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

[Guest]

Of course you know there is no tribe of Joseph.

Glenn the lost tribes business is foreign to me and seems complex..I just don't relate to it.

In the wiki article when it lists 12 tribe divisions..it lists Joseph.

So given that it seems to me there is some association with this Joseph who I believe Lehi and nephi are supposed to be descendants of down the line... and lost tribes.

I really can not fathom what you are going on about. Granted I'm not spending much time on this issue.

Today i was trying to install dragon dictation..because there is too much typing involved in this discussion and of course I had a problem with the installation and will need to contact the company tomorrow.

This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes" was the comment by Henry Lake. What would he have meant and understood by "ten tribes story?" An account of a few souls, several of whom were from one of the lost tribes but had been decidedly unlost at Jerusalem or an account of the ten tribes exiled to Chaldea in 722 BC?

So the issue is Nephi and Lehi were unlost...because they were in Jerusalem.

I'm sorry I still don't understand.

From wiki on Judah:

Destruction of Israel


"Israel continued to exist within the reduced territory as an independent kingdom until around 720 BCE, when it was again invaded by Assyria and the rest of the population deported. The Bible relates that the population of Israel was exiled, becoming known as the Ten Lost Tribes. However, other writers[who?] estimate that only a fifth of the population (about 40,000) were actually resettled out of the area during the two deportation periods under Tiglath-Pileser and Sargon II.[17] Many also fled south to Jerusalem, which appears to have expanded in size fivefold during this period, requiring a new wall to be built, and a new source of water (Siloam) to be provided by Hezekiah."

Then in the wiki on "lost tribes" it gives the division of the tribes

Thus, the two divisions of the tribes are:

Traditional division:

* Reuben
* Simeon
* Levi
* Judah
* Issachar
* Zebulun
* Dan
* Naphtali
* Gad
* Asher
* Joseph
* Benjamin

And I believe in the Book of Mormon it mentioned Lehi being descendant of Joseph.

So I'm sorry I don't get why Joseph isn't part of the Lost tribes. Yes Lehi etc weren't lost, but they still were descendants were they not of Joseph, which appears to be a tribe division of one of the alledged lost tribes.


edit:
Ok so I just saw this part of your post:

3 Nephi 17:4 But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.


This was the resurrected Jesus talking to the Nephites.

Well that's not likely to have been written by Spalding because he didn't incorporate a Jesus in the storyline. Where else in the book does it specifically say that the people descended from Lehi and family throughout the book are not part of the "lost tribes"?

[_wenglund]

No one has addressed the lost tribes except to speculate with absolutely no foundation, that the lost 116 pages contained such a story.

Even were one to charitably grant that the 10 tribes may have been mentioned in the lost 116 pages, those lost pages were not in the published Book of Mormon which the Conneaut witnesses claimed to have read and pronounced was the "same as" the Spalding manuscript. The fact that they implicitly recalled reading, close to the time of their statements, something in the Book of Mormon that obviously wasn't there, ought to cast at least some doubt about their correctly recalling something they may have heard or read more than 11 years earlier. At the very least it smack of something amiss.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

What I am pointing out is very possible. Miller was the only one of the Conneaut witnesses to make that connection and was the only one of the witnesses known to have been in an area where the "mormonites" were preaching the Book of Mormon. Miller need not have even heard the preaching, but could easily have read an account in the newspapers. We are talking about twenty years after the fact of those original discussions here and not something that anyone noted having discussed in the interim.

Glenn I explained what I meant by your suggestion being highly improbable. Your suggestion is not simply limited to Miller confusing where and how he first heard about Darien, what you are suggesting is that if one can make that argument, then one can also argue he could have been confused with everything else in his statement. That's the part that's highly improbable Glenn. The length of exposure over months, the details he relates of listening to spalding read at dinner time, and then his noted interest in that particular manuscript as opposed to others and his reading it, the discussions he had with spalding..these are not indicators he has any source memory issue of the events he is recalling. That means there is no indication he's confusing his memories on different but similar events. I realize that is what you are arguing with his mention of Darien. But you aren't arguing he's lying, you are arguing he's confused. It's such a small part of the statement. He could just as easily have remembered or even asked Spalding ..where he had intended to land the people.

And, it just as easily could have been the story of the "mormonite" preachers that helped Miller to "remember" something from another source. Not even "deeply encoded" Henry Lake had those memories, but Henry was very explicit about the ten tribes though.

[/quote]

But it would require Glenn that he's confused as to when and where he first heard about Darien and hence thinks Spalding mentioned it, but actually he heard it from a missionary recently and is simply unaware.

I think the 2 events are too dissimilar to confuse them. One is a missionary at a meeting talking about the Book of Mormon and the other is spalding discussing a book Miller is interested in personally. I highly doubt he would have memory confusion over when and where he first heard it.

Now if you are accusing him of lying and inserting that information deliberately ..that's a different story.

[_why me]

Two years ago I met an old friend in New York City. We were the best of friends and spent much time together. I had the impression that we were seeing each other for years as friends. But actually she reminded me that we met in 1980 and went separate ways around 1983. I couldn't believe the time line. I thought that it was much longer in years.

It just shows the tricks the mind can play as time moves on.

[_GlennThigpen]

Of course you know there is no tribe of Joseph.

Glenn the lost tribes business is foreign to me and seems complex..I just don't relate to it.

In the wiki article when it lists 12 tribe divisions..it lists Joseph.

I am beginning to understand part of your problem if the lost tribes is foreign to you. You need to do some research on those lost tribes. The wiki article is incorrect. There is no tribe of Joseph.

So the issue is Nephi and Lehi were unlost...because they were in Jerusalem.

I'm sorry I still don't understand.

From wiki on Judah:

Destruction of Israel


"Israel continued to exist within the reduced territory as an independent kingdom until around 720 BCE, when it was again invaded by Assyria and the rest of the population deported. The Bible relates that the population of Israel was exiled, becoming known as the Ten Lost Tribes. However, other writers[who?] estimate that only a fifth of the population (about 40,000) were actually resettled out of the area during the two deportation periods under Tiglath-Pileser and Sargon II.[17] Many also fled south to Jerusalem, which appears to have expanded in size fivefold during this period, requiring a new wall to be built, and a new source of water (Siloam) to be provided by Hezekiah."

Then in the wiki on "lost tribes" it gives the division of the tribes

Thus, the two divisions of the tribes are:

Traditional division:

* Reuben
* Simeon
* Levi
* Judah
* Issachar
* Zebulun
* Dan
* Naphtali
* Gad
* Asher
* Joseph
* Benjamin

And I believe in the Book of Mormon it mentioned Lehi being descendant of Joseph.

So I'm sorry I don't get why Joseph isn't part of the Lost tribes. Yes Lehi etc weren't lost, but they still were descendants were they not of Joseph, which appears to be a tribe division of one of the alledged lost tribes.

As I said, the wiki article is incorrect. Those are the twelve sons of Israel but the actual tribes are different. Joseph received a double portion of the inheritance through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh. You need to read the Book of Joshua and you will understand it a bit more. I don't know if you are very familiar with the Old Testament. You need to become familiar with it in order to understand what the Conneaut people would have understood by the lost tribes and to understand what I am talking about. You also really need to study the Book of Mormon more closely. It is something that the witnesses evidently did not do.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Neither of you spent time with the author discussing MF, an author who put his work in progress manuscript into context for his readers and how it related to something of common interest to them .."a historical account of ancestors of Indians in America" in which they'd have memories of when and where Spalding discussed this with them as well as hearing his voice. To them without much other entertainment available that was a very unique experience something you haven't gone through with MSCC.

None of this guarantees accurate memory or prevents memory confabulation. Whether I read it myself or had the resurrected Spalding read it to me, the book is unremarkable and boring and forgetful. Do you think you could remember the Book of Mormon any better if you had heard it read by Joseph Smith? Doubtful. Don’t feel bad. In my experience, many believing Mormons remember about as much as you do.

Here you argue for uniqueness of the event, but elsewhere you argue that it was repeated and commonplace for these witnesses. Their memories were deeply embedded through repetition, as if Spalding read the whole MS to these witnesses more than once—which is doubtful. Likely, the reading and discussion was different on more than one occasion, at least for some of the witnesses (although that hasn’t been established, as Glenn has pointed out more than once). Regardless, one can see how this mixture and reading and discussion (which might have included the Jewish origin of the Indians) could be come amalgamated in their memories.

You also are trying to remember without any retrieval cue...they had the retrieval cue of the Book of Mormon.

This begs the question. You have not established the Book of Mormon was a retrieval cue; it may have been a memory contaminator.

If you had a few manuscripts put before you, one being MSCC and another similar one but with a different time period, different names, different story you'd likely would recall MSCC and differentiate it from the other one you had not been exposed to.

Not if your memory was vague and you were highly motivated to expose the Mormon missionaries as frauds, as Nehemiah King (according to Aron Wright) was. I’ll repeat what I have said:

Orson Hyde preached the Book of Mormon at Conneaut (OH). Nehemiah King, according to Aron Wright, left the meeting claiming Hyde had preached from the writings of Solomon Spalding (see 31 Dec. 1833 statement in Cowdery et al., 73). Thus, discussions about Spalding's writings and the Book of Mormon were circulating for a year before Hurlbut came, allowing one witness to contaminate another.

The people in this discussion who are using false memory to dismiss the Conneaut witnesses do not seem to appreciate what memory entails as per scientific studies not to mention simply common sense...either that or they don't want to appreciate what memory entails. The argument of false memory appears to be used conveniently rather than basing it on good reasoning.

Common sense tells us the earth is flat—but it’s not. Sometimes we learn things that are counter intuitive—like memory isn’t as reliable as most of us assume.

It should be obvious why your experiences reading MSCC is different than theirs and how that would affect your recalls of it.

I was just agreeing with Wade. I wouldn’t use my personal experience as evidence against the Conneaut witnesses.

And Dan you don't have much flack on this because most of the people who argue in these discussions who are Mormon are very biased and will support you not because they agree with your Smith alone secular theory, but because they are heavily motivated to dismiss the conneaut witnesses based on emotional reasons. They can accept a secular Smith alone theory but can not accept a theory involving a conspiracy of others with Smith. So we aren't really getting an objective discussion with intellectually honest people not heavily motivated to support one theory versus another. Although I discuss this theory, I have no vested personal interest, I really couldn't care less if Smith wrote the Book of Mormon alone or if it was done with others. I'm not motivated for any personal faith based reason to come to a conclusion one way or another.

I’ll let you in on a secret. Mormon’s oppose the Spalding theory, not because of some emotional reason, but because it’s so easy. They would like to use Spaldingites as an example of how desperate anti-Mormons are to dismiss the Book of Mormon. In fact, the advent of the Spalding theory was a critical error of Hurlbut’s, because it distracted from Alexander Campbell’s 1831 assessment of the Book of Mormon as a reflection of Joseph Smith’s cultural environment and made it easy for Mormon missionaries to debate against. So if it gets the discussion back on track, I’m happy to help them. And I don’t care what your motives or biases are—you’re still wrong.

So when you both say in this thread you can't remember MSCC, with the implication therefore neither could the conneaut witnesses remember MF...you both are not fairly evaluating the data, nor are either of you appreciating any sort of understanding of what memory studies do say.

Reading a few things about memory doesn’t make you more of an expert on the Conneaut witnesses’ memories than us. No one can read their minds to know what theory best applies to them. You can read a thousand books on memory, and you still will not be able to answer that question with the precision you seek. You cannot win this debate with more knowledge about memory studies and an insistence on correctly applying its principles to something that happened more than two hundred years ago. There is simply not enough historical data for that kind of assessment. Now, there is nothing wrong with trying to become more sophisticated with one’s analysis, but it all comes down to the structure of one’s argument—which you have been slow to understand. Besides, your quibbling with Loftus can come back and be used against anything you bring forward to defend their memories.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Smith alone secular theory, but because they are heavily motivated to dismiss the conneaut witnesses based on emotional reasons. They can accept a secular Smith alone theory
...

Willard C. Smith more or less addressed this aspect of "theory"
promulgation in 1979, in his "In the Shadow of Solomon Spalding."

This LDS archivist and historian argued that the Spalding theory
actually had a stronger basis than did the secular Smith-alone claims.

Of course the writer was (then) uninformed of subsequent computer
analysis of word-print distributions, etc. So his conclusions were
limited to the scope of information available at the end of the 1970s.

Nevertheless, he presents an understanding of how Campbell's initial
communications on Book of Mormon origins were eventually overrun
by Spalding-Rigdon claims: to the point that Campbell himself became
an advocate of the testimony given by Spalding's widow and by
Spalding's old associates.

At the time Campbell issued his 1831 "Delusions," the local newspapers
in Rigdon's region of Ohio were crediting Rigdon with having broken
away from Campbell, creating the Book of Mormon as a new revelation
that would establish Rigdon's followers as an independent movement.

Alexander Campbell (and his father) were obviously not happy about
this prospect, and were eager to undermine Mormonism's growth
among the Campbellite "reformed Baptists" in northeastern Ohio. Both
men traveled to that area, attempting to halt defections to Rigdon.
Their efforts were particularly active among the Rigdonites in the
Kirtland and Hiram areas. All of this activity coincided with the
1831 publication of Campbell's "Delusions."

In that lengthy article Campbell accused the Book of Mormon writer
of having revived and refuted all of the contemporary religious
controversies of western New York --- but Campbell did not bother
to mention that the Book of Mormon also solved most of the religious
controversies addressed throughout the late 1820s in Campbell's
own, Pittsburgh area, Christian Baptist.

It is understandable that, in 1831, Campbell and his father were eager
to deflect attention away from their own "Restoration movement"
tenets reflected (or improved upon) in the Book of Mormon. It is
equally understandable why the Campbells were ready to accuse
Rigdon of a sort of temporary insanity, but not with having founded
Mormonism itself. The Campbells had associated closely with Rigdon
for years -- he was a frequent guest in their homes -- a fellow
orator from their pulpits. They knew that he was prone to great
swings in his temperament and ecclesiastical loyalties.

Given a few months in which to burn itself out, the 1831 Mormon
fervor might fade away, having been exposed as a fraud, and the
Rigdonites could then be re-gathered to the Campbellite flock. At
least Campbell expressed some hints of that hope in the article
following his 1831 "Delusions."

However, back in 1831, the Campbells' corporate interests were
best served by "pinning the blame" on Joseph Smith -- and leaving
Rigdon out of the Book of Mormon authorship controversy. As
Willard C. Smith explains, Alexander Campbell did not know Joseph
Smith -- in fact, knew practically nothing about him and his literary
abilities -- back in 1831. Campbell's "Delusions" did not catch on
with students of Mormonism's rise and progress; and the Campbells
themselves became Spalding-Rigdon authorship advocates.

Willard C. Smith cites some of this background information, in his
demonstrating why the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims were
more reasonable than Campbell's 1831 accusations. Of course the
compiler of "In the Shadow of Solomon Spalding" rejected the entire
explanation for a 19th century Book of Mormon origin. But his paper
is still worth reading, for a comparison of theories. See especially
his Part III: "Strengths of the Theory."


http://www.solomonspalding.com/Lib/Smit1979.htm

UD

[_marg]

Dan I think that the Book of Mormon is memorable for people who relate it to their lives, who take it seriously as a historical divinely inspired book, who read it often, refer to passages in it such as on message boards.

I don't remember much of the Book of Mormon because I don't discuss it with anyone, I don't relate it to my life, I have no connection personally to it, don't take it seriously as a historical account and unlike the Conneaut I am not personally connected to the writers of it. If someone I knew intimately had written the Book of Mormon and discussed it with me I could remember more I’m sure. The mere fact that the witnesses knew Spalding intimately that they would heard him read it, they would discuss it with him and read it themselves gave them connection to Spalding’s book which would make it memorable as a result of those connections and experiences.

Here you argue for uniqueness of the event, but elsewhere you argue that it was repeated and commonplace for these witnesses

I'm not sure what you mean by “commonplace” for these witnesses. Spalding’s reading to them would be unique to their every day lives. But that he would often read to them does not mean the experience was commonplace it still would've been unique.

I don't know what you mean by "the reading and discussion was different on more than one occasion at least for some of the witnesses although that hasn't been established". Most of the witnesses described frequent discussions and Spalding reading to them. I also don't understand your comment which "might have included the Jewish origin of the Indians" doesn't the Book of Mormon suggest Jewish origins of the characters within?

Moving on to your comment on retrieval cue, when I said they had a retrieval cue with the Book of Mormon and you didn't that was to compare their experience versus yours. The point was that if you had a retrieval cue of MSCC ..in my opinion you would likely be able to recognize it as such and differentiate it from other manuscripts.

When you say the Book of Mormon may have been a memory contaminate … do you mean they got confused with their memories of MSCC or are you suggesting it served to implant false memories?

Addressing the likelihood of implanted memories we already know from the Loftus study you cited that she only had a 25% success rate. And that was despite that the memory to be recalled was from when the subjects were five years old. I read (sorry I don't have the quote) that long-term memory does not form up to the age of three. And I think we know that our memories from when we were 5 is sketchy at best. So even with the situation Loftus set up to encourage susceptibility with a high degree she had just 25% success. Yet we have the Conneaut witnesses recalling their memories from early adulthood not 5 years old, with no authority conflicting with their recall such as Loftus using parents statements of event as counter evidence should subjects not remember…and what the Conneaut witnesses described was context for a source memory which Loftus’s subjects didn’t have. The Conneaut witnesses have memories not just of the story but the context in which they listened, and read the story. So your suggestion to use Loftus’s study to support implanted memories of the Conneaut witnesses is not warranted because the correlation is too weak.

So the next possible contamination is them confusing MSCC with the Book of Mormon. And yet we know a number of them were shown MSCC, recognized it as Spalding's but not the one they had referred to in their original statement to Hurbut. And we have Miller's daughter recalling Hurlbert questioning Miller and reading to him the Book of Mormon with Miller having him stop reading and then telling him what happens next. People in the studies I've read about who confuse their memories of an event with another event generally do so because they have limited memory of the context in which they experience the event and hence they confuse their memory with another either similar event or one happening at the same time. But in the situation with the Conneat witnesses they remember the circumstances when they discussed with him and they connect those circumstances to their memories of the story they heard and/or read. This is not an indication of confusion due to poor source memory.

I wrote: If you had a few manuscripts put before you, one being MSCC and another similar one but with a different time period, different names, different story you'd likely would recall MSCC and differentiate it from the other one you had not been exposed to.

You wrote:
Not if your memory was vague and you were highly motivated to expose the Mormon missionaries as frauds, as Nehemiah King (according to Aron Wright) was. I’ll repeat what I have said:

My comment to you was because you said your memory of Conneaut Creek was vague. And my point was that you could still identify it if it was shown to you among other manuscripts. That you would be able to point it out. Even though the details of the manuscript at this point you are vague about.

With regards to the witnesses being highly motivated to expose the Mormon missionaries I don't think the evidence supports that. You say they had a whole year to discuss yet if that is so, why didn’t they do something before Hurblut arrived to expose Mormonism. Why is it they were always the one’s to be contacted to give statements and theynever went out of their way to do so nor did they put much effort into giving of their statements. They all used the same/similar wording to describe the Book of Mormon. It’s appears to be out of laziness, certainly it is no indication of being highly motivated to discredit Mormonism

You say: Orson Hyde preached the Book of Mormon at Conneaut (OH). Nehemiah King, according to Aron Wright, left the meeting claiming Hyde had preached from the writings of Solomon Spalding (see 31 Dec. 1833 statement in Cowdery et al., 73). Thus, discussions about Spalding's writings and the Book of Mormon were circulating for a year before Hurlbut came, allowing one witness to contaminate another.

So now you are suggesting it’s not Hurlbut or the Book of Mormon contaminating their memories but rather the witnesses themselves in discussions contaminating their memories. So you are suggesting that even though Aron Wright said he had many private interviews with Spalding and the topic of conversation was the history he was writing and even though Aron Wright was shown MSCC story and denied it being the one he had referenced in his statement, ..you are suggesting he's confusing all that with his discussion with the other witnesses and somehow they are all confused and have created a memory that is false. Then we have Miller's daughter remembering her father telling Hurlbut in advance what the Book of Mormon was going to say and I suppose somehow she's confused. And all the witnesses who mentioned it written in old biblical style are confused, they just through their discussion convinced each other it was written in biblical style. And I suppose even the printer who wasn’t in contact with them R. patterson he must be confused too about his memory of biblical style writing of Spalding’s manuscript. And none of them appreciate they are confused. They’ve all managed to talk themselves into a false memory of all those discussions with Spalding, all those readings and listening to him read. They forget all that and are now convincing themselves they heard something very different than what they actually heard.

You're carrying this notion of “contamination” to the extreme of being unreasonable. In the studies that I read in which witnesses got confused they did so because they were exposed briefly to a scene for example, or a list of words, or a paragraph and details in those events did not have an opportunity to encode well into long term memory. And hence they were susceptible to getting those memories confused with either other similar memories, or knowledge related. Sometimes stress or trauma is a contributing factors such that people do not focus on details. But the Conneaut witnesses were not under stress. The event was a unique event to them not easily confusable with other mundane events or other memories or knowledge they had. And the memories which they say they clearly remember such as Spalding’s manuscript was written in biblical language… that's not something easily confusable. It is also something easily remembered. And as we know from the Loftus study which you cited regarding implanting memories which is essentially what you are suggesting with contamination from discussions with each other ..well it is not all the successful even under the best of conditions.

You write: Common sense tells us the earth is flat—but it’s not. Sometimes we learn things that are counter intuitive—like memory isn’t as reliable as most of us assume.

Yes memory can fail us. But the indicators from what the Conneaut witnesses describe is that they have some clear memories some of which were brought fresh to their recollection by the Book of Mormon. You have not given a study which correlates with the Conneaut witnesses well. Mikwuts study cited of Bartlett's “war of the ghosts” was not comparable. The problem with it is that the subjects were exposed to the short paragraph “War of the Ghosts”only a matter of minutes. They were to hear or read a few short paragraphs twice. It was quite understandable why their memories should deteriorate over time and that they should eventually confuse details of the story such as canoe with their common knowledge of similar items such as boat when boat wasn't in the story.

You write: "I’ll let you in on a secret. Mormon’s oppose the Spalding theory, not because of some emotional reason, but because it’s so easy. They would like to use Spaldingites as an example of how desperate anti-Mormons are to dismiss the Book of Mormon. In fact, the advent of the Spalding theory was a critical error of Hurlbut’s, because it distracted from Alexander Campbell’s 1831 assessment of the Book of Mormon as a reflection of Joseph Smith’s cultural environment and made it easy for Mormon missionaries to debate against. So if it gets the discussion back on track, I’m happy to help them. And I don’t care what your motives or biases are—you’re still wrong."

Well Dan, your argument that you have that the Conneat Witnesses have false memories is not backed up any study..no study that I’ve seen from anyone on this message board comes close. Originally you argued Loftus’s is study “lost in the mall” supported your argument but it does not. Now you’re getting away from that warrant and suggesting the witnesses by discussion amongst themselves contaminated their memories. As I argued above that's also ridiculous given the evidence.

Yes, It is easy to oppose the Spalding theory ..but it is not easy to oppose it with good arguments. Your arguments are on the whole weak and lazy arguments. You get away with it because those most interested in this discussion tend to support you out of emotional faith based reasons that only Smith could have been involved with the contents of the Book of Mormon.

Your argument for example that the witnesses to the translation process for the Book of Mormon are credible and it is for that reason you reject the Conneaut witnesses is ridiculous at best. For such an argument to be well grounded the witnesses to the translation process would have to be extremely reliable, beyond reproach and the supporting evidence support their claims. But this is so far from the case. They are not noted reliable consistent, trustworthy witnesses. They are all connected to each other and involved in the con. What do you expect them to say regarding the translation process. You are extremely naïve if you expect them to say that Smith and Cowdery had a manuscript or other papers with them during the process. Instead what we see of these witnesses is inconsistencies in their claims but as well a willingness to make unrealistic claims which defy natural physical laws all in an apparent desire to support the church. None of them Dan are noted for being honest truth telling individuals. They all are loyal to the cause and they obviously willingly lie for it.

So those witnesses are not the least bit reliable and if that's your reasoning to dismiss the Conneaut witnesses it's a pretty poor argument. I realize there are a few anti Mormon witnesses to the translation process but those witnesses were exposed briefly and under circumstances in which for a short period of time Smith and Cowdery could put on a temporary act. When Emma’s dad would see Smith and Cowdery it would only be when he went to the cottage on his property to see them, which I’m sure he didn’t do often and when he did they likely observed his approach.

Another reason the Spalding argument is easy to oppose is it's complicated. It not easy like your Smith alone theory which essentially requires no evidence for the naïve and poorly informed and is supported by the church. I know that if I presented the evidence to objective intelligent individuals that I know they would accept the Conneaut witnesses over the Book of Mormon translation witnesses. Frankly Dan there is no good reason to reject the Conneaut witnesses, that’s why your arguments rejecting them are so poor and to the point of being ridiculous. You get away with it, simply because of the environment you are presenting your arguments in, in which the emotional biased individuals are highly motivated to accept any ridiculously and poorly warranted argument.

You seem to think that if one supports the Spalding theory they must be extremely anti-Mormon in doing so. From my point of view the reason I support the Spalding theory is because it is the best fit theory for the evidence. It is just wrong to promote history which is not well warranted. Wrong wrong wrong...

You write: Reading a few things about memory doesn’t make you more of an expert on the Conneaut witnesses’ memories than us. No one can read their minds to know what theory best applies to them. You can read a thousand books on memory, and you still will not be able to answer that question with the precision you seek. You cannot win this debate with more knowledge about memory studies and an insistence on correctly applying its principles to something that happened more than two hundred years ago. There is simply not enough historical data for that kind of assessment. Now, there is nothing wrong with trying to become more sophisticated with one’s analysis, but it all comes down to the structure of one’s argument—which you have been slow to understand. Besides, your quibbling with Loftus can come back and be used against anything you bring forward to defend their memories.

Dan you are the one who argued initially that the studies support false memory for the Conneaut witnesses. And you cited some studies. And I looked into those and appreciated they did not correlate even closely to the situation with the Conneaut witnesses. I didn't ask you to cite a study which was exact to what the Conneaut witnesses experienced I only wanted a study which correlated in key respects with what they experienced.

As far as winning this debate..you haven’t won it Dan. Your arguments and the more you talk about them reveals just how poorly warranted and unreasonable they are. For you to suggest that the Book of Mormon witnesses are reliable…not just averagely reliable but reliable to the extreme, in fact so reliable that you reject the Conneaut witnesses' claims….is pathetically sad. It floors me that you’d argue this, that you can not appreciate all the reasons why those witnesses antithesis of examples of being reliable. Could you imagine a lawyer defending a group of criminals of a con arguing that what they say should be believed because they are reliable, but that all the witnesses making statements which counter them houldn’t be believe because they must have talked themselves into false memories? That’s essentially what you are doing Dan. This particular argument of yours is so ridiculous.

Your other argument on false memory of the Conneaut witnesses is also poor and not warranted by any study. If if you going to win this argument with objective reasonably intelligent individuals you need to have some arguments well warranted.

Of course you have the advantage and support from the church and its apologists. And most people outside of any ties with Mormonism couldn’t care less about this issue. And you have the advantage that the smith alone theory is an easy theory out of simplicity. Those advantages don’t translate into you having the right historical theory, the one which best fits the evidence, the one most likely to have occurred.

[_MCB]

Dan wrote:

Thus, discussions about Spalding's writings and the Book of Mormon were circulating for a year before Hurlbut came, allowing one witness to contaminate another.

I agree. Brodie said that the consistency of their statements indicated coaching by Hurlbut. That is not the case. Just as John and Martha extensively discussed it, so did the others discuss it.

"Was it Spalding' s manuscript that was burned?"

Hurlburt waited a moment before answering, his wife looking at him with a pleading, sad expression of countenance.

"Mrs. Davison thought it was; but when I just peeped into it here and there and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi, I thought it was all nonsense; why, if it had been the real one I could have sold it for $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account."

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/18 ... htm#pg062a

So when Hurlbut paged through it, and the first part didn't match, he just chucked the whole thing, without realizing that it was the second half that bore the compelling resemblances.

[_marg]

I agree. Brodie said that the consistency of their statements indicated coaching by Hurlbut. That is not the case. Just as John and Martha extensively discussed it, so did the others discuss it.

So MCB what are you agreeing with? Do you think if they had discussions that those discussions generated false memories of their time with Spalding. That their memories reflected in their statements of hearing Spalding read and discuss the book and their reading of it and what it contained were contaminated by their recent discussions such that they had faulty recollections, at least in some areas of their statements.