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

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale, what is the likelihood that Cowdery could have been in Nashville, Tennessee on September 7, 1828?

I have no reason to believe that he traveled that far afield
that early in his life. There are reports of his being a pedestrian
peddler of pamphlets, etc., prior to his employment as a teacher.
Possibly he wandered about on the roads of western NY State,
as far north as Ontario, Canada and as far west as Ohio. But
there is not positive proof for such reports.

One early report (see Vogel's EMD #5) puts Cowdery in the
vicinity of the Whitmers, in Seneca Co., NY in 1827-28. This
was about the same time that his name first appeared on a
postal letters list in adjacent Wayne Co. My best guess is
that Oliver was somewhere in the Wayne/Ontario/Seneca
counties region for all of 1827-28, and that he went from
there to Harmony, PA early in 1829.

There is one report saying that he came to Manchester
(in northwestern Ontario Co.) in about 1828, from "Kirtland."
At that date there were three such "Kirtlands" in Ohio --
Kirtland Flats, in northern Geauga Co., Kirtland Tract in
southern Geauga Co., and another Kirtland near Warren.

Art Vanick speculates that Oliver visited Ohio at an early
date -- because he had a brother and cousins living there.
While some early presence in Ohio is a possibility, I doubt
that Oliver made it as far south as Kentucky or Tennessee.

UD

[_MCB]

That is what I thought. A Bishop M'Kendree was a powerful speaker for the Methodists, but his assignment was the mid-South and Northwest. His camp-meetings were wondrous affairs. He was often in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh for conferences, however. Cowdery might have heard secondhand about a meeting at which he spoke (age 71) which could have been a prototype for King Benjamin's last address to his people.

Who else in the inner circle, or just outside of it, like Alexander Campbell, could have been there?

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

You know better than Dr. Ramachandran how it science works huh? Do you have any idea who that questioner is? He is not an illusionist and I'm sure he knows a heck of a lot better than you do how science works, in fact I'm positive he does. And he's no slouch when it comes to understanding how the brain functions, I'm sure he knows a lot more about memory than you do as well and is well aware of memory studies and hence the reason for his comment to Loftus.

Ya I'm using google for wiki for your benefit not mine:


"Brief bio: Vilayanur Subramanian "Rama" Ramachandran (born 1951) is a neurologist best known for his work in the fields of behavioral neurology and psychophysics. He is the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition,[1][2][3] and is currently a Professor in the Department of Psychology[4] and the Neurosciences Graduate Program[5] at the University of California, San Diego.

Ramachandran initially obtained an M.D. at Stanley Medical College in Madras, India, and subsequently obtained a Ph.D. from Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. Ramachandran’s early work was on visual perception but he is best known for his experiments in behavioral neurology which, despite their apparent simplicity, have had a profound impact on the way we think about the brain.

Ramachandran was elected to a visiting fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford (1998-1999), and in 2005 he was the co-winner (with Michael Brady) of the Henry Dale Prize awarded by the Royal Institution of Great Britain. He gave the 2003 BBC Reith Lectures and was conferred the title of Padma Bhushan by the President of India in 2007. He has been called “The Marco Polo of neuroscience” by Richard Dawkins and "the modern Paul Broca" by Eric Kandel. Newsweek magazine named him a member of "The Century Club", one of the "hundred most prominent people to watch" in the 21st century.[6]"

Matters of logic know no bounds. It doesn’t matter who he is, I know a fallacious argument when I see one. His use of magic as an analogy was a fallacy. (by the way, magic was a serious hobby for me in my teens.) I note that you didn’t deal with my critique of his logic, but instead you used an argument from authority.

I can't believe you think he was making a proof by analogy. You haven't a clue Dan what his point is.

Let me explain...he wasn't offering any "proof" by analogy nor setting up an analogy. You missed his point entirely. He was pointing out how science works and clarifying because quite frankly Loftus doesn't do a good job of this, that her particular studies do not warrant conclusion that memory generally is fallible or in all or any situations it's fallible. He was pointing out that what her studies show is only under the circumstances or variables that she sets out within a study of which she find memory to be fallible, do her studies have anything to say about memory. You aren't very logical if this isn't obvious to you.

He most definitely used the analogy in the form of an argument. Someone who can’t see that need not accuse me of being illogical. What you represent him saying above is what you inferred from his argument from analogy. You might be reading too much into his statement. Ramachandran wasn’t denying the legitimacy of Loftus’s studies, nor was he denying their implications. He was affirming that memory works well enough for the survival of the species, which a legitimate point to make although his analogy didn’t work. No one, not even Loftus denies this. Your statement that “her particular studies do not warrant conclusion that memory generally is fallible or in all or any situations it's fallible” is a strawman. However, we tend to be overly confident about our memories until they are tested and we discover limitations. Memory is definitely being stretched when applied to the Con. witnesses’ twenty-year-old recollections of a mostly one-time hearing of a MS being read. Historians are trained to be suspicious of late recollections and to prefer memories closer to the event. There’s a reason for that. If memory can’t be question in the case of the Con. witnesses, it never can. This is a classic case if ever there was one.

Your continual insistence on limiting the lessons on memory to specific variables verges on the post-Modern rejection of any science yielding generalized knowledge on anything, discussed in philosophy as the problem of underdeterminism. So there is a potential of rejecting any study as pertaining to the Con. witnesses.

This is the very problem that has been going on in this discussion.with you, Glenn and Mikwut.

That's why I asked Mikwut and yourself to give me the best study you know which highly correlates to the particulars of the conneaut witnesses in order to warrant a conclusion their memory was not to be relied upon.

Yet, I note you keep calling for something with a “high degree of correlation,” but you haven’t responded to Mikwut’s best evidence; instead you went for what you thought was the weakest first. By the way, you say above: “Ramachandran’s early work was on visual perception but he is best known for his experiments in behavioral neurology which, despite their apparent simplicity, have had a profound impact on the way we think about the brain.” How is it that you can use his “simplistic” studies to generalize about the brain and at the same time be so minimalist about Loftus’s studies?

I find it interesting how you said something along the lines of "memory studies" are not the reason you reject the conneaut witnesses statements..because according to you the Book of Mormon witnessess are so highly reliable in their claims of the translation process that no matter what you reject the conneaut witnesses statements. Meanwhile you still persist in trying to argue against the Conneaut witnesses based on your opinion they didn't remember correctly Spalding's manuscript. If it's not important why do you persist?

You evidently don’t understand the structure of my argument. I’m only arguing that the Con. witnesses could have misremembered the contents of Spalding’s MS, that their memories could have been contaminated by what they read in the Book of Mormon, or believed was in the Book of Mormon. You on the other hand are arguing that this is impossible. I’m also arguing that when one weighs the possibility of memory confabulation of the Con. witnesses against the more reliable memories of the Mormon witnesses, the scale is tipped toward memory confabulation no matter how unlikely it seems to you.

I don't have time to read the rest of your post and won't have time until the weekend as I have a busy week.

Hopefully you'll have found a memory study which correlates with the situation of the Conneaut witnesses in order to warrant dismissing them on the basis of faulty memory. Because really that's all that important Dan in order to dismiss them with warrant. If you haven't then you it appears you are harassing me.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but I don’t believe I’m harassing you and I don’t accept your fake challenge. Mikwut has provided some research you need to address first anyway. But no one will find a study that fits all the variables of the Con. witnesses, because there will always be wiggle room as long as the principle of generalization is denied by you.

[_GlennThigpen]

Yes, at this point we only have one ms that even remotely resembles the Book of Mormon. This ms, Brodie wants us to believe is just barely enough like the Book of Mormon to get the false memories rolling, but not nearly enough like the Book of Mormon to establish a common author. I have to acknowledge that when Spalding uses words like: "sprightliness" or "dastard" or "buxom lasses" I have to wonder. On the other hand, parallels do exist. Ben tells me that is a common thing because the Book of Mormon was produced at about the same time and dealt with a similar topic.

If that were all there were to it, I could agree with Ben and call it a day. But the fact is the allegations of a connection were made BEFORE any of the parallels were even known to exist. And when one looks at the parallels between Spalding's discovery narrative and Joseph Smith's discovery narrative, I'm sorry, but "coincidence" just doesn't cut it. Even B.H. Roberts--no friend of S/R--noted the parallels in a footnote, but never attempted to explain them.

Roger, it is fine to form an opinion based upon you feelings that you have seen what you one coincidence too many, but it is another to actually show evidence that any of those parallels singly or cumulatively are significant using standard methods and practices. You seem to be relying on your own gut feelings rather than science. Dale has not been able to find any non LDS scholar, even those highly critical of the Book of Mormon story to hardly give him the time of day just because of those problems.
B. H. Roberts also brought up many parallels with the View of the Hebrews. By you standards, are they not too many to be just coincidental?

To my mind, one of three possibilities explains those parallels....

1. Spalding had incorporated a discovery narrative very similar to the one in MSCC into MF and Joseph/Sidney borrowed from it in 1838 to produce Smith's discovery narrative.

2. Joseph Smith got a hold of MF from Hurlbut in 1834.

3. Joseph Smith somehow saw and borrowed from MSCC in 1834 before it went back to Howe, and then made use of it in 1838.

There is evidence for #2. #3 seems very unlikely. #1 would imply that Rigdon or Smith hung on to Spalding's discovery narrative either physically or in their memories for about 8 years before making formal use of it. I am inclined to go with #2.

Roger, the only evidence for number 2 is uncorroborated and anecdotal. It also defies logic, as Hurlbut was determined to bring Joseph down.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

If it makes you feel better, I have been studying this for a few years now. I realize that doesn't make me an expert, but I am probably at least beyond the novice stage. I become convinced that S/R better explains the data by studying it. I came from a Smith-alone position very similar to yours--although I never had the level of confidence in the Book of Mormon witnesses that you do.

I was thinking more along the lines of how you handled argument from silence. You went and Googled it, and then came back with quotes that you misapplied to the situation. You obviously didn’t take the time to understand what an argument from silence is and how that applied to what you were doing. You were only interested in countering in an inappropriate way (meaning you incorrectly labeled my attempts to fill gaps in the historical record as arguments from silence in a impertinent way)—and that made you look silly.

First, I'm not sure why you view being "polemical" as such a bad thing--especially here. This is, after all, a discussion forum and the dispute over who produced the content for the Book of Mormon has never been without controversy.

Maybe you don’t know what polemical means. It’s not synonymous with controversy or debate. It’s when you are less interested in finding truth (or the most defensible position), and more interested in winning the debate. For example, when you tried to use Knight’s statement against Whitmer.

Second, when it comes to being rude, that is a fairly subjective matter when we have no non-verbal cues to go on. Quite frankly, I found your attitude to be rude, pretty much from the start. If I came across as becoming extremely rude as the discussion progressed, I don't know what to tell you other than if you ask anyone who is familiar with me online, this is the way I am all the time. In other words, I don't think I was any more rude with you than I am with anyone else, nor do I think I am any more rude than the average poster.

At the start you expressed a concern that you had insulted me and were worried that I wouldn’t come back. Regardless, I can handle your rudeness. It’s not a problem. But you were wondering why I said you were being silly, desperate, etc. I was being more frank because of your behavior.

I think if you take an honest look at the thread, Dan, you will see that what I have been challenging all along is your position on how the Book of Mormon got here, while defending my own, which is what discussion on a forum like this is all about. I have been challenging and even highlighting the weak areas of your Book of Mormon production theory (just like you and others are doing with mine) and it seems that you don't like that. But I have never challenged you as a person--except when I borrowed your phraseology.

If I don’t agree with your assessment of this thread, does that make me dishonest? I don’t think you and Marg realize how insulting you are. However, silly, desperate, embarrassing, polemical, and rude describe your behavior, not your person. I don’t think you are doing it maliciously, I just think you lack training and experience in these areas. You have admitted that you aren’t a historian and you don’t seem familiar with the principles of informal logic, so perhaps you might consider dialing down your zeal.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Dale has not been able to find any non LDS scholar, even those highly critical of the Book of Mormon story to hardly give him the time of day just because of those problems.
...

Of course I only contacted 100,000 of those Gentile
experts -- 99,999 of whom did not know that Jarom comes
after Enos. But all (of course) knew who Mrs. Brodie's
uncle was.

Success has been better among the RLDS. I gave a paper
in the CoC Independence Temple on this subject a few
years back, and gained the support of Ron Dawbarn and
Margie Miller (CoC ministers), who are writing a book on
the subject.



Several other RLDS/CoC student of early Mormon history
have expressed an interest in Rigdon's pre-Mormon
religious career, his "Third Epistle of Peter," the first
independent branch of the apostolic "Church of Christ" in
Pittsburgh, in 1824, etc.

What sets RLDS/CoC scholars apart, is that they have
no desire (or need) to vilify Joseph Smith nor his writings.
It is commonly accepted among those people that Smith
wrote the Book of Abraham out of his own head, and
that he may have written the Book of Mormon as pious
fiction, meant to convert sinners -- much the same as
"Pilgrim's Progress" or "Paradise Lost."

Thus (other than Dawbarn) you probably will not see
the RLDS scholars publishing much on the topic. To them
it is a meaningless issue -- interesting historically but
having no effect upon today's religion.

As for those 99,999 Gentiles -- I guess I'll have to feed
them on scholarly milk, before they are ready for meat.

Line upon line -- precept upon precept...

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

I was thinking more along the lines of how you handled argument from silence. You went and Googled it,

Which, at the time, you agreed was a good thing.

and then came back with quotes that you misapplied to the situation. You obviously didn’t take the time to understand what an argument from silence is and how that applied to what you were doing. You were only interested in countering in an inappropriate way (meaning you incorrectly labeled my attempts to fill gaps in the historical record as arguments from silence in a impertinent way)—and that made you look silly.

And I told you from the beginning that I am not concerned about following pre-determined rules for the formal structure of arguments or formally identifying logical fallacies. I only looked into "argument from silence" because you made a big deal out of it. Your continuing attempts to force the discussion into a framework of some formally established set of logical rules--that you get to decide how to interpret(!)--tells me that you are much more interested in winning a debate rather than simply trying to get to the truth about who produced the content of the Book of Mormon. That's why I told you that I am not interested in winning a debate--in contrast to you. Ego is forefront in winning debates. I am not interested in having a contest centered around who's arguments can best the opposing arguments by making the opponent look "silly" or "desperate" or "embarrassed." It is all too clear, that that is your goal. By contrast, I am simply interested in finding the best explanation for how the Book of Mormon got here.

Maybe you don’t know what polemical means.

Yes, that must be it. My ignorance explains everything.

It’s not synonymous with controversy or debate.

Geez, this is so juvenile, but you force it:

po·lem·ic (p-lmk)
n.
1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.
2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.
adj. also po·lem·i·cal (--kl)
Of or relating to a controversy, argument, or refutation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polemical

Next you will tell me you do not accept that definition. I know how the game is played.

It’s when you are less interested in finding truth (or the most defensible position), and more interested in winning the debate. For example, when you tried to use Knight’s statement against Whitmer.

Good grief. How many times do I have to say it? I did NOT use Knight's statement against Whitmer. That is a strawman that YOU keep stating despite being corrected at least 3 times now. I used Knight's statement because Whitmer agrees with him. The two AGREE and are COMPLEMENTARY. Why do you continue to twist my argument? Whitmer never denies that "the whole" was produced through the urim and thummim. He never mentions the use of a Bible that you hypothesize. That is a fact.

At the start you expressed a concern that you had insulted me and were worried that I wouldn’t come back.

Because at the time, I respected your opinion.

Regardless, I can handle your rudeness. It’s not a problem.

Ditto.

If I don’t agree with your assessment of this thread, does that make me dishonest?

Not at all. And if I don't agree with your assessment of this thread should I be embarrassed?

I don’t think you and Marg realize how insulting you are.

But, of course, you do understand how insulting you are.

However, silly, desperate, embarrassing, polemical, and rude describe your behavior, not your person. I don’t think you are doing it maliciously, I just think you lack training and experience in these areas.

Of course it couldn't be that our arguments make logical sense. Our lack of training and experience ensure that that is not possible.

You have admitted that you aren’t a historian and you don’t seem familiar with the principles of informal logic, so perhaps you might consider dialing down your zeal.

I see, so one needs to be a trained historian and "familiar with the principles of informal logic" before one can have zeal. What would an appropriate level of zeal look like, according to you?

[_MCB]

What, would an appropriate level of zeal look like, according to you?

Can I answer that question?





Given the present divide among non-LDS, ex-LDS, and RLDS factions, an appropriate level of zeal would be to remove most references to the names "Rigdon" and "Spalding" before page 70 of my book. I think it is time to back off, Roger.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, it is fine to form an opinion based upon you feelings that you have seen what you one coincidence too many, but it is another to actually show evidence that any of those parallels singly or cumulatively are significant using standard methods and practices.

What would constitute "significant" using standard methods and practices?

If you look over the list of parallels Dale lists on the page I linked to, you will see quite a list. How many more parallels should be there before it becomes "significant"?

You seem to be relying on your own gut feelings rather than science.

Glenn, I'm not trying to be insulting, because I am convinced you are being sincere, but, I don't think you are relying on science any more than I am.

Dale has not been able to find any non LDS scholar, even those highly critical of the Book of Mormon story to hardly give him the time of day just because of those problems.

I don't think that is accurate. It is more accurate to state that hardly any non-LDS scholar cares enough to even look at it. What do they care whether Smith produced it or he had help? And as Dan points out, it is simply more convenient to conclude that it was all Smith and leave it at that.

B. H. Roberts also brought up many parallels with the View of the Hebrews. By you standards, are they not too many to be just coincidental?

Which is why I am interested in what Roberts had to say about it. After reading Roberts and after comparing View of the Hebrews to the Book of Mormon, I agree that a similarity of theme exists. But I cannot find the same level of specific parallels between VOTH and the Book of Mormon as I see between Spalding's discovery narrative and Smith's or some of the parallels between MSCC and the Book of Mormon.

Spalding and Ethan Smith both attended Dartmouth and their time there appears to overlap a few months to a year. As far as I can tell, they both attended classes taught by John Smith in which the theory that the Indians are descended from the lost tribes was presented. Later, Hyrum Smith attended Moors Academy on the campus of Dartmouth. I think Dartmouth offers an explanation for the thematic similarities we see between the Book of Mormon and View.

Roger, the only evidence for number 2 is uncorroborated and anecdotal. It also defies logic, as Hurlbut was determined to bring Joseph down.

Actually it doesn't defy logic. It's just not what we would expect, but then, humans aren't predictable--and especially humans like D. P. Hurlbut.

Of course it can't be proven either way, Glenn, but there are logical reasons for thinking Hurlbut pulled both MF and MSCC out of the trunk. I admit that I thought the idea was far-fetched when I was first exposed to it as well, but there are some good reasons for thinking that's what happened.

[_MCB]

If you look over the list of parallels Dale lists on the page I linked to, you will see quite a list. How many more parallels should be there before it becomes "significant"?

However many it takes to convince the majority of people interested in the topic.

And as Dan points out, it is simply more convenient to conclude that it was all Smith and leave it at that.

That is intellectually lazy, and improbable given Joseph Smith's academic problems.