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

[_marg]

Thanks. In studies of false memory, those who had such memories implanted continued to believe they were real memories despite the researchers explaining what had actually happened. In other words, once the memory is formed, it’s real to that person.

I'm wondering where you picked that up from. I've been reading some of your posts on false memory as well as reading some of Elizabeth Loftus' articles as well as youtube. I'm finding that it appears you have a misunderstanding of her studies, such as the particular techniques employed and what the results were. I'm short on time today but I'll address this in greater detail tomorrow and cite references.

These are notes and quotes I took from a talk she gave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vodoPHH167Y%20%20%20Elizabeth%20Loftus%20Beyond%20Belief%202006

She mentions the therapists used hypnosis , dream interpretation, guided therapy .. @ 3:42 mark

Regarding repressed memories of abuse she mentions this is no longer prevalent and explains why

" People started to realize they had false memories..how did that happen? Interesting that they shed belief they held for a year, 2 or 5." Explanation: their insurance ran out..patients could no longer afford psycho-therapy that was bolstering and propping up this system. “And the group therapy that bathed them in a love bath for holding these beliefs as victims ended and then these retractors turned around and sued therapists for planting false memories. Don’t see so much of this activity any more. Insurance company’s will no longer cover this therapy.

So Dan contrary to your notion that people with implanted memories continue to believe such memories when the reinforcement is gone...that is not what E. Loftus suggests.

Hopefully tomorrow ..I will be able to address the issue of the Conneaut witnesses and why their situation is unlike the situation E. Lotus set up for implanted false childhood memories..ie. getting lost in a shopping mall which you have mentioned in another post to support dismissing Conneaut witness statements due to false memory.

Key differences briefly without citation and elaboration:

- Her success rate was 25% not the virtual 100% with Hurlbut. (With such a high success rate by Hurlbut it actually indicates true memory in witnesses as opposed to false implanted memory. In otherwords high consensus is more likely to indicate a true memory rather than false. ) Try to find a study Dan that has the success rate by Hurlbut. Also consider that no Conneaut witnesses later said they thought Hurlbut influenced them to remember something not true, unlike E. Loftus who says repressed implanted memory abuse victims later appreciated when they were no longer being influenced by their therapists..that they had been influenced to remember abuse which didn't happen.

- in E. Loftus studies she employs power of authority..be it parents, or some other source to encourage subjects to doubt their memories

- the initial response in subject in studies to implant false memory is completely unsuccessful> In takes addition sessions and even then only a small percentage 25% or less are successful.

- people with vague memories of events are more susceptible to implant of false memory. The portions which the Conneaut witnesses remembered were clearly remembered. Note in In E. Loftus studies she's telling people that their parents remember an event happening to them when they were 5 years old. Most people are unsure of the reliability of their memories at the age of 5. No wonder in 25 % of subjects they doubt their memory and trust what their parents claim happened. This was not the situation with the Conneaut witnesses who clearly remembered repeatedly either hearing read or reading themselves in Spalding's manuscript certain names, certain phrasing and style of writing that are present in Manuscript found and not present in Conneaut Creek Spalding manuscript.

I'll continue this later....

[_GlennThigpen]

- in E. Loftus studies she employs power of authority..be it parents, or some other source to encourage subjects to doubt their memories

- the initial response in subject in studies to implant false memory is completely unsuccessful> In takes addition sessions and even then only a small percentage 25% or less are successful.

- people with vague memories of events are more susceptible to implant of false memory. The portions which the Conneaut witnesses remembered were clearly remembered. Note in In E. Loftus studies she's telling people that their parents remember an event happening to them when they were 5 years old. Most people are unsure of the reliability of their memories at the age of 5. No wonder in 25 % of subjects they doubt their memory and trust what their parents claim happened. This was not the situation with the Conneaut witnesses who clearly remembered repeatedly either hearing read or reading themselves in Spalding's manuscript certain names, certain phrasing and style of writing that are present in Manuscript found and not present in Conneaut Creek Spalding manuscript.

I'll continue this later....

Marg, we are not talking about false memory implantation, but memory substitution aided by suggestion. Although not entirely different from an implanted memory, it is much more prevalent, especially if there is some type of incentive.

Hurlbut's success rate has been noted. In fact the similarities in phrasing such as "by land and sea" and the fact that most of the proper names remembered were so similar while the memories of the "historical part" such as the beheading of Laban and the building of the ship are conspicuously absent.

This coupled with the fact that none of the non Hurlbut witnesses initially remembered any of those names is especially problematic. The widow nor the daughter did not remember any of the names when first questioned, but as has been noted before, the daughter had a remarkable enlargement of memory later on, much later on.

Glenn

[_Roger]

marg wrote:

- Her success rate was 25% not the virtual 100% with Hurlbut. (With such a high success rate by Hurlbut it actually indicates true memory in witnesses as opposed to false implanted memory. In otherwords high consensus is more likely to indicate a true memory rather than false. )

Exactly! It is simply much too convenient for S/R critics to hang everything on false memories. It is easy to claim "group" false memories without ever really taking the time to assess the implications of such a blanket diagnosis on the Conneaut and subsequent witnesses. I think Dan realizes the folly in blaming Hurlbut for all of this because the group kept expanding after Hurlbut had left the stage.

And yet if the claim is that the Roman story (MSCC) is all there ever was, and no one is willing to call the S/R witnesses liars, then false memory is all they have left. But it simply doesn't cut it.

Excellent point, marg, and great to hear from you again.

[_Uncle Dale]

...to false implanted memory
...

Has any Mormon ever accused the Conneaut witnesses of false
memories, OTHER than recollections harmful to Mormonism?

I mean, it seems strange to me that the ONLY false memories these
folks happened to have were the ones the LDS don't like.

UD

ps -- Of course Robert and Rosemary Brown accused the witnesses
of not even knowing Spalding (or being in his presence) -- but I'm
looking for something more recent than their oddball allegations.

[_GlennThigpen]

Has any Mormon ever accused the Conneaut witnesses of false
memories, OTHER than recollections harmful to Mormonism?

I mean, it seems strange to me that the ONLY false memories these
folks happened to have were the ones the LDS don't like.

UD

Which question is irrelevant to the subject.

Glenn

[_marg]

Marg, we are not talking about false memory implantation, but memory substitution aided by suggestion. Although not entirely different from an implanted memory, it is much more prevalent, especially if there is some type of incentive.

Glenn please cite or quote what studies support "memory substitution" aided by suggestion which would warrant a conclusion the Conneaut witnesses were likely mistaken on their memory of the phrase "and it came to pass" , biblical language employed, and specific names used in Spalding's manuscript. I'm aware of a post by Dan which I'll address tomorrow in which he cites specific studies.

I want details, so they can be addressed...not simply a mentioning of a name such as E. Loftus.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn please cite or quote what studies support "memory substitution" aided by suggestion which would warrant a conclusion the Conneaut witnesses were likely mistaken on their memory of the phrase "and it came to pass" , biblical language employed, and specific names used in Spalding's manuscript. I'm aware of a post by Dan which I'll address tomorrow in which he cites specific studies.

I want details, so they can be addressed...not simply a mentioning of a name such as E. Loftus.

It was in "Creating False Memories" by Elizabeth F. Loftus. I assumed that you were already cognizant of the information since you mentioned her in your post.

I will quote the relevant information:

"My own research into memory distortion goes back to the early 1970s, when I began studies of the "misinformation effect." These studies show that when people who witness an event are later exposed to new and misleading information about it, their recollections often become distorted. In one example, participants viewed a simulated automobile accident at an intersection with a stop sign. After the viewing, half the participants received a suggestion that the traffic sign was a yield sign. When asked later what traffic sign they remembered seeing at the intersection, those who had been given the suggestion tended to claim that they had seen a yield sign. Those who had not received the phony information were much more accurate in their recollection of the traffic sign.

My students and I have now conducted more than 200 experiments involving over 20,000 individuals that document how exposure to misinformation induces memory distortion. In these studies, people "recalled" a conspicuous barn in a bucolic scene that contained no buildings at all, broken glass and tape recorders that were not in the scenes they viewed, a white instead of a blue vehicle in a crime scene, and Minnie Mouse when they actually saw Mickey Mouse. Taken together, these studies show that misinformation can change an individual's recollection in predictable and sometimes very powerful ways.

Misinformation has the potential for invading our memories when we talk to other people, when we are suggestively interrogated or when we read or view media coverage about some event that we may have experienced ourselves. After more than two decades of exploring the power of misinformation, researchers have learned a great deal about the conditions that make people susceptible to memory modification. Memories are more easily modified, for instance, when the passage of time allows the original memory to fade."

This scenario is very applicable to the Hurlbut coached Conneaut Eight as opposed to the witnesses that Hurlbut did not coach. We do not know what questions Hurlbut asked his witnesses, but the "by land and sea" phrase by four of the eight witnesses is a pretty good indicator that he did some judicious prompting.


Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Not coming around at all. You misunderstood what I was saying. When Aron Wright saw the manuscript, he was faced with the truth of the matter, that what he had been led into believing was not the reality. The Nehemiah King story was convenient, because it could not be verified.

So you are now adopting "the S/R witnesses were liars" approach. I get it. It's not perfect, but it's a start. It's certainly better than trying to maintain group false memories. The problem you will run into is that more people keep joining the conspiracy, but I suppose you can simply chalk that up to widespread anti-Mormonism.

I also suppose you can consider the Nehemiah King story a convenient account considering King had recently passed away but if that were the case, Wright knew his testimony could be refuted by others. He must have realized he was taking a gamble. I think it would also be a pretty callous lie to blame your long-time recently departed friend and colleague when you are forced to come to grips with the fact that your own memory is faulty, but of course, in your reconstruction, the amiable, well respected Wright was obviously a lying anti-Mormon bent on taking Smith down regardless of the truth, so why not also think of him as being willing to use the memory of his departed friend to serve his evil design?

The "letter" survived because Hurlbut gave it to Howe, unsigned. That was no miracle.

No it didn't. If Howe had it, he would surely have printed it. Instead, he makes a general claim:

The trunk referred to by the widow, was subsequently examined, and found to contain only a single M. S. book, in Spalding's hand-writing, containing about one quire of paper. This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave, on the banks of the Conneaut Creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast, while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians. This old M. S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognise it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found."

The fact that we now have the Wright letter is a minor miracle. Given that it was merely a draft, it was used as a receipt after it's purpose as a draft was complete. It could then easily have been discarded. But it somehow survived, ending up in the Lake family, being donated to the museum Dale mentioned about a decade after the turn of the 20th century.

But, aside from rendering the false memory charge impotent, the other main significance is that it shows that Howe was not covering anything up and that when the manuscript you and Dan claim HAD TO HAVE BEEN the one these witnesses were actually exposed to was shown to them, they then claimed "that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found."

So not only do we now have to conclude that they all suffered from the same false memories--and as marg points out, with a 100% success ratio(!)--we now are asked to believe that even when confronted with what you and Dan are sure was the real manuscript, they simply lied and flat out denied it! And yet in all of this, they thought they were being sincere! --or I guess that's where you and Dan now part company.

What I am saying is that there would have been an uproar when the missionaries preached in Salem if there had been any suspicion that the Book of Mormon came from Solomon's pen. It would have been picked up by the papers. Some were quick to print any controversy concerning the Mormons. They certainly did after Hurbut came through with his allegations. Henry lake spread the word into neighboring counties after he had met with Hurlbut. One of the witnesses claimed to have remarked about the Book of Mormon being like Spalding's romance after he had heard his wife read from the Book of Mormon sometime in 1832. But the first we hear of it is when Hurlbut interviewed him. He made no noise about it at the time he allegedly made the connection.

There was certainly an unspecified uproar going on that even the LDS missionaries mention in their journals. But until Howe's book was published, there would have been nothing specific for papers to pick up on other than gossip. Howe's book changed all that by putting the allegations to writing.

But I'm not sure what good you think this latest claim does for your case? If no one noticed a resemblance to the Book of Mormon until Hurlbut came along, then you're back to blaming Hurlbut for getting these charges up. Is that what you want?

The key question, Glenn, is do you believe John and Martha Spalding were telling the truth as they believed it to be, or not?

That is conceding what? The LDS missionaries ran into opposition everywhere they preached, not just in the Conneaut, Ohio area.

I deleted Dale's musings. But he has noted the Erastus Rudd was among those that did join the Church in the area. Daniel Tyler stated that much of the Spalding romance was written at Rudd's home. If that were true, Rudd obviously did not see the connection reported by the Conneaut Eight.

Here's what Dale said:

The fact remains that Erastus Rudd and Rosanna Jackson Rudd
became Mormons, while knowing that Spalding had written fiction
about the ancient Americans being the Ten Tribes of Israel. They
obviously were not much bothered by this fact. Their relative,
Abner Jackson, claimed to have known more about the story and
to know that it more closely resembled the Book of Mormon than
is explainable by sheer coincidence. Abner never became a Mormon.

All in all, I'd say that Winchester's vague quoting of an unidentified
"Mr. Jackson" does not add a single bit of knowledge to the Roman
story description published by Howe in 1834 -- and that Winchester
may well have been putting words into "Mr. Jackson's" mouth.

Yes, I have noted such. Even after his apostasy he still denied that Spalding had anything to do with the Book of Mormon. He was from the area himself. His 1840 pamphlet came after the publication of Howe's "Mormonism Unvailed", but there is one detail in his report that is not shown elsewhere, that Spalding's romance was a "small work" which accurately describes the Spalding manuscript.

Winchestor may have believed his own propaganda or he simply realized that to go against it, since he had so forcefully made it, would have damaged his own credibility.

That should be obvious. If there was never a manuscript in the printer's establishment or with Robert Patterson that matches the Book of Mormon story, there is no case. There has not even been a prima facie case for that.

Robert Patterson himself makes that case:

"R. Patterson had in his employment Silas Engles at the time a foreman printer, and general superintendent of the printing business. As he (S. E.) was an excellent scholar, as well as a good printer, to him was entrusted the entire concerns of the office. He even decided on the propriety or otherwise of publishing manuscripts when offered -- as to their morality, scholarship, &c., &c. In this character he informed R. P. that a gentleman, from the East originally, had put into his hands a manuscript of a singular work, chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible, and handed the copy to R. P., who read only a few pages, and finding nothing apparently exceptionable, he (R. P.) said to Engles, he might publish it, if the author furnished the funds or good security. He (the author) failing to comply with the terms, Mr. Engles returned the manuscript, as I supposed at that time, after it had been some weeks in his possession with other manuscripts in the office.

"This communication written and signed 2d April, 1842,
"ROBERT PATTERSON."

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1842Wilm.htm#pg16b

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:
Winchestor may have believed his own propaganda or he simply realized that to go against it, since he had so forcefully made it, would have damaged his own credibility.

Yay!!! Your're beginning to get it. Now apply that same reasoning to the Hurlbut witnesses and you're almost there.

You note that the missionaries mentioned unspecified uproars in their diaries. That was a given just about anywhere they preached. Noting the published uproar that was occasioned by Hurlbut, it defies logic to assert that there would have been no reason to write about it until Hurlbut came along with his allegations.

Benjamin Winchester and Daniel Tyler both assert that there was nothing being noised about until Hurlbut brought it up. As I mentioned in another post, One of the witnesses, Henry Lake, that Hurlbut coached stated that he had borrowed a copy of the Book of Mormon and realized that it contained material from Spalding's romance after his wife started reading it to him. Yet he said nothing about it at the time. None of the other witnesses mentioned Henry spilling the beans to them.

Robert Patterson himself makes that case:

"R. Patterson had in his employment Silas Engles at the time a foreman printer, and general superintendent of the printing business. As he (S. E.) was an excellent scholar, as well as a good printer, to him was entrusted the entire concerns of the office. He even decided on the propriety or otherwise of publishing manuscripts when offered -- as to their morality, scholarship, &c., &c. In this character he informed R. P. that a gentleman, from the East originally, had put into his hands a manuscript of a singular work, chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible, and handed the copy to R. P., who read only a few pages, and finding nothing apparently exceptionable, he (R. P.) said to Engles, he might publish it, if the author furnished the funds or good security. He (the author) failing to comply with the terms, Mr. Engles returned the manuscript, as I supposed at that time, after it had been some weeks in his possession with other manuscripts in the office.

"This communication written and signed 2d April, 1842,
"ROBERT PATTERSON."

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1842Wilm.htm#pg16b

Okay, I have been over this with Dale. We do not have a copy of this statement supposedly signed by Robert Patterson. It is in the third person. We have no idea who really is the author of that statement or that it was actually signed by Robert Patterson. This was in a pamphlet By Samuel Williams called "Mormonism Exposed". The authenticity and accuracy of that statement cannot be determined by the extant evidence.

From E. D. Howe's "Mormonism Unvailed", page 289, "Mr. Patterson says he has no recollection of any such manuscript being brought there for publication, neither would he have been likely to have seen it, as the business of printing was conducted wholly by Lambdin at that time."



This directly contradicts the first statement.

So, we still have no prima facie case for a manuscript resembling the Book of Mormon ever being at the printer's establishment.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...

From E. D. Howe's "Mormonism Unvailed", page 289, "Mr. Patterson says he has no recollection of any such manuscript being brought there for publication, neither would he have been likely to have seen it, as the business of printing was conducted wholly by Lambdin at that time."



This directly contradicts the first statement.

So, we still have no prima facie case for a manuscript resembling the Book of Mormon ever being at the printer's establishment.

Glenn

So -- you are 100% convinced that Patterson never saw such
a manuscript? Or just that he had forgotten that he had seen it?

Suppose that D.P. Hurlbut had actually interviewed Patterson in
1833, and asked him if he recalled any manuscript submitted to
the firm of Patterson and Lambdin? ----- Is that what you think
happened?

Or do you believe that Howe wrote a letter to Patterson, asking
him if he recalled any manuscript submitted to the firm of Patterson
and Lambdin?

UD