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

[_Uncle Dale]

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

Certainly it would have been possible for Joe Smith to have
brought "into the room" a few pages of pre-existing written
material -- perhaps a folio at a time -- perhaps secreted in
his shirt or pants.

Such pre-existing written material could have consisted of
pages torn from pre-1829 publications (such as the Bible)
or pages taken from manuscript writings.

All of that is possible -- and even more possible, if Cowdery
was part of the fraud. The other possibility is that Oliver
was a dupe, who actually saw persons masquerading as
John the Baptist; Peter, James and John; Elijah, etc.

At any rate, Smith could have smuggled pre-written pages
"into the room" -- even if they were nothing more than his
own notes, sketching out a Nephite chronology or geography.

But, as you say, you do not need to convince any skeptic
of even that much ingenuity on the part of Joe Smith.

It is even more possible that he left "the plates" outside,
in the woods, or in a shed, out of view of Martin Harris,
and later out of view of the Whitmers.

At one point Martin Harris actually went outside, wandering
about, following footprints in the snows of Harmony, trying
to find just such secreted "plates" -- Book of Mormon texts.

Why is it so difficult for modern investigators to comprehend
that Smith could easily have secreted pre-written texts away
from his place of supposed "translation?"

Probably the reason for such incomprehension is that many
modern readers cannot recall even a paragraph that they
carefully perused five minutes ago -- much less a chapter
from the Bible that they read fifteen minutes before.

The modern student of Mormon history cannot picture Joe
Smith leaving "the room" for a bathroom break, or a break
for solitary "mighty prayer," and returning to the "translation"
with an entire chapter of Nephite narrative in his memory.

The Whitmers saw Smith take such breaks. In one instance
they actually went out looking for him, before he came
back to the scene of his purported "translation."

We have several indications of Smith's remarkable memory;
but since Fawn Brodie did not include that old evidence in
her biographical canon, it is today dismissed as improbable.

We have one report of remarkable memorization ability
credited to Joe's father -- but again, that is dismissed. We
even have reports of Martin Harris' ability to recite at
length, from memorization, biblical passages -- perhaps
whole chapters at a time.

You do not need to prove that Joe Smith brought an entire
Bible into "the room" -- you need only believe that he could
have brought pages from Isaiah in his pocket, to "the room."

You need not prove that Joe Smith brought an entire Spalding
manuscript into "the room" -- you need only admit that it
was possible for him to sequentially memorize chapter-length
excerpts from a Sidney Rigdon manuscript hid in the crapper.

UD

[_mikwut]

This has been an interesting thread. First it is made rather plain, mundane and clear that the Jocker's paper is no longer a viable extrinsic piece of evidence for which the Spalding theory can begin as a scientific piece of evidence and then proceed. That brings Spalding back to the historical speculative trivia it always was with no empircally viable evidence for it to rest on. In this thread the defenders of the theory utilize petty and unthoughtful attacks on false memory explanations. I find the Spalding advocates interesting in their need for the theory to be rational (which it isn't). It is truly an interesting phenomena. But, for example marg's naïve understanding of false memory and silly attempts to focus on a couple of research tests and then eliminate it because it is different for the Conn. witnesses is a fanatical attempt to hold on to this theory at all costs. Mr. Vogel is certainly correct in pointing this out and certainly correct in how exhaustive the general literature is in responding to those attempts by marg to marginalize the science of false memories to irrelevant matters. Let me address the memory issues and then close with my thoughts on why the Spalding advocates are actually their own worst enemies.

First, memory fallibility (the long time period) and false memories need to be distinguished and both kept in mind. The two primary resources I have studied and recommend are Ceci, S.J., & Bruck, M. (1993) Jeopardy in the Courtroom, American Psychological Assoc and The Science of False Memory, C.J. Brainerd and V.F. Reyna.

Regarding, "lying". It is very common for witnesses at trials to be discredited in what they say. The baseline for that is memory fallibility or just error, not outright intentional deception. Perjury is rarely, rarely ever charged even when completely contradictory statements are produced. Regarding the Conn. Witnesses, 1) fallibility of their memory is obvious due to the nature of the time interval in their recall and is always prevalent and ingrediently present when discussing the false memory. Memory distortion or false memory is also very relevant because of the Book of Mormon's basic narrative and general description being provided to them or available.

Regarding Brodie, she surely had access to the highly relevant and sophisticated false memory sources and science when she wrote. Such as Frederic C. Bartlett's (Cambridge University's first professor of psychology (from 1931 to 1952 and the most influential historical figure in the experimental psychology of false memory), Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology which was the single most highly cited reference in the mainstream experimental literature. It was and is widely known in academia and Brodie although she doesn't put it in her bibliography would have certainly been aware of it, and when she anecdotally refers to false memories in her appendix she would have certainly been referring to it or it being cited in the literature. One of Bartlett's studies would have been quite relevant to the Conn. Witnesses, it was called the The War of the Ghosts a native american narrative and it concerned adult subjects' recall of previously studying this narrative American folktale. Each subject read the narrative twice and fifteen min. later took a recall test. Subsequent recall tests were administered after intervals of a few hours, days, weeks, months and years. Bartlett produced findings consistent with the memory theory concerning the Conn. Witnesses that many distortions were recalled - things that were not found in the narrative at all with quite regularity. Roger's silly personal anecdote is clearly trumped by the vast scientific data of the last century.

There are many false memory paradigms in effect in regard to the conn. witnesses. The first is semantic intrusions. This is how the distortions of the lost tribes, jews, american indians etc.. can all get confused, confabulated and distorted. This is a well known and well documented false memory that Chris provided a youtube example of long ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhIuaD183I

The vase amount of time passing, the available and present historical cues, the mundane and non-intentional manipulations from confusing presentation all increase the probability and rate of semantic intrusion. Also, the proactive interference effect would be in play with the conn. witnesses. This is the effect that after they heard or read Spalding, they later heard or read or were presented with other related cues - Israelites, mounds, Book of Mormon ideas etc.. which would intrude on their memory's further. Extraordinarily high levels of semantic intrusion has been found in the literature. (Payne, Elie, Blackwell, & Neuschatz, 1996; Rodeger & McDermott, 1995). Also the semantic similarities of the themes of Spalding and the Book of Mormon would create the phenomenon of semantic false alarms and false recognitions at high rates which has been extensively studied in the experience of false memories. (Underwood 1965)

Bransford and Frank (1971) provide another related paradigm and category that helps understand the false memory of the Conn. Witnesses. Their False memory for semantic inferences is a classic in the literature. It goes farther than just lists of words but digests morsels of information and entire sentences and narratives, the clues that readers attempt to piece together are like a detective novel. Just like when you read a detective novel and think you know who did it to be fooled at the end the same takes place in our memory recall when items of information and strands of data that can be integrated into a single complex idea happen. What we remember from sentences is not the sentences themselves but rather "holistic semantic structures". We don't preserve in memory the surface forms of sentences (or ideas) - i.e. the surface of Spalding's novel - rather its semantic structure. These studies also help us understand that memory confidence comes not from the accuracy of the memory but rather the semantic relation which is relevant with the Conn. witnesses and the Book of Mormon. The fact that they were all rational, clear headed, and extremely confident about their memories isn't relevant or helpful according to the scientfic data, in fact, it is to be expected.

Suggestibility of witness memory is a further and obvious factor. The Book of Mormon being plagarized from Spalding's writings fits very nicely into the complex event sequences that revolve around a theme with most of the events being only briefly experienced and poorly attended to. In situations like this Loftus discovered that "pressure" attenuates to the memories construction. The "pressure" isn't necessarily imposed from outside sources and doesn't necessarily mean aggressive, it is simply our memory is pressured by the complex event sequences that revolve around a theme with most of the events being only briefly experienced and poorly attended to. Fragmentary, sketchy and reliance on external supports to enrich their fragmentary memories are commonplace. Non-purposeful leading questions, suggestive statements, present cultural and newsworthy cues easily cause witnesses to add, supplant and distort their memories and many details. Loftus and Ceci have provided much more studies than what have been discussed in this thread from youtube that marg attempts to analyze. Adults consistent with Conn. witnesses can easily be brought to the statements the conn. witnesses made consistent with myriad memory studies. The Satanic ritual memories were were more detailed, narratively coherently, closer in time, complexly structured and consitent among many adult witnesses - much greater evidence than the Conn. Witness statements provide - but they were in fact false, competely.

False identification is particularly prevalent with the slightest of cues, leading questions or statements. The Book of Mormon presents itself to the Conn. witnesses as the "lineup" if you will. When the real culprit isn't presented in the lineup there are two possible responses, a wrong choice (false memory), a correct choice that the culprit isn't present. Haber and Haber's findings showed 57% of the time on average the false memory was prevalent. That is higher than correctly identifying when the culprit is present in the lineup among mundane witnesses.

Relevant for the Conn. Witnesses is False-Memory Schema. This is modern research that developed from Bartlett discussed above. The memory at issue for the Conn. witnesses is schema based. The themes of the narratives are schemas. And specific research of schematic plots (Reyna 2000) have been obtained which subjects easily distort or remember similar themes that are confabulated and distorted from the differing plots.

False memories in realtiy monitoring is also relevant. Briefly, the encouragement given to the conn. witnesses of causal inferences toward actual experience would have increased their reality differentiation between internal cues and inferences that our memory relies on.

Also, false memory from reasoning. False memory often occurs as an outgrowth of reasoning errors. Very relevant for the Conn. Witnesses. Reyna's studies show examples of how easily our reasoning is effected if we are provided with background information on a subject prior to our reasoning and decision making. The Conn. witnesses having background on J.S. and the Book of Mormon make this highly relevant. False memory, or memory distortion often occurs so that we can cohere our memory with the outcomes of our reasoning. That would be precisely what the conn. witnesses were doing.

Autobiographical false memory. Studies on everyday and mundane experience which the hearing of Spaldings' novel applies to have been done by researchers keeping diaries for periods of time. False memories can integrate into our memory and be felt and experienced as true memories.

These same themes of false memory aren't as coherent and clear in regard to the Book of Mormon witnesses and the fallibility of their memory isn't as corrosive which plays a "friendly" role with the false memories. Simple science declares what witnesses to accept.

I say all this to point out the literature and science in regard to false memories is particularly relevant to conn. witnesses. It is highly probable that combined with the memory fallibility explains their statements quite well. Any attack on Mr. Vogel for taking this science seriously is similar to a creationist complaining that evolution is irrational.

In closing, the emphatic insistence on the Spalding trivia, I believe can have a reverse negative effect on its goal. If explaining to believers or nonbelievers the origins of the Book of Mormon it might provide a interesting and seemingly generally coherent narrative for those struggling with their faith to cling to when they doubt and consider leaving the faith. But, make no mistake depthful research will lead them away from it and quite possibly right back to the fold.

my best regards, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...
In closing, the emphatic insistence on the Spalding trivia, I believe can have a reverse negative effect on its goal. If explaining to believers or nonbelievers the origins of the Book of Mormon it might provide a interesting and seemingly generally coherent narrative for those struggling with their faith to cling to when they doubt and consider leaving the faith. But, make no mistake depthful research will lead them away from it and quite possibly right back to the fold.
...

Actually, I agree with you.

My advice to Spalding-Rigdon advocates, is that they
de-emphasize the precise nature of pre-existing literary
materials incorporated into the Book of Mormon, and join
with the Smith-alone authorship advocates, to examine
and explain the structure of the text itself.

Instead of massive evidence citations and complex S-R arguments
with the Mormons, we Smith+helpers authorship advocates should
instead concentrate upon bolstering the Smith-alone evidence,
(wherever it overlaps our own research, at least).

I suppose that the key bone of contention then would devolve
upon the role of Oliver Cowdery -- was he a dupe or a conspirator?
Is the Book of Mormon devoid of his contributions, or can his
"word-print" be discerned at certain points in the Nephite record?

Perhaps the Smith-alone advocates will not even accept our allied
effort, when whittled down to a Smith-alone or a Smith+Cowdery
dichotomy ---- but I think it is worth the effort.

How would the Mormon fraud stand up to the united scholarship
of BOTH the Smith-alone and Smith+helpers majority?

At least I think it is worth a try, and am currently devoting my time
much more to studying Cowderyesque sections of the book, than to
studying where it most resembles the writings of Spalding and Rigdon.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

I say all this to point out the literature and science in regard to false memories is particularly relevant to conn. witnesses. It is highly probable that combined with the memory fallibility explains their statements quite well. Any attack on Mr. Vogel for taking this science seriously is similar to a creationist complaining that evolution is irrational.

my best regards, mikwut

mikwut, thanks for your input. I have never believed that all or maybe any of the Conneaut witnesses were deliberately lying ,although there are some pretty obvious discrepancies in their statements and the reality that we see when reading the Book of Mormon. Think your information makes it clear how this could have happened, and the witnesses being very sincere in their beliefs about what they remembered.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...the witnesses being very sincere in their beliefs about what they remembered.
...

How do you explain the discrepancy in the statement of this witness,
who said he read Solomon Spalding's Roman story in 1812?

"He [the Roman leader Fabius] was a man of superior learning
suited to that day. He went to sea, lost his point of compass,
and finally landed on the American shore; I think near the mouth
of the Mississippi River...."

Possible explanations:

1. Josiah Spalding had a false memory implanted by D.P. Hurlbut
2. Josiah Spalding was generally reliable but made a few mistakes
3. Solomon Spalding wrote more than one draft of the Roman story

Suppose that the draft Josiah saw was the one from which a few
crossed out pages still exist, incorporated into the Oberlin document;
and suppose that the draft Josiah saw really did have Fabius landing
at what is now the Louisiana shore.

We know from other parts of Spalding's Roman story that he was
familiar with the 'Madoc' American colonization theory, popular in
the early American republic. Madoc lands in Mobile Bay and takes
his colonists northward, towards Kentucky, in the Madoc legend.
If Spalding (at first) was paying attention to the Madoc legend, he
might well have had his Fabius at first land in Louisiana, and then
take his colonists northward, towards Kentucky (which Spalding
calls "Kentuck" in his tale).

At some point Fabius has to encounter the preColumbian "Ohian"
civilization, if he is to summarize its existence and leave a record
buried in the ground -- having his ship sail up the Mississippi river
to its junction with the Ohio river would have been a logical plot
development in an early draft of the Roman story.

However -- in the text we now see preserved at Oberlin, Fabius
lands on America's east coast, and then takes his Romans by land
to Pittsburgh. At that point they drop out of the narrative. Seeing
that Spalding himself moved to Pittsburgh at the end of 1812, it
also seems reasonable that he would have introduced that frontier
town into the second draft of his Roman story -- and especially so
if he wished to gain the interest of his Pennsylvania neighbors in
the narrative.

But the Oberlin manuscript remained unfinished, not many pages
after a letter dated "1813" was incorporated into its folios. The
story was obviously discarded, and all further mentions of Pittsburgh
remained unwritten.

So ---- can Josiah's seeming discrepancy in reporting be attributed
to his reading a different (earlier?) draft of the Roman story -- or,
is it more probable that he suffered from memory substitution?

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

...the witnesses being very sincere in their beliefs about what they remembered.
...

How do you explain the discrepancy in the statement of this witness,
who said he read Solomon Spalding's Roman story in 1812?

"He [the Roman leader Fabius] was a man of superior learning
suited to that day. He went to sea, lost his point of compass,
and finally landed on the American shore; I think near the mouth
of the Mississippi River...."

Possible explanations:

1. Josiah Spalding had a false memory implanted by D.P. Hurlbut
2. Josiah Spalding was generally reliable but made a few mistakes
3. Solomon Spalding wrote more than one draft of the Roman story

Suppose that the draft Josiah saw was the one from which a few
crossed out pages still exist, incorporated into the Oberlin document;
and suppose that the draft Josiah saw really did have Fabius landing
at what is now the Louisiana shore.

We know from other parts of Spalding's Roman story that he was
familiar with the 'Madoc' American colonization theory, popular in
the early American republic. Madoc lands in Mobile Bay and takes
his colonists northward, towards Kentucky, in the Madoc legend.
If Spalding (at first) was paying attention to the Madoc legend, he
might well have had his Fabius at first land in Louisiana, and then
take his colonists northward, towards Kentucky (which Spalding
calls "Kentuck" in his tale).

At some point Fabius has to encounter the preColumbian "Ohian"
civilization, if he is to summarize its existence and leave a record
buried in the ground -- having his ship sail up the Mississippi river
to its junction with the Ohio river would have been a logical plot
development in an early draft of the Roman story.

However -- in the text we now see preserved at Oberlin, Fabius
lands on America's east coast, and then takes his Romans by land
to Pittsburgh. At that point they drop out of the narrative. Seeing
that Spalding himself moved to Pittsburgh at the end of 1812, it
also seems reasonable that he would have introduced that frontier
town into the second draft of his Roman story -- and especially so
if he wished to gain the interest of his Pennsylvania neighbors in
the narrative.

But the Oberlin manuscript remained unfinished, not many pages
after a letter dated "1813" was incorporated into its folios. The
story was obviously discarded, and all further mentions of Pittsburgh
remained unwritten.

So ---- can Josiah's seeming discrepancy in reporting be attributed
to his reading a different (earlier?) draft of the Roman story -- or,
is it more probable that he suffered from memory substitution?

UD

Josiah's discrepancy as to where the Fabius party landed in his statement and the Oberlin manuscript could possibly be from another rough draft that Solomon had written, or it just as easily could have been from not really remembering and guessing. Or he could have mixed it up with the Madoc legend, if he and Solomon had ever discussed that. I could not discount either possibility without further information.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Josiah's discrepancy as to where the Fabius party landed in his statement and the Oberlin manuscript could possibly be from another rough draft that Solomon had written, or it just as easily could have been from not really remembering and guessing. Or he could have mixed it up with the Madoc legend, if he and Solomon had ever discussed that. I could not discount either possibility without further information.
...

It is the sort of historical problem that practically begs for additional
testimony -- but I do not suppose our locating a couple more statements
agreeing with Josiah would really solve the mystery.

Other witnesses could have just as easily mis-remembered, or been
victims to memory substitution. Witnesses' memories can always be
made subject to our suspicions -- pro or con.

However, if we discovered an early letter by Spalding, in which he
mentioned abandoning his first draft, and a Louisiana Roman landing,
for a second draft story and an east coast landing, then the problem
would essentially be solved.

In fact, it would be very helpful, to historical reconstructions, if we
could locate some of Solomon Spalding's correspondence. I suspect
that some still exists in New York and in New England. So far as I
know, there has been zero research conducted on this possibility.
A few years ago I stumbled onto a single such New England letter:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/spld0b.htm

I'd bet there is more of this stuff out there. If I had a few thousand
extra dollars saved up, I'd hire an investigator to look for it.

In the meanwhile, the next best thing we have available are the
texts themselves. Until some new historical sources are uncovered,
about all I can do is to study what was published in 1830, and
compare that material to whatever else might be relevant -- such
as the 1833 Book of Commandments, Smith's early letters, etc.

UD

[_marg]

Mikwut please keep in mind this discussion is not a court room nor game to exercise your lawyerly rhetorical gamesmanship techniques. The major focus should be on the issues with one's reasoning applied as opposed to focusing on intellectually dishonest rhetorical games.

Apparently your motivation in writing your post was to support Dan Vogel.

You write: “Any attack on Mr. Vogel for taking this science seriously is similar to a creationist complaining that evolution is irrational.”

I have no qualms with taking any science seriously far from it. My expectation is that if one uses science to warrant an argument it should apply with reason and used appropriately. There’s been no attack on Mr. Vogel for not taking the science seriously. It's been how he's applied that science that's been critically evaluated.

FYI I didn’t bring up Loftus and her studies Dan did, I only explained why those studies he was using in support of dismissing the conneaut witnesses didn't align with their experiences as described.

You write: …"(marg’s) silly attempts to focus on a couple of research tests and then eliminate it because it is different for the Conn. witnesses is a fanatical attempt to hold on to this theory at all costs. "

I was addressing the studies which other had brought up to argue faulty memory for the Conneaut witnesses..not as you say focusing on a couple of research tests.

I looked through your post Mikwut and in all the studies you listed with your excessively wordy convoluted comments I saw nothing which warranted rejection of the Conneaut witnesses’ memories.

I’m not going to address each one. I think you are into rhetorical game playing, not intellectual honesty. Part of that gameplaying appears to be lambasting the reader with excessive non essential words and the citing of numerous studies..which don't actually apply to the conneaut situation but apparently you don't care about that.

I’ll address each of the studies one by one individually in a post dedicated to each one...but not all at once.

So I'll begin and address the youtube you cited. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhIuaD183I

The video with Mr. Brushwood starts out by illustrating that when people were asked to reproduce a drawing of a penny they in many cases perhaps most he wasn't specific, remembered some details incorrectly.

Note what he says:

Here’s the problem the way the brain groups information is not as reliable for this type of test because we remember clusters of information . For example we remember that it says 1cent on the penny but we don’t remember the fact that it’s on the back of the penny, not on the front.

So he points out that it’s a “type of test” in which certain results are likely given the way the brain works. To note it doesn't appear the subjects were asked to only draw that which they confidently remember clearly. I say this because in the next test which I took he doesn't say to only write down that which the viewer clearly and confidently remembers. So when I took the test, I only wrote what I clearly remembered which wasn't much but that recall was correct. Had I done what he said and tried to write what I might have remembered..without being too concerned with accuracy I would have responded very differently and might have included the word "sweet" which wasn't in the listed words. So how a test is conducted will yield different results

Brian Brushwood is not saying the subjects couldn’t clearly remember some aspects of a penny. He points out they remembered it says “1 cent” on the penny. Where they had difficulty was on some details such as where that "1 cent" was placed, front or back. Had the subjects been asked whether or not they were certain it was front or back that would be a different test.

With the Conneaut witnesses they recalled what they clearly remembered…just like Brushwood acknowledges some things about a penny people remember correctly . Details they might get confused about. Well the Conneaut witnesses only focused on what they remembered. They didn't try to recall every little detail just some basics they remembered well. And the sorts of things they recalled were not easily confusable..just as the fact that the penny had 1 cent on it was easily remember whereas the detail of where that was placed was confusable to people. Some ideas, facts, information can be memorable ..have a stickiness factor while others are easily forgotten or confusible.

Then the rest of the video was a test of short term memory. The audience including the viewer was exposed to a group of words on the screen while he read them and then immediately after test for recall. This test didn't apply to the Conneaut witness situation and I've explained why numerous times in previous posts.

If you have other studies you think are particularly relevent Mikwut bring them up individually instead of using rhetorical gamesmanship of lambasting me. But keep in mind Dan Vogel says he's not relying upon faulty memory argument of the conneaut witnesses he's decided to accept the Book of Mormon witnesses claims to translation process and therefore on that basis rejects the Conneaut witnesses statements carte blanche.

One other point you write:

In closing, the emphatic insistence on the Spalding trivia, I believe can have a reverse negative effect on its goal. If explaining to believers or nonbelievers the origins of the Book of Mormon it might provide a interesting and seemingly generally coherent narrative for those struggling with their faith to cling to when they doubt and consider leaving the faith. But, make no mistake depthful research will lead them away from it and quite possibly right back to the fold.

So you are concerned about people's faith?. This discussion should be about using intellectual honesty to reach a best fit explanation of the evidence and people's faith should be irrelevant to it.

[_Dan Vogel]

Mikwut,

You have made a valuable contribution to this discussion. Thanks.

[_aussieguy55]

I think some scholars do not like the S/R theory because it would make their Joseph Smith biography out of date.