the first place. I, on the other hand, am under no obligation to believe anything they claim. Given that, we agree that a Bible
was consulted and I'm pretty confident you acknowledge that only because textual evidence leaves you with few alternatives. On that basis I think examination of the text also suggests
other possible sources were likely used.
Sandra Tanner, for example, suggests that Joseph Smith likely copied elements from the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and the KJVB Preface into the Book of Mormon. Is that possibility worthy of additional research?
I don’t recall such a statement by Whitmer. Without researching this, the “every word” statements I recall were in regard to the Book of Mormon’s inspiration. But such statements were obvious hyperbole, not literal descriptions of the translation process. Even so, your assumption is that because the Bible was taken out, the stone was not used. If the stone was not used, then how did the variant readings come about if not from the stone?
By someone imposing their theological assumptions on what they perceived to be weak spots in the King James rendering. And my assumption is that the stone was a prop. I don't think words actually appeared in it. Do you?
I don’t know what the witnesses thought, or which of them saw or did not see the Bible being used. I only argue that nothing demanded that they mention it. All you have is an argument from silence. Perhaps you should look that fallacy up as well.
If you don't know what the witnesses thought, then we're in the same boat--except that you are giving them the benefit of the doubt whereas I don't think that is warranted. In fact you seem to give them the benefit despite what they actually do claim. For example,
Joseph Knight:
Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated.
Knight sure seems to suggest that "the whole" was translated by the stone without any apparent need for a KJVB. There is certainly no mention of one.
Whitmer:
I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.
The characters I speak of are the engravings on the golden plates from which the book was translated. They were engraved thereon by the hand of a holy prophet of God whose name was Mormon, who lived upon this land four hundred years after Christ.
Whitmer is specific about the characters of which he speaks, and he tells us how "the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man" but never mentions any KJVB which would have certainly undermined what he had just asserted.
Harris:
By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used
Harris also forgets to mention the King James Bible, but instead asserts that "the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
Cowdery:
I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and he translated it by the power and gift of God, by means of the Urim and Thummin, or as it is called by that book, the ‘Holy Interpreter’.
I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was translated. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands, the ‘Holy Interpreters.’ That book is true, Sidney Rigdon did not write it; Mr. Spalding did not write it; I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.
Oliver implies that he wrote nearly the whole thing as it fell from the prophet's lips. What's more, in the process of denying reliance on Spalding, Oliver forgets to mention anything about a King James Bible. But then, doing so would have greatly weakened what he had just claimed about writing it all as it fell from the prophet's lips, so we see a clear incentive to forget to mention any KJVB use.
They would be more likely to remember familiar names, but names they never head before and never repeated thereafter are not likely to be remembered. When several people say they remember these names, only after hearing them read from the Book of Mormon, a great deal of skepticism is in order.
Agreed. But they
were repeatedly exposed to them
if they were telling the truth. Hence my point... they were either lying or telling the truth. If you wish to make the case that they were lying that's fine. But that is not what Brodie argues and not what any S/R critic I am aware of to date argues.
You are quoting me out of context. You quote: “No! I said, ‘there was nothing to evoke that response from the witnesses. It was not forgotten or intentionally withheld.’” My next sentence was to you: “There is no way to know that.” In other words, your assertion that they intentionally withheld this information, evidence that there was a conspiracy, can’t be known.
But neither can your assertion that they merely forgot to mention it. Either way we are asking each other to read their minds. That is why I wanted to know
if we agree that a King James Bible was used--and apparently we do. In light of that agreement, my question, again, is, if, as you suggest, Cowdery, Smith and Whitmer could simply forget to mention that a King James Bible was used in Book of Mormon production then what was to prevent them from forgetting to mention other sources that may also have been used?
We both agree that nothing was said. You are the only one making something from nothing.
Not true. You are taking the silence and inferring that they may simply have forgotten to mention it; that their omission may not have been intentional. There is no way to know that, you point out. What compounds the problem, is that such an admission would have undermined their other testimony--that it came about by the gift and power of God through the stone. That's a strong incentive to forget to mention key information that undermines that assertion.
Again, you need to read about arguments from silence. That might help; I don’t seem to be getting through. The burden is on you. You’re trying to escape clear statements about the Spalding MS not being present, with an argument from silence, which is being used as an ad hominem circumstantial. How much clearer can I be?
Not much if your only point is to win at any cost. That's not why I am in this conversation.
When Whitmer reaffirmed his Book of Mormon testimony in 1880s, many respected citizens signed a statement regarding his honesty and integrity. The only evidence that you offer to counteract that and many other reasons to trust Whitmer and other witnesses is a contradiction you see in a statement he made and a supposition about what he knew? That strikes me as a little desperate!
Well with all due respect, it strikes me as a little desperate to agree that a Bible
was used although no witness ever acknowledges it, but then reject the notion that any other document
could have been used.
I’m not accusing them of lying.
Accusing them of lying makes more sense than accusing them of sincerely mistaking "Nephi" and "Lehi" as the lead characters in a novel that has no such heroes or even similar names. Accusing them of lying makes more sense than accusing them of sincerely thinking they were repeatedly exposed to the phrase "and it came to pass" to the point it became excessive--so much so that they then falsely remember calling Spalding "'ole came to pass"--when he never wrote the phrase in the first place.
If you wish to be skeptical of the Conneaut witnesses, that's fine by me. Be skeptical and explain why they would want to destroy Joseph Smith and the Mormon church. But the notion that they really believed what they were saying--but we know better--is nonsense.
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.