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

[_marg]

That's precious...a possibility is it? How about talking about probabilities Dan..at least be intellectually honest in this.

Marg,

I've been clear from the beginning that I don't use false memory theory as proof that the Conneaut witnesses were mistaken, but rather as a possible explanation should one find the Mormon testimony more convincing--and I do. If one is convinced by David Whitmer and the other witnesses to the translation process, then the Conneaut witnesses were absolutely wrong--not just probably.

Dan I appreciate your use of the Loftus studies and applying them to the conneaut witnesses' memories was not about "proof" or proving their memories were faulty. Who is demanding proof? What I'm arguing is that her studies are not applicable to the Conneaut witnesses' situations. One can not even conclude a slight probability based on her studies that the Conneaut witnesses all had faulty memory. So you are wrong in my opinion to be using her name and suggesting her studies show that the Conneaut witnesses had a probablity of faulty memory. And if your demand of evidence to reason from is so low that you are only talking about slight improbable possibility then you aren't being reasonable. Then you are not applying good reasoning to the evidence. You are really at that point using wishful thinking..because it's convenient.

So "faulty memory" is not a reasonable probable explanation of the evidence. If one reasons to conclusions based on possibilities no matter how remote..well then just about anything can be argued is possible.

[_GlennThigpen]

I apologize for repeating myself to anyone reading this thread but Glenn.

Glenn I appreciate I didn't word the above well, but I've been talking on this topic a number of times, so I'm not suggesting nor have I ever suggested the studies by Loftus was with 5 year olds. I appreciate she carried on the study regarding the mall event..with adults as you say of the ages 18 -25. Once again Glenn her study was testing their memory at their age of 5..which as I pointed out to Dan is a time period people generally have weak memories..that's something Loftus acknowledges in a youtube I listened to.

Okay, let me sure I understand you. I appreciate your clarification on this matter, because your wording was similar in a couple of other posts. The quote I used certainly seemed to be saying that she tested their memories when they were five years old. So we do agree that they were adults and that the memories were implanted about a false event that was supposed to have happened when they were five.

It's something most people I think would acknowledge. She also enlisted the help of parents who lied for the study and claimed that the trip to the mall and getting lost event happened. This is understandable, if people are questioned about an event such as a trip to a mall that might have happened to them at the age of 5 and they don't remember it but their parents say it occurred, of course they may after 3 sessions say it happened. It is not as if a trip to a mall at the age of 5 in which one got lost would be perceived as an unusual event for many people.

That is not exactly accurate. Loftus checked with the parents to make sure that the event had not actually happened. I am going to quote from "Creating False Memories" again in order that I will not paraphrase anything inaccurately:

We prepared a booklet for each participant containing one-paragraph stories about three events that had actually happened to him or her and one that had not. We constructed the false event using information about a plausible shopping trip provided by a relative, who also verified that the participant had not in fact been lost at about the age of five. The lost-in-the-mall scenario included the following elements: lost for an extended period, crying, aid and comfort by an elderly woman and, finally, reunion with the family.

There was no lying by parents in this.

In the first session after they read the accounts, 29 percent said that they remembered the false event. After three sessions, it was down to 25 percent. This is in and of itself quite amazing. I am not applying this to the Conneaut witnesses though. It is just one example of just how malleable the memory of adults is.

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.

Ok Glenn..looking at this quote portion... "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." You will note or should note Glenn in these studies subjects were shown an event for a few seconds and asked to recall details. It was to mimic the situation witnesses might be in when exposed to a crime and then later questioned on details. Of course in those situations people are vulnerable to memory confusion. I'm sure you would appreciate that if exposed briefly to a scene you'd have difficultly remembering clearly all details. This study does not warrant dismissal of the Conneaut witness statements who were NOT exposed briefly to Spalding's book, who were not questioned on their memory of particular details that Hurlbut brought up but rather they testified to what they remembered and acknowledged various details generally they could recall.

The article I quoted did not specify that they were shown the scenes for just a few seconds.

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.

The statement above is not specific enough to draw a conclusion about a specific case as with the Conneaut witnesses. Her studies were specific and from those studies one could apply their results to real life situations. So for the misinformation studies which were attempts to duplicate crime scenes, the conclusion one could draw is that witnesses with brief exposure to a crime scene could via leading questions incorporate false information into their memory of that scene. This being important in legal cases as it could lead to faulty convictions. And why one might asked were the subjects susceptible in these cases of interogations to memory recall misinformation, well it was because they had brief exposure to a scene and were unlikely to have strong memories on all details.

As far as "memory fades with time"...yes it does and the conneaut witnesses noted that phenomenon for themselves. But they also noted on some particulars they did remember clearly with the reason being they had frequent conversations and exposure to Spalding's work. They also pointed out having their memory jogged via access to a reading of the Book of Mormon. And we know retrieval of long term memory diminishes with time but that it can be aided by being exposed to the information again. So the phenomenon which the Conneaut witnesses describes is simply common knowledge for which a study isn't necessary.

And that is the rub. They some admit to a fading memory, and then somehow, the names Nephi and Lehi, Lamanites, and Nephites jump out at them. Remeber the quote about being suggestively interogated? Once that notion was implanted in there brains, they would have been able to remember it very clearly. But John Spalding's later statements in 1851 also indicate evidence of memory confabulation

The Lost Tribes story as part of the Spalding fable is one good possibility. Another is the "straits of Darien" comment by John Miller. That was an idea proposed by Orson Hyde, I believe. He was one of the missionaries who preached the Book of Mormon to those of the Conneaut area.

I appreciate you hypothesize that perhaps some witnesses got confused from exposure to Ethan Smith's book VOTH but Ethan Smith's book didn't have character names Nephi and Lehi, wasn't written in biblical language and the probability they all were confused and mixed up Spalding's MSCC with Ethan smith's book over this lost tribes... is just too convoluted an explanation/hypothesis. There are much more reasonable better explanations. Your hypothesis assumes they all were exposed to Ethan Smith's book, and they all got confused having heard oR read about lost tribes in that book. It assumeS when they say when they say they well remembered due to frequent exposure they were all wrong and were confused on what they remembered mixing up Ethan Smith's book with the spalding manuscript...even though Spalding's MSCC was not about Indians being descended from House of Israel tribes. A more realistic explanation is the Conneaut witnesses who mentioned "lost tribes" correctly remembered Spalding's work and were not interested in being devious and so despite that there is but a brief mention of "lost tribes' in the Book of Mormon accurately recalled that Spalding's book was about some lost tribes of Israel migrating to America and being ancestors of American Indians. [/quote]

Marge, I am not assuming that exposure to Ethan's Smith's VOTH was the only exposure they would have had to the story. I noted that it was one possible source. He was not the only author to have voices that opinion. Dale actually provided a link to a newspaper article on his site which shows that there was current discussion of that theme at the time. It had been discussed as far back as the sixteen hundreds.
In an earlier post, I noted that four of the Conneaut witnesses identified the lost tribes motif as the primary theme of the Spalding story. When all eight of the witnesses claim that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon read almost identical to Spalding's tale and there is no lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon, then one set of those statements is incorrect no matter which way you slice it.

The "straits of Darien" is supposed to be Parley Pratt. You are theorizing Miller and 3 other witnesses memories are faulty, that they are confused on the lost tribes and didn't hear or read it in Spalding's work but instead somewhere else, you then ignore the rest of their statements and claims to repeated exposure and good memory on some particulars and suggest (even though it's far fetched) that if those 4 could possibly all be confused about the "lost tribes" that that is justification for dismissing their statements and all the other conneaut witness statements. All this despite that you haven't established with a reasonable explanation they were likely confused.

Marge, you need to check your sources. It was Orson Pratt. He published a paper on his views in 1840, but he had held those views for much longer. He went on missions in 1832 and 1833 that included the northwestern parts of Pennsylvania. Matthew Roper in an article on the manuscript found subject notes an article in the Cincinnati, Ohio, Catholic Telegraph, 14 April 1832, which talks about Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson preaching a sermon in a cottage meeting in Mercer County, Pa. which included information about the straits of Darien.
There is another article from the Franklin County Pa. Democrat as quoted in the Fredonia NY Censor of March 7, 1832. which also talks about "mormonites" preaching about the Book of Mormon and talking about the straits of Darien. It could possibly have been the same meeting, or not. But it was something that made it into the newspapers.

The fact that those stories are not in the Book of Mormon poses credibility problems for the Conneaut witnesses no matter whether they were false memories or not.

Certainly Miller's mention of "straits of Darien" in no way poses a credibility problem for him..how you deduce is a mystery. And although I don't understand "lost tribes of house of israel" very well from what I can gather the tribe of Manasseh was part of the "lost tribes of the house of Israel". Then when one takes into account the lost 116 pages in which Spalding's work was replaced that could explain the Conneaut witnesses' different memory of Spalding's manuscript to that of the Book of Mormon. In this particular area I acknowledge a weak understanding of 'lost tribes' but Spalding's book was only partially used and of that which was used, it was likely changed in some respects. Roger and Dale have written some excellent posts discussing this issue which you've mentioned of lost tribes being mentioned in Spalding's work by 4 Conneaut witnesses and not much mention in Book of Mormon. I defer to them on this.

I mentioned the straits of Darien as a possible memory confabulation for John Miller. He was living in Erie Pennsylvania when he made his statement. Erie County is next to Mercer county and there is a good likelihood that Miller had heard the stories or read them in print before hearing from Hurlbut. It is interesting that he is the only one of the Conneaut witnesses that mention the straits of Darien.
Again, if you take the witnesses at their word, they all say that the only changes was the inclusion of the religious material. To put it plain, since the Book of Mormon does not contain a lost tribes theme, it cannot read anything like a manuscript that supposedly has the lost tribes as its main theme. You are attempting to downplay the significance of something that four of the witnesses are very clear upon, i.e. the lost tribes primary theme for Spalding's manuscript, because it is not found in the Book of Mormon, and the names, because they are. But, if the witnesses are correct, both of them should be there. That is really the bottom line.

Glenn

[_marg]

Glenn, she was testing adults about what they could remember of events happening at their age of 5 years.

That is not exactly accurate. Loftus checked with the parents to make sure that the event had not actually happened. I am going to quote from "Creating False Memories" again in order that I will not paraphrase anything inaccurately:
"We prepared a booklet for each participant containing one-paragraph stories about three events that had actually happened to him or her and one that had not. We constructed the false event using information about a plausible shopping trip provided by a relative, who also verified that the participant had not in fact been lost at about the age of five. The lost-in-the-mall scenario included the following elements: lost for an extended period, crying, aid and comfort by an elderly woman and, finally, reunion with the family."

Let me quote/paraphrase her from youtube Elizabeth Loftus Takes Questions (1 of 2) - Beyond Belief 2006.

@9:05 mark a question/comment by individual: "Power of procedure was in the authority of the computer. Something was telling the individual that something was more true than what they knew by their natural personality. And obviously a lot of beliefs are based on authority whether they be religious beliefs or scientific beliefs . Is it just as easy to extinguish true beliefs as to implant false beliefs?"

E. Loftus responds @ 10:25 mark approx: "On comment on authority of computer. The first of these false memory studies done involved participating with relatives of subjects. We’d talk to mother, get some true memories , mother would help us make up some details about a false memory that we could plant. We'd tell them we’d talked to your mother and the mother said these things happened, we want to see what you can remember . We found about ¼ of the time we could plant a false memory of being lost for an extended time of being frightened …but it is a tedious method. We looked for a way that we could have that authority without talking to parents and that’s how we came up with the idea of let’s get all these data and give them false feedback about their data from the sophisticated computer. And I do think that’s part of the power of this technique. Get people to think the thing is plausible, get them to believe it happened to them and then engage them in processes like guided imagination that puts sensory meat/detail on the bones of this belief system and pretty soon you’ve got a whole big memory going. "

So Glenn as you can see, in that study they informed the subjects that the parents had given them the information. This would add plausibility to the false event and aid in creating doubt in subjects mind on event..since the other 2 events came from the parents and would likely be confirmed by subjects.

There was no lying by parents in this.

Yes it was a lie that the parents were aware of. Loftus's group were representing what the parents had said to them in the study. The parents consented they be represented as having told the study truthfully about 3 events in the subjects' lives. Let me quote Loftus, she says: "mother would help us make up some details about a false memory that we could plant. We'd tell them we’d talked to your mother and the mother said these things happened".

In the first session after they read the accounts, 29 percent said that they remembered the false event. After three sessions, it was down to 25 percent. This is in and of itself quite amazing. I am not applying this to the Conneaut witnesses though. It is just one example of just how malleable the memory of adults is.

This would imply that memory is increasing with each session. Are you sure you are understanding it correctly? You must have meant to say "29 percent said that they did not remember the false event. In any event in the youtube I quoted she says "We found about ¼ of the time we could plant a false memory of being lost for an extended time of being frightened …but it is a tedious method.".


On that youtube I linked to above...Ramachandran ..I guess it's Dr. Ramachandran makes an excellent comment to Loftus which applies to our discussion. It's right at the beginning of the video. I'll quote: " Like you study memory, I study perception and vision. What strikes me about human memory in addition to what you said about the fallibility is how extraordinarily reliable it is. It’s astonishing how good our memory is. I can say the same thing about perception. I can produce illusions which violate common sense. And then you find out what causes the illusion. But this doesn’t prove that vision is highly fallible. It proves under ordinary circumstances it’s extremely good. But using contrived stimulus I can produce an illusion which illuminates the mechanisms of perception. "

And that's what I've been pointing out to you and Dan. Under particular contrived conditions one can produce studies showing memory fallibility but that doesn't mean generally under all conditions memory is unreliable. As he points out it only proves under those particular conditions memory is fallible.

The article I quoted did not specify that they were shown the scenes for just a few seconds.

Right and that's why the article you quoted is deficient in information and does not enable you to draw accurate overall conclusions about memory. I know from looking into it further that those scenes were shown briefly. Watch a few of the youtubes on her and you'll see for yourself.

And that is the rub. They some admit to a fading memory, and then somehow, the names Nephi and Lehi, Lamanites, and Nephites jump out at them. Remeber the quote about being suggestively interogated? Once that notion was implanted in there brains, they would have been able to remember it very clearly. But John Spalding's later statements in 1851 also indicate evidence of memory confabulation

Well yes, as I explained previously, people's ability to retrieve long term memory diminishes but memories are able to be jogged when reminded of information such that individuals when recalling can appreciate some of the information very clearly. it's not surprising that having looked at the Book of Mormon that certain names would be remembered if they truly were very familiar with Spalding's book and the unique names often mentioned in it.

I don't remember John's statement in 1851. I'd want to know his age when he made it because people in old age can have significant memory problems and it just might be that was the situation for him. I would trust his memory in 1833 to be more reliable than in 1851 particularly if there are inconsistencies.

Marge, I am not assuming that exposure to Ethan's Smith's VOTH was the only exposure they would have had to the story. I noted that it was one possible source. He was not the only author to have voices that opinion. Dale actually provided a link to a newspaper article on his site which shows that there was current discussion of that theme at the time. It had been discussed as far back as the sixteen hundreds.
In an earlier post, I noted that four of the Conneaut witnesses identified the lost tribes motif as the primary theme of the Spalding story. When all eight of the witnesses claim that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon read almost identical to Spalding's tale and there is no lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon, then one set of those statements is incorrect no matter which way you slice it.

Glenn .. i think the witnesses knew more about Spalding's work than the Book of Mormon as a result of speaking with him, having him explain what his book was about, as well as hearing it read and reading it themselves generally for most of them frequently. I think if some remembered Spalding's story was about some lost tribes of House of Israel who were the ancestors of American indians then that likely was Spalding's story. The fact that they didn't read carefully the Book of Mormon or didn't appreciate the Book of Mormon wasn't about some lost tribes of House of Israel only means they didn't read carefully the Book of Mormon. Having read the Book of Mormon myself I know how tediousit is to read if one doesn't share the religious beliefs within...and I suspect they had the same experience and quickly read it, perhaps essentially skimmed it ..looking for similarities between what they remembered from Spalding and what was in the Book of Mormon.

Marge, you need to check your sources. It was Orson Pratt. He published a paper on his views in 1840, but he had held those views for much longer. He went on missions in 1832 and 1833 that included the northwestern parts of Pennsylvania. Matthew Roper in an article on the manuscript found subject notes an article in the Cincinnati, Ohio, Catholic Telegraph, 14 April 1832, which talks about Orson Pratt and Lyman Johnson preaching a sermon in a cottage meeting in Mercer County, Pa. which included information about the straits of Darien.
There is another article from the Franklin County Pa. Democrat as quoted in the Fredonia NY Censor of March 7, 1832. which also talks about "mormonites" preaching about the Book of Mormon and talking about the straits of Darien. It could possibly have been the same meeting, or not. But it was something that made it into the newspapers.

Well you are the one who suggested Hyde talked about "straits of Darien"to the people of Conneaut. Sorry I apologize..I said Parley Pratt instead of Orson Pratt. The point is that just because O. Pratt's mention of Darien was in a newspaper in New York someplace doesn't mean the Conneaut witnesses would likely have read that. Why on earth would they be interested in what Orson pratt had to say about where people landed in America in the Book of Mormon. In 1833 Miller says Spalding told him that he had the people land in straits of Darien and in the book he called it Zarehemla.. why suspect otherwise.

I mentioned the straits of Darien as a possible memory confabulation for John Miller. He was living in Erie Pennsylvania when he made his statement. Erie County is next to Mercer county and there is a good likelihood that Miller had heard the stories or read them in print before hearing from Hurlbut.

Stories what stories? A mere mention by one person (not even an authority within the small church organization)mentioning in some newspaper article somewhere that the Book of Mormon people landed in Str. of Darien called Zarahemla in the Book of Mormon ..and you think this is a story that a Conneaut witness would pick up and confuse with what Spalding discussed with him?

It is interesting that he is the only one of the Conneaut witnesses that mention the straits of Darien.

Maybe Glenn this tidbit of information which Miller remembered wasn't discussed often or even at all with the other Spalding witnesses. It really isn't a significant point. The witnesses were all fully aware Spalding's book was fiction...it wasn't a big deal where ever Spalding placed the people to land.

Again, if you take the witnesses at their word, they all say that the only changes was the inclusion of the religious material. To put it plain, since the Book of Mormon does not contain a lost tribes theme, it cannot read anything like a manuscript that supposedly has the lost tribes as its main theme. You are attempting to downplay the significance of something that four of the witnesses are very clear upon, i.e. the lost tribes primary theme for Spalding's manuscript, because it is not found in the Book of Mormon, and the names, because they are. But, if the witnesses are correct, both of them should be there. That is really the bottom line.

Glenn

[/quote]

I disagree Glenn ..I do think Spalding's work was about lost tribes of ancient Israel getting to America and being the ancestors of the American Indians. I think the portion of spalding's work which explained this was omitted by the writers of the Book of Mormon and instead only one tribe was focused on as initially arriving. I don't think the Conneaut witnesses read carefully the Book of Mormon,,but I think they read it enough to satisfy themselves that a Spalding manuscript they remembered had been used. You've tried to attack their memory..but your arguments don't justify dismissing all their affidavits based on faulty, or implanted or confused memories. Now if you want to argue they looked at the Book of Mormon...and despite knowing they were lying about the Spalding manuscript MSCC with regards to common name between spalding's work and the Book of Mormon, with biblical language not contained in MSCC, and with a completely different storyline having the American Indians already in America when some Romans arrives..then go ahead and accuse them of lying. But the attacks on their memory don't cut it.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, are arguing about irrelevancies. It does not matter whether the Conneaut witnesses thought the Book of Mormon was real or a fake. Their views on the plausibility that "the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes" are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that they said that Spalding's story was about the lost tribes being ancestors of the American Indians.

I love how "the only that is relevant" is the thing you care about. I'm thinking there might be a correlation there.

It does not matter

to Glenn

what their conclusions were when they read the Book of Mormon. What does matter

to Glenn

is that after supposedly reading the Book of Mormon they would make statements like, "I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same", and "I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found"", and " have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end", and "The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding", and "When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding", and "The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spalding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut."

That's odd.... I don't see the word "verbatim" in there once.

Dale has helpfully pointed out something about the lost tribes that the residents of Conneaut would have been possibly if not probably exposed to. Those residents would have been talking abut a lost tribes just like you can find today if you do a search for "lost tribes". The fact that it is not in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon that they read, after all of their statements of how closely the historical parts of the Book of Mormon read like Spalding's tale, is what you have to deal with.

Okay Glenn... its been dealt with. Nothing you have stated has changed anything. But I'm sure you feel better.

All the best.

[_GlennThigpen]

is that after supposedly reading the Book of Mormon they would make statements like, "I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same", and "I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found"", and " have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end", and "The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding", and "When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding", and "The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spalding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut."

That's odd.... I don't see the word "verbatim" in there once.

How well have you read those statements?

John Miller: I. . .find in it [the Book of Mormon] the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end. . .Many of the passages in the Mormon book are verbatim from Splading, and other in part.

From his draft letter: "I also contemplated reading his history but never saw it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim"

Okay Glenn... its been dealt with. Nothing you have stated has changed anything. But I'm sure you feel better.

All the best.

True, nothing I have said has changed anything. The statements are the same. Four witnesses said that the Spalding story was about the lost tribes. All of the witnesses said that the the historical part of the Book of Mormon read almost identical to the Spalding story yet the Book of Mormon is not about the lost tribes.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan I appreciate your use of the Loftus studies and applying them to the conneaut witnesses' memories was not about "proof" or proving their memories were faulty. Who is demanding proof? What I'm arguing is that her studies are not applicable to the Conneaut witnesses' situations. One can not even conclude a slight probability based on her studies that the Conneaut witnesses all had faulty memory. So you are wrong in my opinion to be using her name and suggesting her studies show that the Conneaut witnesses had a probablity of faulty memory. And if your demand of evidence to reason from is so low that you are only talking about slight improbable possibility then you aren't being reasonable. Then you are not applying good reasoning to the evidence. You are really at that point using wishful thinking..because it's convenient.

So "faulty memory" is not a reasonable probable explanation of the evidence. If one reasons to conclusions based on possibilities no matter how remote..well then just about anything can be argued is possible.

Marge,

The above statement shows that you are having difficulty following the subtleties and nuances of my (and Glenn’s) position. You get stuck on the word “prove”, when clearly my statement was about directionality of interpretation. When I say I’m not trying to “prove”, I mean I’m not arguing false memory theory demonstrates (proves) the Conneaut witnesses were wrong. You would like for me to argue that way, but I haven’t. My argument comes from the other direction. If I conclude the Mormon witnesses’ testimonies are accurate, then the Conneaut witnesses were wrong, no matter the explanation. False memory theory provides a possible explanation for what happened.

As I said, you are only quibbling about Loftus. Your insistence that her studies have to exactly replicate the experience of the Conneaut witnesses in order to be applicable is silly. It’s not hard to find examples on the internet where Loftus’s experiments (and other memory experiments) are used to generalize about memory per se. The purpose of conducting such experiments is to gather data that can be used to generalize about other similar situations, especially ones that can’t be duplicated in experimental situations.

[_Uncle Dale]

...the Book of Mormon is not about the lost tribes.
...

Then how can Mormons call it the "stick of Ephraim," if
it is not about members of at least two of the "lost tribes?"

Nobody ever said that the Book of Lehi (or any other missing
text) related the story of ALL of the members of those tribes.

So long as even a few members of the Joseph tribes
could be brought to the Land of Promise, the ancient
biblical blessings could be fulfilled. That is LDS doctrine.

But, on a related topic -- Mormons say that Solomon Spalding
was not interested in the Israelite tribes and never wrote any
stories about them.

Suppose that a 1790 personal letter from Spalding to his old
Dartmouth classmate, Elijah Parish, were discovered, verified
and published -- and in that letter Spalding expressed an
interest in the lost tribes of Israel --- would that not be enough
evidence for you to renounce Mormonism and join some of us in
the struggle to destroy the LDS Church?

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

Then how can Mormons call it the "stick of Ephraim," if
it is not about members of at least two of the "lost tribes?"

Nobody ever said that the Book of Lehi (or any other missing
text) related the story of ALL of the members of those tribes.

So long as even a few members of the Joseph tribes
could be brought to the Land of Promise, the ancient
biblical blessings could be fulfilled. That is LDS doctrine.

But, on a related topic -- Mormons say that Solomon Spalding
was not interested in the Israelite tribes and never wrote any
stories about them.

Suppose that a 1790 personal letter from Spalding to his old
Dartmouth classmate, Elijah Parish, were discovered, verified
and published -- and in that letter Spalding expressed an
interest in the lost tribes of Israel --- would that not be enough
evidence for you to renounce Mormonism and join some of us in
the struggle to destroy the LDS Church?

UD

Dale, the subject is not about how the LDS view the Book of Mormon. It is about what just about any person during the time period during which the Book of Mormon came out would have expected concerning the lost tribes. The "View of the Hebrews" I used as one such indicator, and you provided another example yourself. It is the theme of the lost tribes somehow coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. It does not matter whether Solomon Spalding an interest in the lost tribes, or even if he wrote about them. The lost tribes theme is missing in the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The lost tribes theme is missing in the Book of Mormon.
...

Certainly you know that there were pre-1830 published writings
that identified the Americas as a promised land, for the fulfillment
of the biblical promises made to the Joseph tribes.

That is also LDS doctrine. I do not understand how a Mormon
who has attended even a few weeks of meetings could miss
knowing that important tenet.

But it is not purely LDS.

You have mentioned Ethan Smith --- who argued that the
biblical blessings and promises would be fulfilled by transporting
the American Indians to Jerusalem, to their inherit that land.

But Mordacai M. Noah, Elias Boudinot and several other important
pre-1830 writers insisted that America itself was the Land of
Promise, in which those biblical blessings would be fulfilled.

Columbus himself held to that doctrine -- it is very much pre-1830.

Again -- it need not be that ALL OF THE ISRAELITE TRIBES gather
to Zion (Jackson County, in America) -- only that SOME of their
descendants do that, in order to fulfill prophecy.

The Book of Mormon is about SOME OF THEIR DESCENDANTS
taking part in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Thus, the Book of Mormon is deeply concerned with the fate of
the descendants of Abraham, and particularly of Joseph.

The Joseph tribes are "lost."

If Joseph Smith, Jr.'s patriarchal blessing says he is of Joseph
lineage, then the founder of the Mormon Church is himself a
member of part of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

If your patriarchal blessing says that you are of Ephraim's lineage,
then YOU are a member of part of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

If my LDS neighbor's blessing say that he (a Hawaiian) is of
Manasseh lineage, then HE is a member of the Lost Tribes.

The Book of Mormon may not tell the story of each and every
member of those Lost Tribes, but its entire reason for being
rests upon the assertion (lie?) that it is the Stick of Ephraim.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...its entire reason for being
rests upon the assertion (lie?) that it is the Stick of Ephraim.
...

The Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, was termed the stick of Judah
as early as December of 1830, when Elder Sidney Rigdon preached a
sermon, uniting the two "sticks" in in his hands.

Stick of Judah = record/promises/fulfillment to the "dispersed" tribes
of Judah, Benjamin and 1/2 of Levi.

Stick of Ephraim = record/promises/fulfillment of the "scattered"
tribes of Joseph.

Still to be "united" with the above two sticks, the record of the remaining
"Lost Tribes," trapped behind the ice and snow at the North Pole, for
which a highway will rise up, crossing Canada, down to Independence,
Missouri, so that they and their record can be gathered in to Zion.

If there were no "Lost Tribes of Israel," there would be no reason for the
Book of Mormon, (other than to tell the fate of the Jaredites, etc.).

UD