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

[_GlennThigpen]

???????????????? Glenn, are you familiar with the story of the lost 116 pages?

Yes. Can you explain why a document that no one has claimed to have read is pertinent to the discussion of the absence of a lost tribes theme in the Book of Mormon?

Glenn

[_MCB]

<Shakes head in utter amazement.>

What they said was descriptive of Solomon's work. They heard/read the original beginning of Solomon's story. The replacement section of the Book of Mormon was only a rough approximation of the original beginning. Smith & Company wrote I and II Nephi and Jacob from memory, with a lot of Biblical filler.

I made it as simple as I could.

[_MCB]

This Fayette Lapham interview of Joseph Sr. seems to be descriptive of the original beginning.
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/ ... ph1870.htm

[_Uncle Dale]

This Fayette Lapham interview of Joseph Sr. seems to be descriptive of the original beginning....

>In answer to our question as to the subject of the
>translation, he said it was the record of a certain number
>of Jews, who, at the time of crossing the Red Sea, left the
>main body and went away by themselves...

Odd that Joseph Smith, Sr. would have said such a thing --
if indeed he did. And odder still, that any one would compose
such a story.

No "Jews" crossed the Red Sea -- any where in the Bible. The
nation of "Jews" is not even spoken of in the biblical text until
after Judah returned from the Exile to Jerusalem.

But, assuming that something was said of "Israelites" breaking
away from the main body, at the time of the Exodus, that
might have made for an interesting story.

Still -- if a break-away bunch of Israelites were part of the
original "Book of Lehi" narrative, I would still expect that they
would have departed for America from the Land of Jerusalem;
or at least from the realm immediately north of that Land.

A strange tale all around, and I doubt that Father Smith said
any such thing -- unless perhaps he was joking, or giving out
deliberate misinformation.

UD

[_Roger]

You haven’t overcome eyewitness testimony with regard to Joseph Smith translation method.

I don't need to "overcome" it. I only need to show that it was not an exclusive method or that it was deceptive. You have already agreed it likely was not an exclusive method with your Cowdery speculation. The other option is that the method, as described by the witnesses, is not what was actually transpiring (deception). Again, by agreeing that the stone was merely a prop, you must acknowledge that possibility also.

You can’t get the Spalding MS into the room.

1. Of course I can
2. I don't need to

Joseph Smith’s possible use of the Bible doesn’t allow you to speculate about other documents.

Of course it does. Neither I nor those involved are bound to follow either Dan's rules, or Dan's logic.

Your argument from silence was unsuccessful, despite your inability to acknowledge it.

On the contrary, you were quite unsuccessful at demonstrating why I should believe the word of David Whitmer. You are the one using silence as your ally, but silence is a weak partner--especially given that you must not only argue from silence but contrary to Knight and the implication of the others.

You were unable to impeach Whitmer’s testimony,

Actually I let your words do that.

Let me ask again... give me a good reason to believe the word of David Whitmer. Earlier you stated that eyewitness testimony is as good as it gets. Well the Conneaut testimony is eyewitness testimony and yet you choose not to believe it. Give me the best reason you believe I should take the word of Whitmer over the Conneaut witnesses.

which is supported by many others.

No it isn't. NO ONE disputes that Joseph Smith put on a show, Dan. Even the hostile witnesses agree on that. But you and I agree that words never appeared in a stone. Only the word of Joseph Smith's "suggestible" devotees supports that--which is what I would expect from impressionable devotees.

Your attempt to use Knight’s statement out of historical context to overturn Whitmer and other witnesses was a failure.

And even now you grossly mischaracterize(!) Remarkable. I never quoted Knight "to overturn Whitmer." You keep suggesting that my argument is exactly opposite of what it is. I'm pretty sure that is a major logical fallacy. I quoted Knight and said Whitmer would agree with him, Dan. How many times do I have to state it before it sinks in?

The claim that the whole Book of Mormon was translated by the gift of God is not contradicted by possible use of a Bible, which is why I began discussing the variant readings.

In the first place virtually NONE, of the witnesses you want to believe back you up on this with anything other than silence. And in the second place, any witness who is so devoted to the cause as to consider Bible usage to be trivial enough NOT to mention (which is Dan's argument from silence), is also so devoted to the cause as to consider any other document/manuscript equally trivial--especially if that document is itself considered to be a translation of an ancient record with new revelation thrown in. You have no way of proving otherwise because to do so would require mind reading. It's just that your theory won't allow that as a possibility. But you can't use your theory as a basis to claim that surely the witnesses would have told us if anything other than a Bible was being used. That is simply ridiculous. And yet that's what your case boils down to.

Earlier I wrote:

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. In fact you agree that the witnesses were in a "suggestible" state of mind at the time of their alleged plate viewing. You speculate that the first written account of their experience is, at best, a conglomeration of more than one highly subjective experience. You agree that Smith could have hypnotized them. And yet you want to take their word at face value, no questions asked, when they deny the use of a Spalding ms. And what reason do you offer to do that? Because Dan's theory demands it.

You have done nothing to show that the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible. In fact, the essay you wrote in American Apocrypha indicates the opposite. Conversely you have done nothing to show that the Conneaut witnesses are not credible. In fact, you even agree that Hurlbut did not instigate the association of Spalding to the Book of Mormon.

And finally, marg has shown that the diagnosis you wish to impose on them from two centuries down the road is faulty. The data of actual memory theory studies--crucial to making your "memory confabulation" theory stick--simply does not apply.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Dale, that again dodges the question of what a nineteenth century person would expect from a story about the lost tribes. The Book of Lehi is irrelevant because the witnesses never read it.

Nonsense. Martin Harris would have been intimately familiar with it. So, of course, would Joseph Smith. Our theory suggests that Rigdon would have been as well. Possibly Pratt also. And, of course, the Spalding witnesses would have been familiar with his version of it.

None of the witnesses note any "paring down". They seem anxious to prove, by their statements, that the Book of Mormon is almost exactly the same as the Spalding story except for the religious material.

As you acknowledge, they all mention added religious material. That constitutes a "paring down" or a dilution of the original. Also Dale's argument has never been that the entire Book of Mormon is consistent all the way through. Quite the contrary, it's style varies. Even the official version recognizes that the first part is more religious than the latter.

As I've already stated, the S/R witnesses would not have been intimately familiar with the doctrinal premise of the Book of Mormon. They did not read it like you do. They did not consider it scripture like you do. You say that is irrelevant, but it is quite relevant! They would not have picked up on the alleged difference you are so keen on. In fact, I already quoted John Spalding to show explicitly that he sees no difference.

And four of the witnesses said unequivocally that Spalding's tale was about the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians.
What does the Book of Mormon say about the lost tribes?

Which is why Dale re-explained his theory to you. It's not Dale's fault if you can't or won't understand it. Your horse is dead, Glenn. That's what happens when you beat it too much.

[_MCB]

A strange tale all around, and I doubt that Father Smith said
any such thing -- unless perhaps he was joking, or giving out
deliberate misinformation.

Or drunk.

[_GlennThigpen]

This Fayette Lapham interview of Joseph Sr. seems to be descriptive of the original beginning....

>In answer to our question as to the subject of the
>translation, he said it was the record of a certain number
>of Jews, who, at the time of crossing the Red Sea, left the
>main body and went away by themselves...

Odd that Joseph Smith, Sr. would have said such a thing --
if indeed he did. And odder still, that any one would compose
such a story.

No "Jews" crossed the Red Sea -- any where in the Bible. The
nation of "Jews" is not even spoken of in the biblical text until
after Judah returned from the Exile to Jerusalem.

But, assuming that something was said of "Israelites" breaking
away from the main body, at the time of the Exodus, that
might have made for an interesting story.

Still -- if a break-away bunch of Israelites were part of the
original "Book of Lehi" narrative, I would still expect that they
would have departed for America from the Land of Jerusalem;
or at least from the realm immediately north of that Land.

A strange tale all around, and I doubt that Father Smith said
any such thing -- unless perhaps he was joking, or giving out
deliberate misinformation.

UD

That was an "interview" that appears to have been made up out of whole cloth after both Joseph Sr. and Jr. were dead. I appreciate the fact that you do not put much credence in it Dale.

Glenn

[_MCB]

I appreciate the fact that you do not put much credence in it Dale.

And I say "Aye, aye, sir," to Cap'n Dale. Will make that change.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

Dale, that again dodges the question of what a nineteenth century person would expect from a story about the lost tribes. The Book of Lehi is irrelevant because the witnesses never read it.

Nonsense. Martin Harris would have been intimately familiar with it. So, of course, would Joseph Smith. Our theory suggests that Rigdon would have been as well. Possibly Pratt also. And, of course, the Spalding witnesses would have been familiar with his version of it.

Roger, what Martin Harris or Sidney Rigdon, or Joseph Smith knew about the 116 pages is irrelevant to what the Conneaut witnesses say about the Spalding story, the lost tribes, and the Book of Mormon. None of the Conneaut witnesses saw those 116 pages. They only read the Book of Mormon as it appeared to all of the rest of the world in 1830 - 1834 time frame.

None of the witnesses note any "paring down". They seem anxious to prove, by their statements, that the Book of Mormon is almost exactly the same as the Spalding story except for the religious material.

As you acknowledge, they all mention added religious material. That constitutes a "paring down" or a dilution of the original. Also Dale's argument has never been that the entire Book of Mormon is consistent all the way through. Quite the contrary, it's style varies. Even the official version recognizes that the first part is more religious than the latter.

As I've already stated, the S/R witnesses would not have been intimately familiar with the doctrinal premise of the Book of Mormon. They did not read it like you do. They did not consider it scripture like you do. You say that is irrelevant, but it is quite relevant! They would not have picked up on the alleged difference you are so keen on. In fact, I already quoted John Spalding to show explicitly that he sees no difference.

Roger, I am not talking about the religious, or doctrinal material in the Book of Mormon. Only the historical parts all eight Conneaut witnesses declared were almost identical to Spalding's story. I am talking about the lost tribes that four of the eight witnesses declared was what Spalding's story was about. What Dale is talking about is irrelevant to that idea. Adding to something is not a paring down, by the way. You are using John Spalding's one statement and ignoring what else he said in another statement, i.e. that Lehi came over from Chaldea as the leader of the Jaredites long before Nephi came from Jerusalem. You say that you have the View of the Hebrews and I assume that you have read it. That is the type of ideas that were being discussed about the lost tribes during the time frame. That is what Spalding was supposed to be writing about.

And four of the witnesses said unequivocally that Spalding's tale was about the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians.
What does the Book of Mormon say about the lost tribes?

Which is why Dale re-explained his theory to you. It's not Dale's fault if you can't or won't understand it. Your horse is dead, Glenn. That's what happens when you beat it too much.

Dale's theory does not explain why we do not see "a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their decendants" in the Book of Mormon, "excepting the religious matter". As I noted in another post, the Book of Mormon itself says that it is not about the lost tribes.


Glenn