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

[_harmony]

...
your argument... an ad hominem circumstantial argument
...

Consider our conversation ended -- permanently.
Talk to others with such accusative words: not to me.

Dale Broadhurst
web-host
OliverCowdery.com

Whoa. Now that's a shame, on both sides.

[_GlennThigpen]

The examples used were of events of a very recent event. And even with a recent event, false information has been shown to affect memory. The longer ago in time, the more easily that the effects incorrect information can have.

You are making things up. You don't know what you are talking about. You don't understand the point of Loftus's study.

From "Creating False Memories" by Elizabeth Loftus:

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.

I did not make that up. There is nothing there saying that any of the participants were unclear on any of the details. It only says that some of the participants were fed misinformation about a simulated automobile accident they had viewed.

Again, from the same article:

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.

That is self explanatory. Also, Loftus has done more than one study.

The Loftus study regarding "misinformation" had nothing to do with memory over long periods of time. They used simulated events that occurred or were shown quickly. And people were tested on some of the details after "misinformation" had been given them on some details. People who were unsure were more susceptible to being influenced by misinformation via exposure to false information.

See above quotes and comments.

Yes we all know long term memory deteriorate on average but that doesn't mean that all memory disappears or that everyone doesn't have much of a memory of things 20 years previous. As has been noted the Conneaut witnesses acknowledged some deteriorating memory on aspects but good memory are some particulars. Loftus hasn't done studies which show everyone loses long term memory completely or even what percentage of one's memory is lost in time. If you think she has then cite her study.

I haven't checked or asserted anything about percentages. It doesn't matter what a person reports as to what they think are good memories and what they are hazy on.

Here are a few more tidbits:

People are particularly susceptible to having their memories modified when the passage of time allows the original memory to fade, and will be most susceptible if they repeat the misinformation as fact (Loftus, 1979/1996:viii)

Further, witnesses may strongly believe in their memories, even though aspects of those memories are verifiably false (see, for example, Weingardt, Toland and Loftus, 1994).

Those factors are very applicable to the Conneaut witnesses. It had been over twenty years since any of them had seen or heard any part of Spalding's romance. Their exposure to the Book of Mormon was much more recent. And they had someone in the person of Philastus Hurlbut. to provide the misinformation and suggestions.

Glenn

[_marg]

From "Creating False Memories" by Elizabeth Loftus:

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.

I did not make that up. There is nothing there saying that any of the participants were unclear on any of the details. It only says that some of the participants were fed misinformation about a simulated automobile accident they had viewed.

You are making it up about "The longer ago in time, the more easily that the effects incorrect information can have "

I suggest you listen to this youtube talk Elizabeth Loftus: What's the Matter with Memory? #3 she gave on foratv in which she discusses "the misinformation paradigm". As she points out she is simulating situations typical of crime scenes in which a witnesses sees a crime and then later is questioned on what they saw/remembered and during that process new information is supplied. This is not a matter of passage of time affecting their memory. This is a matter of individuals not focussed on details of little exposure to a crime scene are then susceptible to forming a false memory of that scene via questioning. That is a very different situation to the conneaut witnesses because they despite what you say had a clear memory on certain specifics of a story they heard or had read frequently over time.

Again, from the same article:

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.

That is self explanatory. Also, Loftus has done more than one study.

"more easily modified" after memory has faded is not the situation with the conneaut witnesses. They said certain aspects of the story they heard or read often they clearly remembered while many details generally were faded and those they didn't try to recollect in statement. It's the faded memory that is susceptible to modification.

What you are doing is assuming after 20 years all memory is faded for all people. That is not the case, people do have clear long term memory. The witnesses clearly remembered the story written in biblical language, they clearly remembered an excessively repeated phrase "and it came to pass". And while I think names of characters would have faded, certainly if their memories are jogged which they mentioned had been the case, then it is quite conceivable they clearly remember those as well.

The Loftus study regarding "misinformation" had nothing to do with memory over long periods of time. They used simulated events that occurred or were shown quickly. And people were tested on some of the details after "misinformation" had been given them on some details. People who were unsure were more susceptible to being influenced by misinformation via exposure to false information.

See above quotes and comments.

E.Loftus focus with "misinformation" has been legal cases and her simulation events have been done to replicate situations of witnesses for crime scenes. She mentions this in the youtube I linked to. All those studies involve creating situations in which subject are briefly exposed to a simulated crime scene.

Yes we all know long term memory deteriorate on average but that doesn't mean that all memory disappears or that everyone doesn't have much of a memory of things 20 years previous. As has been noted the Conneaut witnesses acknowledged some deteriorating memory on aspects but good memory are some particulars. Loftus hasn't done studies which show everyone loses long term memory completely or even what percentage of one's memory is lost in time. If you think she has then cite her study.

I haven't checked or asserted anything about percentages. It doesn't matter what a person reports as to what they think are good memories and what they are hazy on.

E. Loftus has essentially studied what she terms paradigms. The "misinformation paradigm" and the "rich-false paradigm". Her studies for the "misinformation paradigm" as I mentioned above involve simulation of crime scenes in which witnesses are exposed briefly to a scene and then questioned after on what they remembered. There are no percentages given of how many people get the details wrong, though I assume it's quite high..a lot as far as results would be a matter of how long was the exposure to the crime scene and what sort of details were asked. As I point out above that's not the situation with the Conneaut witnesses. They had plenty of exposure to Spalding's work. And the sort of details that they remembered had a stickiness factor hence easily remembered.

The second "rich-false paradigm" she does provide percentage success rate. In these situations in which she goes to the extreme of employing authority such as parents to create doubt of memory in subjects, and she is testing their memory @ 5 years old which people generally do not have confidence in and she uses mundane events like a trip to a mall..her success is only 25% to convince people an event happened in their lives that didn't.

You are using E. Loftus name and work to dismiss everyone's 20 year long term memory as being completely unreliable and that simply is not the case and not what her studies are saying. Her studies involve unique and contrived situations which are not comparable to the Conneaut witness situation.

Here are a few more tidbits:

"People are particularly susceptible to having their memories modified when the passage of time allows the original memory to fade, and will be most susceptible if they repeat the misinformation as fact "(Loftus, 1979/1996:viii)

Once again, the sort of details that the Conneaut witnesses remembered had a stickiness factor and hence it is understandable why they could remember clearly some details after 20 years. People who have a clear memory of something are not highly susceptible to being influenced by others. They were frequently exposed and in some cases over a long period of time to Spalding's work..so it is understandable why some details would remain in long term memory. If their memory had faded on those details then they would be susceptible to being influenced to remember something different. They say they had a clear memory on some aspects.

Further, witnesses may strongly believe in their memories, even though aspects of those memories are verifiably false (see, for example, Weingardt, Toland and Loftus, 1994).

Those factors are very applicable to the Conneaut witnesses. It had been over twenty years since any of them had seen or heard any part of Spalding's romance. Their exposure to the Book of Mormon was much more recent. And they had someone in the person of Philastus Hurlbut. to provide the misinformation and suggestions.

The problem with that quote above from Weingardt, Toland and Loftus, is it's not in context. In the "rich false paradigm" only 25 % in E. Loftus contrived studies are successful. These are the situations in which she implants a memory of a subject going to a mall at the age of 5 and being lost in the mall. So sure 25 % of people after 3 sessions in which a contrived situation is created to convince people other have a better memory than themselves, truly end up believing a somewhat commonplace event happened to them when they were 5. But even with all that set up to convince people of a fault memory, only 25% success doesn't come close to the success rate Hurlbut is supposed to have had.

As far as the repressed abuse memory cases involving therapists..E. Loftus noted therapists employed techniques such as encouragement of imagination, hypnosis and couple that with frequent therapy sessions over long period of time the results was some patients became convinced they had been abused. In these situations the patients before therapy were completely unaware of abuse. So in these situations it became obvious that the therapist were creating a memory. Couple of points to note, the patients who ended up with implanted memories may have been highly susceptible and these weren't random cases. They are after the fact cases of people via therapy obtaining false memories..all those patients who didn't obtain false memories with similar techniques are not discussed. So how successful such techniques are isn't considered. Loftus's focus is to explain factors involved with the successful implanted memory cases. Those factors contributing to success such as frequent sessions over long periods of time, use of imagination techniques, hypnosis are not present in the Conneaut witness situation.

[_GlennThigpen]

You are making it up about "The longer ago in time, the more easily that the effects incorrect information can have "

Again, from the same article:

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.

"more easily modified" after memory has faded is not the situation with the conneaut witnesses. They said certain aspects of the story they heard or read often they clearly remembered while many details generally were faded and those they didn't try to recollect in statement. It's the faded memory that is susceptible to modification.

It is exactly the the case with those witnesses. All memories fade. Unless you are claiming that they thought about Spalding's story frequently, even after twenty years, and that it was one of the more memorable events in their collective lives. They admitted to being hazy about the details but had those memories "refreshed" by reading the Book of Mormon and given some judicious prompting by Hurlbut. "Are yet fresh in my memory" by Martha Spalding after apparently hearing the story but once. The additional details about the Lost Tribes is additional evidence of memory confabulation. There is nothing about the Lost Tribes in the Book of Mormon. There are also no Strait's of Darien in the Book of Mormon. The memories of those witnesses are a hodgepodge of different sources tied into one source.

What you are doing is assuming after 20 years all memory is faded for all people. That is not the case, people do have clear long term memory. The witnesses clearly remembered the story written in biblical language, they clearly remembered an excessively repeated phrase "and it came to pass". And while I think names of characters would have faded, certainly if their memories are jogged which they mentioned had been the case, then it is quite conceivable they clearly remember those as well.

And if it is jogged by misinformation, it would be just as good as gold to them, because they would not recognize it. They said they clearly remembered it. However, their exposure to the Book of Mormon was much more recent. And they had the gentle suggestions of Hurlbut to help them with their memories.

Once again, the sort of details that the Conneaut witnesses remembered had a stickiness factor and hence it is understandable why they could remember clearly some details after 20 years. People who have a clear memory of something are not highly susceptible to being influenced by others. They were frequently exposed and in some cases over a long period of time to Spalding's work..so it is understandable why some details would remain in long term memory. If their memory had faded on those details then they would be susceptible to being influenced to remember something different. They say they had a clear memory on some aspects.

However, none of them recount any of the more memorable details, except for the Laban as a tragic figure by Henry Lake. He reported pointing out a consistency in the account by Spalding, and reported being surprised to find it in the Book of Mormon just as Spalding originally wrote it. However, Lake does not specify his "inconsistency". However, Laban is not a tragic figure in the Book of Mormon, but Labanko is a tragic figure in the Oberlin Manuscript, being a beloved and honored Kentuck killed by one Sciotian while fighting with another.
Just saying that one has a clear memory does not a clear memory make.

Memory confabulation happens. It is not the same as trying to convince someone to remember an event that never happened. It is merely substituting one thing for another in one's memory.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I’m not going to go point for point with you. Loftus’s study can be used to generalize about memory; it doesn’t have to fit exactly the case of the Conneaut witnesses. You keep focusing on the situations in which Loftus tested memory. It’s not about the situations. She wasn’t testing situations, she was testing memory. And she showed how memories can be modified through suggestion. Just because the Conneaut witnesses say they are sure of their memories doesn’t make it so. Loftus’s subjects begin with vague recollections, mostly because the memory being suggested didn’t happen, but by the end of the process they are as sure as the Conneaut witnesses—so much so, in fact, that many can’t be convinced that it didn’t happen to them.

Fifteen-year-old memories are going to be dim, even if generally accurate. Specifics are going to be even dimmer. Going back to childhood and observing film of a crime are ways of testing dim memories. The specifics aren’t as important as what is learned about memory. There are many studies showing how memory is malleable, especially when it comes to specifics. Cross contamination of witnesses is also a well-known phenomenon.

The statement you made to Glenn shows how you seem to be missing the point:

You are using E. Loftus name and work to dismiss everyone's 20 year long term memory as being completely unreliable and that simply is not the case and not what her studies are saying. Her studies involve unique and contrived situations which are not comparable to the Conneaut witness situation.

All studies of this type would have to be contrived. No one is suggesting that all long term memories are completely unreliable. You are creating a strawman here. Nor is anyone using Loftus directly as evidence that this is what happened to the Conneaut witnesses, only to show that we are not necessarily stuck with their memories. If we believe the Mormon testimony is solid and there was no MS used in the production of the Book of Mormon, then studies by Loftus and others provide an explanation for what happened with the Spalding witnesses.

[_marg]

Marg,

I’m not going to go point for point with you. Loftus’s study can be used to generalize about memory; it doesn’t have to fit exactly the case of the Conneaut witnesses. You keep focusing on the situations in which Loftus tested memory. It’s not about the situations. She wasn’t testing situations, she was testing memory. And she showed how memories can be modified through suggestion. Just because the Conneaut witnesses say they are sure of their memories doesn’t make it so. Loftus’s subjects begin with vague recollections, mostly because the memory being suggested didn’t happen, but by the end of the process they are as sure as the Conneaut witnesses—so much so, in fact, that many can’t be convinced that it didn’t happen to them.

Dan the problems is that you are taking those unique studies with specific procedures and results and extrapolating that into an assumption that all memory is fragile and everyone with long term memory is susceptible to memory confusion.

The studies she did for legal cases was to replicate situations common in crime scenes in which witnesses are exposed briefly to an event. Consequently they have short term memory of an event with a number of details. Subjects are afterwards tested on a number of rather minor details but through questioning some new information false information replaces the true information. This differs in major respects from the situation with the Conneaut witnesses because through repeated exposure over time which they said occurred, they would have developed long term memory. So this particular study which is testing short term memory of brief exposure is not comparable to the Conneaut witness situation. The point of this study was simply to expose the potential for wrongful conviction in criminal cases under similar situations of witnesses viewing briefly a scene.

Her other study she terms the "rich-false" paradigm more closely is applicable to the Conneaut situation only because she deals with long term memory testing of events in individual's lives. But her results end up with a 75% failure rate of testing random individuals. This is despite the facts that she uses techniques to cause confusion and doubt such as employing help of parents to lie about an event in a subjects life. What she is also showing in her studies Dan is despite here best efforts and all the tricks she employs, and the particular contrived set up such as questioning individuals' memory at the age of 5...she fails in implanting false memories 75% of the time on average and this is when trying to implant a rather mundane event.

So if she was in Hurlbuts' shoes, she wouldn't have parents or some authority to help convince the Conneaut witnesses they have faulty memory of reading the Spalding manuscript, she wouldn't have the luxury or at least 3 repeated sessions, she would have to convince the Conneaut witnesses their memory in the 20's - 50's was unreliable not like her study in which she was asking subjects about the memory at 5 years of age when it is noted by E.Loftus herself the memory of the very young and very old are weakest, she would have to overcome their memory which involved repeated exposure of hearing and reading a story which in some cases would have been in the 100's of times as opposed to a one time trip to a mall..so with greater obstacles to overcome she'd have to implant the notion that the book they remembered was written in King James English and had repeated excessive phrase of it "came to pass" and rather than the measly result she had of a 75% failure rate..her failure rate would need to be virtually nil.

Contrary to what you think Dan she was testing memory under certain conditions. She was not saying that all memory is susceptible to implantation of false information.

Fifteen-year-old memories are going to be dim, even if generally accurate. Specifics are going to be even dimmer. Going back to childhood and observing film of a crime are ways of testing dim memories. The specifics aren’t as important as what is learned about memory. There are many studies showing how memory is malleable, especially when it comes to specifics. Cross contamination of witnesses is also a well-known phenomenon.

In her long term memory studies Dan she only had a 25% success rate..which means she failed 75% of the time despite the techniques or tricks she used. Hurlbut didn't have the luxury of trying to confuse the Conneaut witnesses of their memory at the age of 5, nor the luxury of creating doubt in the minds of the Conneaut witnesses by enlisting authority which might appear to know or remember more than the Conneaut witnesses. You are extrapolating from her studies an incorrect assumption in order to dismiss the statements of the Conneaut witnesses. Your dismissal of their statements for faulty memory is simply not warranted by her particular studies.

By the way the "observing film of a crime" in which subjects are briefly exposed to a scene is simply not comparable to the Conneaut witnesses case. In the crime case the exposure to the crime is a short term memory which hasn't had the opportunity through repeated exposure to develop in a true memory as was the case with the Conneaut witnesses.

And 15 year old memories of particulars are not necessarily dim. They might take time to retrieve and in some cases it may require help such a jogging of memory..but that doesn't mean the memories long term are dim or susceptible to manipulation by others.

The statement you made to Glenn shows how you seem to be missing the point:

You are using E. Loftus name and work to dismiss everyone's 20 year long term memory as being completely unreliable and that simply is not the case and not what her studies are saying. Her studies involve unique and contrived situations which are not comparable to the Conneaut witness situation.

All studies of this type would have to be contrived. No one is suggesting that all long term memories are completely unreliable. You are creating a strawman here. Nor is anyone using Loftus directly as evidence that this is what happened to the Conneaut witnesses, only to show that we are not necessarily stuck with their memories. If we believe the Mormon testimony is solid and there was no MS used in the production of the Book of Mormon, then studies by Loftus and others provide an explanation for what happened with the Spalding witnesses.

Dan you keep bringing up the Mormon testimonies as having a bearing on the Conneaut witnesses statements and Loftus's study as applied to them. It is irrelevant what you think about the Mormon testimonies. Either Loftus's work applies to the conneaut witnesses statements and can warrant dismissal of them for faulty memory or it can't or should not.

Loftus's study indicates memory can be faulty in some situations. Both you and Glen have not successfully argued why Loftus's studies warrants dismissal of the Conneaut witness statements. It is wishful thinking on both your parts.

The types of details the Conneaut witnesses remembered were the sort that would stick in the mind of any reader who had been repeatedly exposed to that information. And retrieval of information which may have dimmed with time, would or could have been jogged by exposure to it via either Hurlbut or a review of the Book of Mormon. if you want to argue the Conneaut witnesses lied, that one thing, but to argue they simply didn't appreciate what it is they had heard or read frequently is not warranted by use of Loftus's memory studies. Once again please note with all the tricks she used which Hurlbut didn't have the luxury of she failed with 75% of the subjects. Yet you are wanting to argue that Hurlbut successfully convinced Conneaut witnesses to remember a different story and very different particulars . And even when Howe says that Hurlbut showed MSCC to some Conneaut witnesses who claimed it wasn't the one they referred to in their affidavit you still don't believe them.

Where you guys are wrong is that her studies are applicable to certain situations and are not meant to be used to dismiss testimonies by witnesses who have a clear memory of events because of repeated exposure to the event in their lives over relatively long periods of time. It is understandable why the the conneaut witnesses would have a clear memory as they said they did on some particulars of the story they heard read or read themselves...they were exposed frequently over time, they were interested in the story, they knew the writer, they likely didn't have many other stories in their lives so that story would likely have loomed larger in their lives than to individuals such as now a days who are exposed to many more books, t.v. etc. So it is understandable that certain details of the Spalding story would stick in their minds long term and they wouldn't be susceptible to memory manipulation such as in the situation which Loftus sets up.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

You're debating with a book reviewer who has never read the book s/he is reviewing.

Marg is a True Believer in the Spalding/Rigdon doctrine who has acknowledged multiple times that s/he has never read the BoMor. Talk about a black hole of productivity.

I do suspect, though, that Dale's reply to Ben was intended to accentuate Ben's hypocrisy in lieu of presenting a logical argument. But I may be wrong. For what it's worth, my own experience with Ben is that he often critiques others for their perceived methodological failings while wantonly committing the same errors in his own analyses. I've called him out on this on more than one occasion.

by the way, congrats on nearing the end of your source-critical study of the History of the Church.

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_marg]

Hi Dan,

You're debating with a book reviewer who has never read the book s/he is reviewing.

I haven't reviewed the Book of Mormon or made comment on it. Just as the Conneaut witnesses could have commented on certain particulars found in the Book of Mormon such as a repetitive phrase, common names, biblical language common with Spalding's manuscript they remember without reading the Book of Mormon , so too can I comment on their memories with respect to this and E.Loftus's study.

However I have read the Book of Mormon. Frankly it's a blur and I can remember very little of it because it meant little to me, bored me immensely, seemed extremely silly and poorly written. Hey that's my perspective, I realize others have a much different perspective. I can relate to the Conneaut witnesses only remembering certain aspects clearly ..such as items like Spalding's manuscript was written in King James English, it had a repetitive phrase "and it came to pass" and some character names. The storyline of Spalding's manuscript may have had little stickiness factor to them in their long term memory just as I found the storyline of the Book of Mormon had little stickiness factor for me even though mine is only short term,though pressed I could come up with some items. In addition they weren't necessarily intent on proving they'd read Spalding work for the highly skeptical they may have been interested in giving enough evidence that would indicate as long as one assumed they were telling the truth that they had remembered key features significant enough to indicate that it wasn't a matter of coincidence that those same features existed in the Book of Mormon as well which they may have only reviewed.

Since I don't have a vested interested in in the spalding theory...having written no books or published articles, and since I have no vested interest in proving Mormonism wrong or true..my interest has always been critical thinking general ..I have no relatives involved in any religion nor have I been, I probably have a much more objective perspective than yourself and Dan. Also as I noted in a previous post..the Smith alone theory is a much easier sell as the church has much less objection to that theory than any theory involving others with Smith conspiring to produce the Book of Mormon.

I'm actually interested in the truth..as opposed to yourself apparently who seems interested in discrediting me for something quite irrelevant to what I am arguing. Had reading the Book of Mormon been relevant to what I was arguing you'd seem intellectually sincere as opposed to my perception of you based upon your current comment.

[_Roger]

Dan:

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.

You know, as a matter of historical fact, that the Bible was used in Fayette? That's news to me. What do you base that assertion on? Did someone mention it? Or this is simply conjecture on your part?

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.

I see. So in order to avoid embarrassment I need to ignore the fact that Knight states that "the whole" was translated through the urim and thummim and makes no mention of a Bible being used, and in so stating does not contradict any of the other witnesses in the slightest, and I should simply accept that one was used anyway because Dan thinks that was the case.

Of course, the irony here is that I also think a Bible was used--but then, I'm not the one hanging on every word of the Book of Mormon witnesses. The point of contention is simply Knight's assertion that the whole was translated with the urim and thummim. And of course the other point of contention is how trustworthy these witnesses are in the first place. You want me to believe that they are pretty trustworthy--except in cases where you know better than they do. Needless to say, when you disagree with witnesses you otherwise place a lot of confidence in (even with the excuse that you know more than they do), it doesn't do much to instill confidence in their reliability as witnesses.

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?

Yes, and I obviously have the book right now, from which I am quoting. I am simply amazed that you ascribe the "apparent contradictions in Whitmer’s interviews" to "different interviewers" rather than simply agreeing that they are contradictions. I think that fact alone speaks for itself.

If the "apparent contradictions" are only apparent, then:

1. Did Whitmer handle the plates?

2. What exactly did the angel tell 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.

And you don't know that the contradictions don't come from Whitmer. You're simply giving him the benefit of the doubt, despite the clear contradictions--which I now notice you are labeling "minor discrepancies." One would think if Whitmer actually had an experience so amazing, he would be able to keep his statements free from contradictions. It's interesting though, that he apparently felt comfortable leaving it up to future sympathetic historians to attempt to sort it all out.

And you're getting hung up on the term "liar." I don't know whether Whitmer was a liar or not. He might have been. Maybe he was just forgetful. I suspect he wouldn't think of it as intentionally lying, but you flat out acknowledge his religious enthusiasm stating that Whitmer "was in an emotional, suggestible state at the time of his vision." - p 95 I don't know what Whitmer may or may not have seen in his emotional, suggestible mind, but the contradictions exist one way or another and you are simply attempting to downplay them by putting the blame on the interviewers.

It is becoming apparent that for this discussion, you want to take Whitmer's word as authoritative on the question of whether a Spalding ms was used or not, and it simply is not. You throw out Knight's testimony on the basis that he was not in a position to know everything about the translation. Well, neither was Whitmer.

Wrong. Whitmer’s touching or not touching the plates is only a contradiction if one assumes he was speaking about his vision both times.

And what good reason is there not to? You are simply appealing to speculation. You write:

"Of course, like Harris, Whitmer could have handled the plates on an occasion separate from his vision." - p89

In response I will quote you: wild speculation.

I made it appear contradictory to make a point about the Eight Witnesses.

You did an excellent job.

Remember, too, these statements were no transcriptions of Whitmer’s words, but reports by different reporters

So are you now resorting to the same tactics used by LDS apologists? Do you have proof he was misquoted?

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.

Come on Dan. You wrote:

You are the one who quoted Knight as contradicting Whitmer.

To make that statement clearly illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the point I was making. I can only respond to what you actually write. Not what you meant to say.

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.

I'm not using Knight to interpret the others. I am saying Knight blatantly adds a detail that is implied by and not contradicted by the others. But if you disagree, then show me something from the others that refutes Knight.

You only contest it, because if it were to stand you would have to either rule out your hypothesized Bible OR recognize that at least one of the witnesses was intentionally withholding key information. If Knight were to have simply added a benign detail, you would not be contesting it.

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.

Sure, but I have seen nothing from you to show that the word of the Spalding witnesses is in any way unreliable other than your conjecture that they suffered from false memories, because your theory demands it--despite Aron Wright's specific denial.

Ironically, I have seen material from you showing that the testimony of David Whitmer contains "apparent contradictions" at least one of which you acknowledge may be "irreconcilable."

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.

Yes I understand that you don't want to blame Whitmer for his own contradictions. That is obvious at this point. Regardless, even allowing for the testified "manner Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon" allows room for another manuscript to enter the process at various points, whether or not Whitmer was aware of it.

1. You acknowledge that the stone was merely a prop. This means whenever the stone was in use, deception at some level was occurring. The stone was used as part of a show.

2. You acknowledge that Cowdery may have transcribed words from a Bible while Smith was away. If a Bible was used while Smith was away (a method completely different than what was described by witnesses you want to believe), other materials could have been used as well. Cowdery was not bound to follow Dan's logic.

3. You have yet to explain how you envision the "use of the stone" in conjunction with the Isaiah variants. I am still quite interested in how you conceive of that happening.

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.

No! Your whole argument hinges on the concept of what would and would not raise "suspicions." That argument is wholly dependent on who is and is not in the know. You assume that Whitmer (for example) is simply an innocent dupe who would tell us the truth if anything "suspicious" managed to cross his field of vision (that is, when it wasn't otherwise under the influence of Joseph Smith's hypnotic suggestions! --which you also hold open as a possibility). Your argument depends on that. You assume the same for Cowdery. And then from those huge assumptions you proceed to "fill in" speculative gaps as though your assumptions are not assumptions.

I am saying those basic assumptions are likely flawed from the get-go and you have no way of establishing them. Indeed the inconsistencies in their testimonies works against you.

BUT EVEN if we (generously) grant those basic, unsupported assumptions, you still can't rule out the possible use of other materials while simultaneously hypothesizing Bible use, precisely because you agree that the stone was merely a prop. To quote someone you might know: 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.

In the first place you don't know that either Whitmer and/or Cowdery's sense of honesty would compel them to report facts that would diminish their Book of Mormon testimonies. In fact, the opposite seems more likely. It would seem that their sense of loyalty/devotion to Smith and the idea of new revelation would compel them to overlook anything that might work against the authenticity of the new revelation, much like a negative “confession” is considered lack of faith within the context of faith-healing meetings and should therefore be avoided.

This is what would allow them to ignore the use of a Bible or any other source not in keeping with the official story.

In the second place you recognize that the stone was merely a prop but what is not clear is who you believe was aware of that. Would Whitmer have believed, like we do, that the stone was merely a prop? Probably not. He probably thought words were actually appearing in the stone. But you have no way of establishing that. You and I agree that nothing appeared in the stone. So, given the fact that you want to believe Whitmer's word on certain other points he makes, how do you mesh that with Whitmer’s assertions that words appeared in the stone? Like me, you choose NOT to believe his testimony in that regard, in favor of another explanation.

Best as I can tell, that explanation boils down to one of two options:

1. Whitmer was deceived
2. Whitmer was willing to provide supporting testimony whether or not it was actually true

How do you distinguish between elements in Whitmer’s testimony (or any witness) as being marks of deception or marks of statements made from devotion to the cause? At best, it seems arbitrary. We agree (I assume!) that Whitmer was either deceived or not being forthcoming when he claimed words appeared in the stone. I simply extend that to his assertion that a Spalding manuscript was not used. What good reason do you offer to justify drawing the line at the stone, and going no further?

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.

This seems to be a tacit admission of what I have asserted on this thread: that false memory theory is appealed to more for convenience sake than for its explanatory power when applied to this specific scenario.

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

Why do you refuse to share how you envision application of what you label "use of the stone" to the Isaiah chapters? I keep explaining that the stone was nothing more than a prop and you agreed.

You brought up the Bible as evidence that the stone wasn’t used for the entire Book of Mormon.

Wrong. The stone was merely a prop, Dan. Maybe if I repeat that enough it will sink in. I brought up the Bible to demonstrate that EVEN YOU agree that a source/method OTHER THAN what was explained by the witnesses YOU put faith in was OBVIOUSLY used. Your defense of Whitmer's silence on that question clearly illustrates that point. That causes even you to speculate that Cowdery may have done some copying in Smith's absence.

This you saw as contradicting Whimter’s (actually Knight’s) claim of the whole Book of Mormon coming from the stone.

Because it does.

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

It does nothing of the kind. None of the witnesses say anything ever about Bible use whether implied or otherwise! This is simply wild speculation on your part. You are asserting this contrary to the testimony of the witnesses, only you assert it is not contrary since no one ever explicitly asked them! And you do this on the asserted (but likely faulty) basis that

A. the witnesses would have informed us if anything fishy was going on

B. the use of a Bible was a trivial matter not worth mentioning because everyone knows the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible.

The very fact that changes were made supports the case the witnesses were trying to make: that the text given to Smith was revealed truth from God. But you are suggesting that God accomplished part of that by allowing Smith (or Cowdery) to copy the corrupt KJVB and then Smith would come back later and "use the stone" to correct the errors! Why go to all that trouble, when they allegedly had a good thing going where God just simply gives Smith the translation word for word (like the witnesses actually claim!) and corrects mistakes before allowing the translation to proceed?

Of course the answer is because Dan has concluded that a Bible was used! And if so, then how can Dan reconcile that with the Book of Mormon witness testimony? Well, lucky for Dan, Knight appears to be the only eyewitness who claims "the whole" was translated with an urim and thummim and Dan is confident he can simply dismiss that on the basis of Knight's limited exposure. Dan therefore concludes he is safe to argue (from the silence of the remaining witnesses) that a Bible was used but was not mentioned because no one ever asked!

I think by now I get your argument. I just don't buy it.

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

And that, of course, is wrong, and is apparently what bothers you about simply admitting that some extra-BOM-witnesses-approved-methods were likely used.

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.

Nice attempt to avoid the point. The point you were trying to make was an appeal to false--but sincerely false--memories as an explanation for the S/R witness statements. I just provided testimony from an S/R witness who directly denies what you are attempting to diagnose from nearly two centuries down the road--and only because it is necessary for your theory to work. YOU are the one asserting that Wright was mistaken. But when shown the same evidence from which you draw your conclusion, Wright says no. Why should I believe you over Wright?

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.”

Well I agree. You're rusty. The problem with that, of course, is that you do not really confront the S/R theory as opposed to a caricature of it.

and that what is in the Book of Mormon was checked with the stone, or at least that was the claim.

Can you point me to that specific claim?

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.

You have an amazing ability to distort reality while "trying not to be longwinded." He doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is "the one he remembered." No one believes that. He believes the Book of Mormon is a plagiarism of "the one he remembered" with a bunch of religious material added in.

And you have done nothing to confront his specific denial. If allowed to stand his denial rules out a crucial element of your asserted explanation for the S/R testimonies. So, for polemical reasons, you simply assert that he was mistaken! But you have no grounds on which to assert this other than your theory demands it and making use of false memory theory is convenient.

I stated this in my last post:

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

You have no way of doing that. You simply assert that Knight did not witness the whole thing.

I wrote:

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

You have no good answer. You only allege that the "apparent contradictions" in Whitmer's testimony are the fault of his interviewers! Needless to say, I don't see that as a good reason to believe the word of David Whitmer.

I wrote:

I see no reason to accept any of it as anything more than "visions" brought about by blind devotion to a charismatic leader.

You have no rational response to that.

I wrote:

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.

And you completely glossed over it. You either have no method in mind or you are reluctant to share it.

In response to this:

I believe it was Parley P. Pratt who said Joseph Smith used the stone to correct the Inspired Version.

I wrote:

Could you direct me to the Parley Pratt quote you mentioned?

So far I have not seen the quote, but I note that if this is the only evidence you appeal to as defining your earlier phrase "use of the stone," you are extrapolating backwards from the later Bible revision to explain a hypothesized earlier facet of Book of Mormon translation. I also note that in so doing you quote Pratt, which is interesting considering that your theory requires Pratt not to have been involved in Book of Mormon production. But I'd still like to see the quote if you can find it.

[_Roger]

Brent wrote:

You're debating with a book reviewer who has never read the book s/he is reviewing.

Marg is a True Believer in the Spalding/Rigdon doctrine who has acknowledged multiple times that s/he has never read the BoMor. Talk about a black hole of productivity.

How is this relevant to memory theory?

I do suspect, though, that Dale's reply to Ben was intended to accentuate Ben's hypocrisy in lieu of presenting a logical argument. But I may be wrong. For what it's worth, my own experience with Ben is that he often critiques others for their perceived methodological failings while wantonly committing the same errors in his own analyses. I've called him out on this on more than one occasion.

And on that point we agree.

Brent, do you agree that a King James Bible was used to produce the Isaiah quotations in the Book of Mormon?

All the best.