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

[_MCB]

October of 1748 ES was floridly psychotic!!! Whoa!!! <wide eyes in amazement>

He is having problems with evil demon Quakers. !!!!!!!

By the next month he was somewhat saner.

[_Roger]

October of 1748 ES was floridly psychotic!!! Whoa!!! <wide eyes in amazement>

He is having problems with evil demon Quakers. !!!!!!!

You're not following any medicinal prescriptions he may have suggested to enhance the reading experience, are you? ; )

[_MCB]

No, I am reporting what I see!! (As did he. LOL) All I got is Effexor and Seroquel (50 mg daily for anxiety, not schizophrenia LOL)

This is RICH!!!

And there are a lot of parallels with LDS stuff. We have pre-Christian "Christianity"

but then we also have an ongoing battle between King David and the pontiff, both of whom want to be the supreme god of heaven.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

I am NOT rejecting Whitmer's testimony based on Knight's statement. On the contrary, I am saying that Whitmer's statement and Knight's statement do not contradict one another. And that therefore, Knight's statement can be seen as complementary to Whitmer's.

Sorry, that’s not how it works. You apparently have no real methodology for assessing the reliability and value of various historical sources. I’ve already explained that Knight had limited exposure to Joseph Smith’s translating. He undoubtedly believed what he was saying was true. He wasn’t withholding information. Whitmer is a different matter.

If anything, it seems to me that you are the one playing games with eyewitness testimony that you otherwise rely on. (By contrast, I have other reasons for being skeptical of most of it. But you seem to want to take most of it at face value.) The fact is, you suggest that a King James Bible was used CONTRARY to what Knight says. You need to show what grounds you have for overruling Knight.

If you can’t see the fallacy in your argumentation, I don’t see the need to carry on this way with you. We already know Knight was in Colesville and the Bible was used in Fayette.

What I have heard you say, is that you justify the hypothesized Bible use because--according to you-- it would not have raised suspicions because everyone knows that the Book of Mormon quotes from the Bible.

But that's a pretty weak response to Knight's blatant claim that "the whole" was translated by "the urim and thummim." It seems to me that you are the one making an argument from silence here in order to make the hypothesis work. You are saying, despite the fact that no one mentions a Bible, I think one was used. And when you run up against Knight telling you that the "whole" was translated by Smith putting his head in his hat "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" you have to overrule Knight in the case of the Isaiah quotations and then theorize about what Knight meant to say but didn't.

If you have some way of harmonizing Knight's testimony with the use of a Bible, I'm all ears.

You can’t hang your whole argument on one quote. You have to consider all the evidence and take into consideration the historical situation surrounding the statement. But I’m not going to give you a crash course in historiography and logic. You would have a case if you could reasonably expect Knight to have known about the Bible use. I feel that I’m explaining the obvious, and I can’t believe you can’t see these things yourself. Embarrassing is the word that comes to mind.

Fine. I lose because I don't believe Whitmer's denial of a Spalding manuscript. I can live with that. He was either lying or not in a position to have known.

You lose because you are trying to polemicize this discussion. You are not using the sources to reconstruct what probably happened, you are using them to win a debate. However, you are doing neither. You belief about Whitmer is hardly surprising, but it carries no logical or historical force.

Let me quote Dan Vogel commenting on the testimony of David Whitmer in American Apocrypha: …

You’re not listening. I’ve already explained that the apparent contradictions in Whitmer’s interviews are due to different interviewers. Your third quote from my book is actually not a contradiction. Did you really read my essay?

So, why should I believe the word of David Whitmer?

I don’t know that minor discrepancies in the angel story from different interviewers over a long time span are Whitmer’s fault. As witnesses go Whitmer is very credible. Certainly there is no reason to call him (or any of his supporting witnesses) a liar.

I think it clearly is a contradiction and I think you simply want to give Whitmer the benefit of the doubt, which then requires you to go to great lengths in explaining what he should have said (to avoid the contradiction), but didn't. You want to blame the contradictions on the way the interviewer asked the question or even the questions they failed to ask. This seems to be an indication you have a polemical interest in maintaining the integrity of the Book of Mormon witnesses--at least to the extent that they allow you to rescue them from their own "different readings."

Wrong. Whitmer’s touching or not touching the plates is only a contradiction if one assumes he was speaking about his vision both times. I made it appear contradictory to make a point about the Eight Witnesses. Remember, too, these statements were no transcriptions of Whitmer’s words, but reports by different reporters.

No. Do you really not understand the case I am making? Why would you state that?

As illogical as it is, I still understand your argument perfectly. I’m just trying not to be longwinded. Rather, you are trying to use Knight to supply the deficiencies you see in Whitmer’s statement.

My assertion was not silly, Dan. You may not want to accept it, but to pronounce it silly is silly. His statement DOES NOT contradict the other statements. It complements them. You are the one who wants to accept the rest of it, but find a way around the part you don't like.

Yes, you are being silly when you talk about “strong implications” that the other witnesses mean to say what Knight said, or that Knight “complements” them. You can’t use Knight to interpret the others, who had far more experience with the translation than Knight.

Agreed. And yet you seem to want to put their testimony on a pedestal that we must assume they were honest people who would never lie or stretch the truth--or see plates that weren't there--to suit their purposes.

That’s not what I had in mind. Interested witnesses don’t automatically lie, either for or against. That’s too simple. It’s more like they provide a distorted lens into the past. This includes your Spalding witnesses.

I am not simply dismissing their testimony out of hand, and by "their" I mean more than merely Whitmer. But even given the luxury you lack, you still came to the conclusion that: “Concerning what the angel said, Whitmer's interviews are perhaps irreconcilable" and yet for some odd reason, you want me to simply accept his denial of a Spalding manuscript as though his word settles the matter.

Again, I was talking about discrepancies between various interviews, not Whitmer contradicting himself. I’m afraid historically you are stuck with Whitmer and other witnesses testifying to the manner Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

None of which can be supported by the eyewitnesses you otherwise rely on--except by their silence, which, last I checked, IS an argument from silence.

The fallacy of argument from silence doesn’t mean one can’t fill in gaps and offer interpretations for historical events. If everything came from sources and witnesses, we wouldn’t need historians. So I’m free to argue that a Bible would not have raised suspicions with the witnesses, but a MS would have, by way of explanation. But when you formulate an argument that Joseph Smith could have read from a MS despite the witnesses’ silence, because they also were silent about the use of the Bible, you have committed the fallacy of argument from silence. I’m trying to offer an explanation of something not explicitly addressed in the sources, but you are using the silence to form an argument.

Massive by comparison? I think you're exaggerating.

The Spalding theory requires the use of a MS for the greater part of the Book of Mormon, something the witnesses coming in and out of the room would have seen and Joseph Smith could not have hid.

At the rate of production after the 116 page loss, there was ample opportunity to have production taking place off site. The manuscript does not come certified with Whitmer's seal of inspection on every page. Dictation could have been taking place in Fayette while filler material was being composed elsewhere.

Wild speculation, which the Book of Mormon MS doesn’t support.

But your last assertion is fairly broad and requires more space than is practical for an internet post. In short, I can simply say that I do not find the Book of Mormon witnesses to be very reliable. On the other hand, I see no reason to think the S/R witnesses were not being truthful, and it is noteworthy that you have provided no reason to conclude otherwise--except that your theory requires false memories.

False memory theory gives an explanation that doesn’t require me to accuse anyone of lying. Rather, it allows me to accept the Mormon testimony of multiple eyewitnesses, both friendly and unfriendly. If you want to know my position on the Spalding witnesses, read the long thread that discusses it.

Yes, I am getting a little weary myself of your appeals to a stone you don't think was anything more than a prop. So let's break this down into something we can both use, hopefully:

1. Earlier on this thread, you speculated that Cowdery may have copied from the KJVB when Smith was gone to Palmyra.

2. We both agreed that the stone was merely a prop. Therefore nothing came from the stone including variant readings.

3. Given that, we want to ascertain where the variant readings actually did come from.

4. Hence my reference to your earlier speculation. Do you wish to retract that speculation or do you still see it as a viable option?

5. If you wish to retract it or at least set it aside in favor of the idea that "the stone was used" to produce the variants, I will need you to be more specific about how exactly you think that occurred.

Without speculating about details, you need to acknowledge that variant readings imply use of the stone in some fashion.

I am starting to notice a reluctance on your part to get into the details of how you see the stone use converging with your hypothesized Bible use--to the extent that you now avoid a direct answer.

I have no problem with the variant readings being "explained in the context of revelation" --although I will say that I am certainly not aware of any early witness specifically addressing that question and offering that explanation in response, are you? If not, then it seems we have another argument from silence.

Again, I’m not using the silence to form an argument. I’m extrapolating from the evidence to only reasonable conclusion.

Why does the notion that Isaiah chapters were simply copied from the Bible present problems for my point of view that yours would (presumably) be immune to? I think S/R's explanation is perfectly reasonable, indeed, it explains the data better, in my opinion. It just might be that the variants present more of a problem for your point of view than mine.

You brought up the Bible as evidence that the stone wasn’t used for the entire Book of Mormon. This you saw as contradicting Whimter’s (actually Knight’s) claim of the whole Book of Mormon coming from the stone. Since Joseph Smith didn’t simply read the Isaiah from the Bible but made changes, it implies that the Bible was used as a translation aid and that what is in the Book of Mormon was checked with the stone, or at least that was the claim.

S/R suggests that any one of the inner circle (Smith, Rigdon, Cowdery or Pratt) could have copied those sections, making the changes as they copied, after carefully considering the theological implications of each change as they were being made. This is a much more reasonable interpretation of the variants than thinking Smith made the changes during dictation on the fly. And if you are not going with the idea that the changes were made on the fly during dictation, then you're back to Cowdery copying text and either producing the variants himself (which puts you into S/R territory) or Smith making changes after Cowdery makes the transcriptions--which is, again, into S/R territory.

However it was accomplished, it doesn’t put it in S/R territory.

No. That was not what I was referring to. You said you were familiar with the Spalding/Rigdon theory and still reject it. I therefore assumed you knew that I was referring to this: …

What I thought you were referring to is a better argument than this. But so be it. Aron Wright stating that the Spalding MS found is not the one he was referring to in 1833 hardly makes his original statement any stronger. If he was mistaken then, he was still mistaken later.

I do not believe that my own experience conflicts with memory theory. Only that much more is made of "memory theory" than is reasonable in the specific case of the Spalding witnesses in order to further the objective of dismissing their testimony.

I disagree.

No I'm not. I'm saying the claims of S/R critics are selective according to polemical necessities when it comes to this. I quoted Brodie as the quintessential example. On the one hand, when it serves the purpose of alleging that the witnesses were tricked into sincerely thinking the Book of Mormon and MSCC were one and the same, emphasis is placed on the similarities. And on the other hand, when the objective is to emphasize the notion that there is no connection between the two works we are then asked to focus on the differences. It has more to do with keeping the idea of one manuscript alive, in my opinion, than with the logistics of false memories.

I don’t care what Brodie said, but she said nothing about false memory theory.

You acknowledged that the witnesses were making the connection before Hurlbut talked to them. What prompted them to make that connection?

Mormon preaching and discussion among themselves.

First of all there is no "MS found." Manuscript Found, is not extant. You think it never existed, I think it did. What there is instead is a manuscript referred to erroneously as Manuscript Found by Mormon polemicists who wish to maintain the assertion that there was only one manuscript. That manuscript is more properly known as Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek (which I shorten to MSCC) or "the Roman story" or The Oberlin Manuscript.

You are quite right. I meant it in the sense of the MS that was found, as opposed to the one that hasn’t been.

Second, there is no overuse of the phrase "and it came to pass" in that manuscript. THAT is my point.

I can see that argument. You might want to read the long thread on this topic:

DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

There we discussed some witnesses mentioning Spalding writing about the ten tribes, perhaps the phrase “it came to pass” was used there. However, this is not the second MS that the Spalding advocates believe became the Book of Mormon.

Because they allege that he overused the phrase in that manuscript that they were repeatedly exposed to. I'm not convinced you have actually familiarized yourself with the facts and allegations of the Spalding/Rigdon theory. It seems you have simply dismissed it without giving it much legitimate consideration.

It’s been four years and I haven’t given the theory much thought since, so I might be a bit rusty. In that thread I argued: “that some of the witnesses saying that the lost tribes came out of Jerusalem was an indication that they were being influenced by the Book of Mormon.” The ten tribes didn’t come out of Jerusalem. They got that from the Book of Mormon. Dale wrote: “A final thought: Spalding may have written a lost tribes story that superficially resembled the Book of Mormon, but was not so close a match as some witnesses say. In fact the Mormons used to argue that very possibility in the years before 1884. It remains a largely unexplored option -- neither Mormons nor Spalding advocates having much use for such ideas in the wake of the Honolulu discovery.”

Wright's testimony is as blatant a denial of what you are alleging as Whitmer's is of what I am alleging.

So now YOU are going to have to deal with Wright's denial. False memory doesn't cut it, because he flatly denies it after seeing the manuscript you allege was the only one he could have been exposed to. And if you can't come up with an answer that is not based on a polemical desire to maintain your one-manuscript theory, you lose.

It is becoming clear to me that in order to maintain the position you hold, one must place a lot of faith in the testimony of early Book of Mormon witnesses despite the inconsistencies in their testimonies. In my opinion you give them an inordinate amount of trust they have not otherwise earned. Simultaneously you apply an inordinate amount of skepticism to the testimonies of the S/R witnesses when they have not otherwise demonstrated themselves to be untrustworthy.

I answered this above. Of course he doesn’t believe the Spalding MS is the one he remembered since he believes the Book of Mormon is it. Whether his memory is based on the Oberlin MS, or Spalding’s ten tribe MS as Dale suggested, false memory is at play since neither is the Book of Mormon.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The ten tribes didn’t come out of Jerusalem.
...

Actually, there was a period during the Assyrian occupation when that
could well have happened -- and I would think that somebody back at
the beginning of the 19th century would have been a good enough
biblical scholar to spot that particular opportunity in the narrative.

When Josiah began his reforms -- near the end of the Davidic monarchy
in Judah -- the Assyrian occupiers evidently allowed him to extend those
religious improvements into what had been the northern kingdom.

At the time Josiah held his "Great Passover" in Jerusalem, notable
Israelites still living in the north were no doubt invited to travel the
short distance southward and demonstrate their religious fealty to
the new order being established there.

Just before, during, or after that religious gathering would have been an
opportune time for a few hundred northern tribesmen to have escaped
their Assyrian overlords, and to escape Josiah as well -- if they had not
really accepted his religion.

In the eyes of the Judah Yahwists these devious northerners would have
been viewed as traitors and backslidden idolators -- Israelites who had
rejected the "true" religion that was on its way to becoming Judaism.

Such a band of rebel northerners (representing members of various tribes)
would have been a much more manageable set of story characters than
would have been the case for thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of
their kinfolk who were reportedly re-settled by the Assyrians.

Whether this was ever the basis for any 19th century "lost tribes" tale,
I do not know -- but it could have made for an interesting plot. Recall
also that the Book of Mormon refers to northern Judah as the "land of
Jerusalem" -- a regional designation which contemporary LDS have been
happy to find inscribed in the ancient Amarna tablets.

A relatively small band of northern tribesmen, escaping from the "land of
Jerusalem" right after King Josiah's great passover would have been both
historically plausible and fictionally interesting. As "idolators" they would
not have followed the branch of Israelite religion which evolved into
Judaism -- and thus might more easily have given rise to American Indians
who were not "religious" in the biblical sense. In other words, their story
could have avoided the "more religious part" we find in some other tales
of the lost tribes journeying to the New World.

The range of choices for my idea, as a 19th century story, are:

1. impossible
2. plausible, but improbable
3. possible, but undocumented

That is, "undocumented," if we choose to ignore a considerable body of
witness testimony which centered on just such an Israelite migration from
Jerusalem, by land and by sea, across the Behring Straits, etc. etc.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The Spalding theory requires the use of a MS for the greater part of the Book of Mormon, something the witnesses coming in and out of the room would have seen and Joseph Smith could not have hid.
...

I do not recall any version of those early authorship claims which would have
required Joseph Smith to have created "the greater part of the book" out of
a pre-existing manuscript -- unless we are here talking about something like
half to a third of the "large plates." At least the theory put forth by Criddle
would have only required a handful of pre-existing folios -- comprising
perhaps a third of the text as we have it now.

However, if Sidney Rigdon is added to the mix -- then, yes, perhaps more
than half of the book would be credited to a Rigdon/Cowdery expansion
of Spalding, to something like half or more of the 1830 book.

Assuming that the Whitmers kept a close watch on Smith and Cowdery,
I suppose that such a set of manuscript folios would have been difficult
to conceal -- even if they were only used one at a time.

So let's agree that as he sat at his table, or otherwise remained in close
proximity to his scribe(s) that Smith couldn't have concealed even a few
manuscript pages from the close observation of the Whitmers. And perhaps
he did not even have a Bible open in the room during the times that the
Whitmers were wont to wander in and out of that place.

That much agreed to -- can we also agree that for some of that "translation"
Smith claimed that the "plates" were secreted away from the dictation --
or perhaps even absent from his environs altogether?

If so, then let's hold that image in our mind -- of Smith dictating his text,
while maintaining that the "plates" were hidden "out in the woods" -- with
poor old Mr. Harris wandering through the snow, looking for the pile of gold;
or the Whitmers convinced that the plates were elsewhere than in their house.

That image remaining in our mind, let us inquire of the witness testimony
whether or not Smith ever left the scene of the dictation -- whether or
not he took "bathroom breaks" -- or went off to argue with Emma (or to
apologize to her) -- or simply broke off from his head-in-the-hat routine
to get a little fresh air -- or engage in "mighty prayer?"

There is a reason I place these two scenarios together -- the location of
the "plates" (the purported source of the Nephite record) and Smith's
absences from the translation room.

And perhaps some answers can be found here:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/Classics1.htm#Whitmer

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

No, Mr. King died shortly after. Some of the early Mormons were known for some terroristic practices. I really didn't want to set off a temper tantrum on your part.

And the other question?

I don't do temper tantrums. It would seem that maybe you are intimating soemthing here about King? And alleged terrorist practices? I think you are going way out in left field there. But have fun with it if you wish.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Wright's testimony is as blatant a denial of what you are alleging as Whitmer's is of what I am alleging.

So now YOU are going to have to deal with Wright's denial. False memory doesn't cut it, because he flatly denies it after seeing the manuscript you allege was the only one he could have been exposed to. And if you can't come up with an answer that is not based on a polemical desire to maintain your one-manuscript theory, you lose.

All the best.

Roger, you are trying to get Dan to accept as "gospel" a statement that is unsigned and not in Aron Wright's handwriting. At this point in time, you are probably correct that false memory does not cut it any longer, hence the desperate attempt on his and coach Hurlbut's part to salvage some credibility. But as has been pointed out repeatedly, not one single document has been unearthed that indicates any controversy over the matter until Hurlbut raised the issue. All such "remembrances" are ex post facto.
Nehemiah King was already dead at the time so this statement of Wright's could not be verified. But there is absolutely no corroborating witnesses or documents.

Benjamin Winchester's pamphlet on the matter is just as credible as that statement.

However, unless you can establish that the manuscript that was reported to be delivered to the printing establishment twice, and twice returned was the mythical "second" manuscript, you have no case.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Mormon apologist's responses to S/R are the reason why I take the larger view, looking for resonances in the culture of the era and area in which LDS scriptures were written, and in which the LDS faith developed. S/R is a perpetual merry-go-round. It is only part of the explanation. I step off of it, while personally believing that it is reasonable, to look at the larger picture.

[Guest]

Roger, you are trying to get Dan to accept as "gospel" a statement that is unsigned and not in Aron Wright's handwriting.

There are good warrants to justify assuming with high probability that this letter prepared by Hurlbut was a draft statement taken from Aron Wright after Hurlbut showed him the Conneaut Creek Spalding Manuscript. Do you disagree that there are good reasons for this assumption?

At this point in time, you are probably correct that false memory does not cut it any longer, hence the desperate attempt on his and coach Hurlbut's part to salvage some credibility.

If Hurlbut was so desperate why would he bring back the Conneaut Creek Spalding Manuscript from his New York trip, let alone show it to some of the witnesses from whom he already had signed affidavits testifying to a very different Spalding manuscript. This one lacked biblical language and absent the phrase "and it came to pass" which they said was in the Spalding manuscript they remembered. He gives this Conneaut Creek Spalding manuscript to Howe which works against his interest in discrediting the Book of Mormon. If he was so desperate he would have been better off to destroy that Spalding manuscript.

But as has been pointed out repeatedly, not one single document has been unearthed that indicates any controversy over the matter until Hurlbut raised the issue.

Hurlbut was merely 24 years old. How was he in a matter of mere months able to convince Spalding's family, friends neighbours, business partner, employee, a debt collector of Spalding's, who were all at least 20 years his senior to lie and sign affidavits testifying they remembered a Spalding manuscript with specific names, biblical style writing, phrase "and it came to pass" none of which was in the manuscript Hurlbut retrieved? No one ever said Hurlbut harassed or pressured them. So how was this young unknown individual able to gain their trust so quickly and get this select group of Spalding associated individuals with very little interest in Mormonism, not noted as anti Mormon to all lie and conspire against Mormons? It's not as if Hurlbut had the use of modern day communication conveniences of telephone, computer etc. Yet he shows up and in a matter of hours, days to meeting him all those privy to Spalding's work claim to have heard or read a Spalding manuscript with many same features in the Book of Mormon. Only one person, one of Spalding's 2 brothers who was not in contact with Spalding in the years he likely was writing Manuscript Found remembered a different manuscript the Conneaut Creek or MS one and had no memory of MF (Manuscript Found).

Why should all close associates of Spalding play into Hurlbut's scheme?

All such "remembrances" are ex post facto.
Nehemiah King was already dead at the time so this statement of Wright's could not be verified. But there is absolutely no corroborating witnesses or documents.

It doesn't make sense for Hurlbut to scheme and write the Aron Wright draft letter. If he was that devious he'd simply have destroyed the Conneaut Creek Spalding manuscript and then there'd be no evidence of a different manuscript and no need to compose false witness statements you appear to accuse him of.

Benjamin Winchester's pamphlet on the matter is just as credible as that statement.

As I mentioned previously there are good warrants to justify high probability that the draft letter was a statement taken by Hurlbut from Aron Wright. For brevity I won't get into details.

However, unless you can establish that the manuscript that was reported to be delivered to the printing establishment twice, and twice returned was the mythical "second" manuscript, you have no case.

Unless you can explain why Spalding witnesses statements should be dismissed the Manuscript Found as described is strong evidence in support of a Spalding manuscript being used for the Book of Mormon.