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

[_marg]

Mikwut,

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

Dan which study of Mikwuts applies to the Conneaut witnesses and why. Show us how valuable Mikwut's post was. You obviously want to keep this false memory theory alive despite claiming it's not important to your argument.


(I won't be back to the board until monday.)

[Guest]

Welcome back mikwut:

I don't know why you feel compelled to attack marg with completely unnecessary ad homs. There really is no excuse for it. You can carry on a conversation without making comments such as:

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.

There is such a thing as making a case with tact and grace. This, however, is just reckless, pointless, even malicious rhetoric that deeply overshadows whatever point you might have otherwise made. It reveals that you cannot assess this matter objectively despite your attempts to make it appear as though you are doing so with what marg correctly identifies as "lambasting the reader with excessive non essential words and the citing of numerous studies..which don't actually apply to the conneaut situation..."

Apparently you did not bother to read the thread enough to pick up on the fact that marg did not bring up the studies you mention, she was merely responding to those who did and what she believes to be their misapplication--for which, I might add, she made a rational, reasonable case. If you disagree with her assessment on that, by all means, feel free to express your disagreement, but hollow attempts to paint her as a fanatic out to promote her cause at any cost (as if she has anything to lose one way or the other!) merely backfire.

Anyone can attach excessive rhetoric to any number of irrelevant studies as though doing so makes his case, but of course if identifying who is responsible for the content of the Book of Mormon was that simple, LDS apologists would have settled the matter long ago.

I am, quite frankly, out of patience with the low-level polemical tactics, ad homs and egos at play here.

We are allegedly here in an effort to answer one simple question: who is responsible for the content of the Book of Mormon?

That's what all the hubbub is about whether we're arguing over Schaalje/Jockers or Hurlbut/Whitmer, etc., etc.

All of the main participants on this thread know where Dale, marg, MCB and myself stand and, in my opinion, we've stood for more than our share of verbal abuse without complaining while still attempting to explain and defend our own answer with civility. But enough is enough.

I now want to hear YOUR answers.

Glenn, please tell us how YOU believe the Book of Mormon got here. Specifically I would like you to tell us WHO is responsible for the content and how that content got placed on the manuscript pages. Please be as precise as possible in your descriptions so that we can carefully, thoughtfully and fairly evaluate your position. Then, please tell us why you believe as you do.

Dan, please tell us how YOU believe the Book of Mormon got here. Specifically I would like you to tell us WHO is responsible for the content and how that content got placed on the manuscript pages. Please be as precise as possible in your descriptions so that we can carefully, thoughtfully and fairly evaluate your position. Then, please tell us why you believe as you do.

mikwut, please tell us how YOU believe the Book of Mormon got here. Specifically I would like you to tell us WHO is responsible for the content and how that content got placed on the manuscript pages. Please be as precise as possible in your descriptions so that we can carefully, thoughtfully and fairly evaluate your position. Then, please tell us why you believe as you do.

And if Ben is still lingering, I would like to hear his explanation as well.

Who knows, if you present the most rational, logical case, you just might gain your theory four new advocates.

[_Roger]

Dale wrote:

...
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.

Precisely. Dan and the others act as though such a thing is beyond the realm of possibility. Their basis for so acting, however, is baseless.

All of that is possible -- and even more possible, if Cowdery
was part of the fraud.

Exactly. And why Dan Vogel, of all the posters on this thread, would be so seemingly adverse to that possibility is beyond me.

The other possibility is that Oliver
was a dupe, who actually saw persons masquerading as
John the Baptist; Peter, James and John; Elijah, etc.

And how likely is that? Is that scenario any more likely than Cowdery simply knowing more than he let on? The whole basis for the dupe notion seems to be that Cowdery allegedly never lost his testimony. Of course I'm sure everyone here knows that even that alleged fact is disputed, but, regardless, let's say its true--why would we expect anything different either way? Oh... they say.... because he would have confessed the whole thing was a fraud the minute he was excommunicated! Nonsense! In the first place, I think Cowdery was likely "in the know" but I DON'T think he would have thought of the Book of Mormon as a "fraud." I think he believed Spalding had translated a genuine history (assuming he even knew about its use) and both Rigdon and Smith had added truth from God. So, given that, why would we expect him to "confess" to fraud when he likely wouldn't have thought of it as fraud in the first place? And in the second place, why would we expect him to admit to something that ruins what little credibility he still maintains? If he confesses to Book of Mormon "fraud" sure, it might damage Smith as much as Bennett's book did, but is that really what Oliver wants to do to his cousin? And what does it do for Oliver? Makes him a party to fraud. Ruins his reputation. Destroys his credibility. And gives the Mormons the excuse to accuse him of being under Satan's influence. There is no good reason for Oliver to confess to anything.

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.

Quite correct. No one--except perhaps some die-hard LDS--disputes the fact that Smith was a trickster. Even LDS acknowledge that Joseph himself admits to unnamed "follies" of youth. Do the LDS here believe that Joseph could actually see "lost" property in his stone? Does Dan Vogel? Interesting question. But the fact is, Joseph Smith knew how to trick people and his art of deception was developed at an early age.

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.

Correct.

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?"

Ironic, isn't it, that skeptics are more inclined to entertain the notion of "plates" before entertaining the notion of manuscripts.

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.

Those same students may envision words rolling off Smith's lips like movie script from Tom Hanks or Robert DeNiro. I think it was much more methodical than that. But as you say, it only takes Cowdery's involvement and the show is not only easy to pull off, (in the same way a magician relies on his assistants) but completely unnecessary unless dupes are present.

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.

And none of this has to be an either/or dichotomy. Dan's theory could make as much out of Smith having a photographic memory as S/R can.

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.

Gives new meaning to the term bathroom humor.

The fact is, all of that is possible, if not probable. It certainly makes better sense than coming to the conclusion Nephites must have existed despite the lack of evidence. Does it make more sense than Smith coming up with all we find in the Book of Mormon off the top of his head, on the fly? I think so.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn, please tell us how YOU believe the Book of Mormon got here. Specifically I would like you to tell us WHO is responsible for the content and how that content got placed on the manuscript pages. Please be as precise as possible in your descriptions so that we can carefully, thoughtfully and fairly evaluate your position. Then, please tell us why you believe as you do.

Roger, we are not talking about what I, Dan Vogel, Ben, etc. believe about how the Book of Mormon got here. This thread is about the S/R theory. What any of us believe about how it came forth is irrelevant to the discussion of the S/R theory. If you want to discuss any of the other theories, startr a thread on those theories so as to keep this one manageable.

In your response to mikwut, I noticed that you did not respond to any of his points that he brought up. Nor did marge in her complaint.

Glenn

[Guest]

Hello interesting 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.

Since I didn't present the discussion as a court room, nor did I use "lawyerly rhetorical (do you mean the effective use of language?) gamesmanship techniques" or "focus on intellectually dishonest rhetorical games" - I simply reported themes and schematics that are scientifically researched, peer-reviewed, understood and applicable to the Conn. Witnesses. I provided two excellent resources for research. I would be happy to provide more if you would like. So I bid you your own advice marg and focus on the research I provided and why and how we should accept the statements of the conn. witnesses and ignore the scientific research I provided. I humbly hope that you'll look into it further rather than feigning knowledge you don' have that isn't applicable.

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

My motivation was curiosity and interest it still is. I do agree with Dan he presented a concise and clear presentation over and over against the S/R theory, others have, I have too, yet the believers in it simply become stronger in their belief speculation has become so adroit and indepth it is fascinating to me - that interests me, it is fascinating.

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.

Mr. Vogel clearly told you that he has only provided the general principles of false memory and he encouraged you and others to research and get to know the vast of amount of knowledge in this area before your cavalier rejections of it.

I would kindly be obliged for you to answer the following:

Do false memories exist in normal functioning adults?
Does memory fallibility exist in normal functioning adults?
Does the science of false memories and memory fallibility apply to the conn. witnesses?
If no to 2 then what factors would exclude it as a probable explanation to each of the themes I presented?
Please don't give me your opinion but the scientific studies you rely on in order to answer those questions. Thank you in advance.

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.

Even if so, the implication you are clearly making is that memory distortion is not a good theory for this clear headed crew of conn. witnesses. You also havn't availed yourself of any balance beyond those studies in order for you to remain as you love to say, "intellectually honest", by for example stating that the research you have seen presented to you might not be the most relevant for the conn. witnesses but pointing out others that might be if you are so educated in these issues.

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.

It is silly to hyper-analyze the way you have gone about and completely miss the general principles that are clearly applicable. So don't be coy, your attempts were clearly to exonerate the conn. witnesses from a favorable finding that false memory and fallibility played a role in memory distortion.

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.

Glanced might be a better word. If you have the least thought to my post how do the following not warrant the consideration?

Are our memories time erosive and fallible?
Bartlett's War of the Ghosts test?
Semantic intrusions?
Proactive interference effect?
Semantic interference?
Suggestibility?
False identification?
False memory schema?
False memories in reality monitoring?
False memory from reasoning?
Autobiographical false memory?

I’m not going to address each one.

Of course, that would be answer my actual post.

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.

This oddly sounds a bit like "rhetorical game playing and not an intellectually honest" answer to the substance of the research I provided with sources for further digestion. It is quite frankly, rather easy to see how the themes of false memory taken directly from two source books and found in many others apply to the conn. witnesses, in fact it is quite readily seen by reasonable people.

The video was presented as an introduction to semantic intrusions and it speaks for itself. They happen, you can empirically see the results. The accumulation of all of the false memory themes I listed are what conglomerates into the result of the conn. witnesses. The keys from the video and further understanding are that our memories are constructivist - we keep surface level memories in the short term memory but move and mold those memories into long term memory where themes and meanings are kept - but not precise surface level memories. There are many studies that show this such as schematic tests of taking a test in a room with a professor. The subject may later remember bookshelves of scholarly books for example when there were none. I am curious why you don't mention what I explicitly stated was more attuned to the Conn. Witnesses, namely false memory schematic inferences where entire sentences and narratives are studied, like the Bartlett study of "The War of the Ghosts"?

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.

"They recalled what they clearly remembered?" - Sorry marg that isn't how the science works - we all recall what we clearly remember but science shows us that what is clear is not accurate much of the time. As I said above the 1 cent is remembered because it is a theme that is attended to by us - the important point is that details that are not themes and not attended to are very easily corroded.

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.

I mentioned two excellent resources, nearly a dozen themes that are relevant that all have dozens upon dozens of solid research regarding them. I didn't just post a video marg, I think you know that and your statement above is more silliness. I don't think your silly, I think your being silly.

my best, mikwut

[_mikwut]

Hello Roger,

mikwut, please tell us how YOU believe the Book of Mormon got here. Specifically I would like you to tell us WHO is responsible for the content and how that content got placed on the manuscript pages. Please be as precise as possible in your descriptions so that we can carefully, thoughtfully and fairly evaluate your position. Then, please tell us why you believe as you do.

Much of its content came from the KJV with minor alterations. Much is autobiographical of J.S. (i.e the obvious example of his father's dream among many others). The greater part came from the imagination of Joseph Smith who's life provides enough empirically verifiable evidence that he was capable, that he did it, and that he had motivations from his seeker heritage and family that make sense of why he did it. The historical evidence makes this a much simpler and concrete and easier to construct belief. It actually has concrete components within its construction. What I do not believe and more germane to this thread is 1) the S/R theory is anything more than speculative historical construction (and trivia and that is common in history and is taught in many forms to undergraduate history students, myself included when I received my degree, Simon Schama's books are excellent for understanding this) and I have given it serious consideration. 2) I don't believe any of the tangled speculations that build on each other from the smallest degree and without a scintilla of real evidence should be accepted, relied on or defended to degree it receives.

my best, mikwut

[_MCB]

Although S/R is more likely than LDS belief, it remains unproven. We must take the larger view. Remember, I come from a culture which pursued S/R (Deming and Gregg) to the same frustrating dead ends.

[_GlennThigpen]

Although S/R is more likely than LDS belief, it remains unproven. We must take the larger view. Remember, I come from a culture which pursued S/R (Deming and Gregg) to the same frustrating dead ends.

I guess that if one does not believe in angels or communications from a divine being, or maybe even in a divine being at all, any explanation would seem more credible than the LDS beliefs. That is one reason that we need to focus only on the merits or demerits of any one theory at a time. Each of those theories must stand or fail on its own merits. None of the theories can claim victory based upon relative credibility.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Do false memories exist in normal functioning adults?
...

Obviously they do. For many years I was positive that a
certain person attended my wedding. I could visualize him
there in the crowd. Much later I discovered that he had
not been able to attend the ceremony and only showed up
for the reception (held in the adjacent hotel garden).

Josiah Spalding seemingly mis-remembered the spot at which
his brother's fictional "Fabius" landed his ship in North America.

Either that -- or else Josiah had actually inspected a different
Spalding manuscript story than that now preserved at Oberlin.

It is possible that Robert Patterson mis-remembered looking
through a Solomon Spalding story written in biblical style in
1812; and it is possible that he mis-remembered finally giving
such a manuscript back to Spalding's widow, c. 1817.

It is even possible that Joseph Smith, Jr. mis-remembered the
date of the great Palmyra revival, when local church membership
rolls show a sudden and unusual increase in baptisms.

We can all mis-remember names, dates, perhaps even events.

Does it then follow that the "case is closed" on Book of Mormon
authorship, and that the volume's true origin has been told?

UD

[_MCB]

Does it then follow that the "case is closed" on Book of Mormon
authorship, and that the volume's true origin has been told?

Nope.