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

[_Dan Vogel]

Glenn,

It’s always possible to go outside the text and imagine various scenarios to resolve a conflict that occurs in a narrative. I’m sure you’ve seen this done to resolve contradictions in the Bible. My approach to the text here has more to do with literary criticism than historical realism. I’m limiting my focus to how the text works. My point, regardless if you buy the explanation given by Joseph Smith or not, it is doubtful that the lost 116 pages mentioned either Coriantumr or Lehi’s 600-year prophecy and their introduction in the replacement text causes problems in the story line that follows. The reason I included Sorenson and Roper was to show that even apologists recognize there is a problem in the text, despite their attempts to resolve it.

Other similar problems are--

Jacob’s preaches against Nephite polygamy as a major threat to the nation (Jac. 2), yet, with the exception of until King Noah and his wicked priests are mentioned (Mosiah 11), this problem doesn’t plague the Nephites even in their most wicked days.

Nephi (quoting ancient Joseph) predicts the coming of the great prophet “Joseph,” the son of Joseph (2 Ne. 3:15), yet later prophets don’t mention this prediction. Not even Moroni, who addresses the future translator, mentions his name (Ether 5).

Lehi blesses his son Joseph that his “seed shall not utterly be destroyed” (2 Ne. 3:2-3), but later prophets predict the absolute destruction of the Nephites (Mosiah 12:8; Alma 9:24; Hel. 7:24; 15:17).

I have emphasized problems associated with the order of dictation, but there are many other incongruities tending to show the Book of Mormon was essentially an ad hoc dictation and not the well planed MS that the Spalding theory demands. I realize this line of argumentation is not available to you as a believe, but it is to me and I feel the case must be made.

[Guest]

not the well planned MS that the Spalding theory demands.

??? There is minimal Spalding content in the books previous to WoM. This is because they had lost access to the Spalding manuscript, or derivatives of it. Thus, there is poor planning previous to WoM. And confusion in the first half of Mosiah.

I hypothesize that Spalding wrote Ether as a standalone, but related text, or prequel. Again, I am amazed that Smith & Co. did not move it to the beginning of the book to substitute for the lost 116. But, if such an action did not serve their pious fraud purposes, perhaps what they did do was reasonable to them.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn,

It’s always possible to go outside the text and imagine various scenarios to resolve a conflict that occurs in a narrative. I’m sure you’ve seen this done to resolve contradictions in the Bible. My approach to the text here has more to do with literary criticism than historical realism. I’m limiting my focus to how the text works. My point, regardless if you buy the explanation given by Joseph Smith or not, it is doubtful that the lost 116 pages mentioned either Coriantumr or Lehi’s 600-year prophecy and their introduction in the replacement text causes problems in the story line that follows. The reason I included Sorenson and Roper was to show that even apologists recognize there is a problem in the text, despite their attempts to resolve it.

Other similar problems are--

Jacob’s preaches against Nephite polygamy as a major threat to the nation (Jac. 2), yet, with the exception of until King Noah and his wicked priests are mentioned (Mosiah 11), this problem doesn’t plague the Nephites even in their most wicked days.

Nephi (quoting ancient Joseph) predicts the coming of the great prophet “Joseph,” the son of Joseph (2 Ne. 3:15), yet later prophets don’t mention this prediction. Not even Moroni, who addresses the future translator, mentions his name (Ether 5).

Lehi blesses his son Joseph that his “seed shall not utterly be destroyed” (2 Ne. 3:2-3), but later prophets predict the absolute destruction of the Nephites (Mosiah 12:8; Alma 9:24; Hel. 7:24; 15:17).

I have emphasized problems associated with the order of dictation, but there are many other incongruities tending to show the Book of Mormon was essentially an ad hoc dictation and not the well planed MS that the Spalding theory demands. I realize this line of argumentation is not available to you as a believe, but it is to me and I feel the case must be made.

Dan, I understand you position and logic. As a non-believer, there are certain lines of argumentation that are unavailable to you also. And that is just where we will continue to agree to disagree. Some of your points I feel are interpretations of what you feel should have been the case, while there are also other interpretations that have equal plausibility.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
a non-believer
...

I've often wondered exactly what this term entails. I heard it used in
2000, in the CoC Temple, when an LDS scholar gave a presentation
there and supposed that it meant:

1. That many in the audience did not accept the CofJCofLDS as God's
one True Church on earth.

But perhaps also:

2. That some in the audience did not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet.

And even...

3. That a few in the audience did not even claim to be Christians at all.

Can an observant Mormon be a "non-believer" ??? -- say, not believing
in the content of Brigham Young's discourses -- nor in Nephites?

It would be helpful if Mormons would inform us "non-believers" just
exactly what it is that we must believe, before we can re-construct
accurate Mormon origins explanations.

UD

[_MCB]

I guess I can go ahead and throw a premature lightening-bolt. One set of pieces of evidence of Joseph's learning problems, presented by Woodbridge Riley, in 1902, is contained in the Anthon Manuscript. He found two, I found a third, which is even more compelling.

[_Dan Vogel]

not the well planned MS that the Spalding theory demands.

??? There is minimal Spalding content in the books previous to WoM. This is because they had lost access to the Spalding manuscript, or derivatives of it. Thus, there is poor planning previous to WoM. And confusion in the first half of Mosiah.

I hypothesize that Spalding wrote Ether as a standalone, but related text, or prequel. Again, I am amazed that Smith & Co. did not move it to the beginning of the book to substitute for the lost 116. But, if such an action did not serve their pious fraud purposes, perhaps what they did do was reasonable to them.

As I said, there are problems all along the way, not just between the small plates and Mosiah, which tend to show the Book of Mormon was ad hoc and not well-planned, but that is another long discussion. Your statement about Ether makes no sense. As it reads now, it doesn’t stand alone, and it wouldn’t make sense using it to replace the 116 pages.

[_MCB]

As it reads now, it doesn’t stand alone, and it wouldn’t make sense using it to replace the 116 pages.

Thank you. Would need some rewriting, but since it happened first in the whole "history," it makes every bit of sense, in order to make sense of Mosiah. Mormon's commentary, for example, would have to be removed.

[_Dan Vogel]

Glenn,

Dan, I understand you position and logic. As a non-believer, there are certain lines of argumentation that are unavailable to you also. And that is just where we will continue to agree to disagree. Some of your points I feel are interpretations of what you feel should have been the case, while there are also other interpretations that have equal plausibility.

As long as you understand my position, you don’t necessarily have to agree. I believe these are problems that any literary critic would find. I also believe that these problems would not have occurred had Joseph Smith worked from a well-prepared MS—one that had the involvement of Spalding and Rigdon. But I don’t feel disposed to press this at the moment.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
evidence of Joseph's learning problems, presented by Woodbridge Riley, ...

Perhaps so. Development of an extraordinary memory is sometimes
triggered by the need to overcompensate for other mental factors.

Getting back to the Criddle presentation excerpt I posted earlier in
this thread -- his textual analysis methodology seems to be:

1. Chart out the distribution pattern for the chapters in the book that
correspond most closely with language used by Smith and Cowdery.

2. Add to that the distribution of chapters copied from the KJV.

3. Separate the remaining "blank spaces" on the Book of Mormon
chapters chart into "religious" and "historical" sections.

4. Compare the theology and religious practices in those "blank"
sections to Rigdon's early writings (and accounts of Rigdonism)

5. Compare the story line, plot development, literary themes, etc.,
in those remaining "blank" sections to Spalding's known writings.

Only AFTER all the above steps have been taken ---> then introduce
the "closed set" NSC authorship attributions, to compare with the
Book of Mormon chapters already judged most like the writings
of Smith, Cowdery, the KJV, Rigdon and Spalding (and perhaps Pratt).

In this textual examination methodology, the NSC "closed set" data
is not used as an argument for multiple authorship in the book -- but
rather, it is used as a secondary confirmation for most like
analysis already completed in steps 1-5.

Steps 6 and 7 would involve cross-comparing literary/theological
"markers" established for Smith, Cowdery and Rigdon, with the
Book of Mormon text in full -- to establish probable redaction
patterns and chronological correspondence to Book of Commandments
chapters attributed to Smith, Cowdery or Rigdon by NSC methods.

I think that this is a logical way to go about examining the text.

If Mormons can present a distribution of Book of Mormon chapters
even more closely resembling the writings of each of those
author-candidates, then so much the better. Criddle will not be
hobbled by one set of derived data, but will be free to apply his
comparative method to other researchers' findings.

For example, if the Smith-alone advocates wish to present their
list of chapters most like Smith's known literary output, that
will be fine and dandy ---- Just so long as they do not come up
with a chart that shows Smith's "voice" at a 100% level for all the
non-biblical chapters.

Same goes for the Mormons ---- Just so long as they do not come
up with a chart that is all 0% and 100% authorship attributions.

Remember -- what Criddle will be looking for is NOT computerized
results assigning authorship; but rather, analysis depicting the
most like textual matches to various purported contributors.

Once something like a consensus opinion is reached, THEN a theory
narrative can be articulated, showing why, when, where, how & who
contributed to Mormon origins.

THAT should provide you with some information to consult when you
are reading books like Riley's old volume.

UD

[Guest]

Marg,

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.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. You have argued that the witnesses’ memories were accurate because they heard Spalding read on several occasions (although Glenn countered this claim), but now you are arguing they remembered because it was a unique experience—which is it? Your first argument works if they read the same thing each time and their memories were reinforced. However, if it was a unique experience each time, there would be no reinforcement. In other words, if a different part of the MS were read on different occasions, then Glenn was right that they head it read only once, by piecemeal. You think Spalding’s reading to friends and family was unique in those days? You’re clutching at straws here. There’s no guarantee that their memories would be accurate or impervious to suggestion.

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?

I meant that if there were multiple readings, it’s not likely to have been the same parts over and over and thus reinforce memory. However, Glenn questioned your assertion of multiple readings. It is also possible that Spalding discussed (rather than read) the ten tribe theory of Indian origins (as opposed to his thesis of Roman origins), which was popular at the time. The Book of Mormon appears to be unique in claiming Jewish origins from Jerusalem. I hope that’s more clear.

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.

Maybe. But I wouldn’t trust anything I said in relation thereto unless it could be verified independently. I think I could be easily fooled if presented with a similar book.

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?

The latter, along with the suggestion that the Book of Mormon was the same book.

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.

We’ve gone over this several times. All Loftus established was that false memories can be implanted through suggestion. This is just one study. You are aware that stories of ritual abuse and rape have been unintentionally implanted by therapists. 25% is high given the fact that there were no real memories to begin with. With the Conneaut witnesses, we are dealing with real but vague memories, the positive statement of Nehemiah King, and a similar book based on the same Mound Builder Myth and strange names, one can expect a higher success rate. We don’t know the total of potential Spalding witnesses, so we don’t know the success rate. It doesn’t have to be childhood memories either, but that is the way Loftus chose to test vague memories. Memory is never complete, but as it fades it has a tendency to fill in gaps and adopt plausible suggestions.

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.

Any historian is going to question Rachel Miller Derby’s fifty-year-old memory. I couldn’t find how old she was in 1833. I don’t question what she observed, but I have reason to believe her interpretation of it might be off. Her father, John N. Miller, said:

“I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." Many of the passages in the Mormon Book are verbatim from Spalding, and others in part.”

I doubt Hurlbut read the whole book to him before he gave his statement, which is dated Springfield, PA, Sept. 1833. Hurlbut preached against Mormonism in Springfield in early July 1833. During the interval, it’s possible that he had read the Book of Mormon, and what Rachel witnessed was her father impressing Hurlbut with his memory, not necessarily his memory of Spalding’s MS.

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

They were interested to stop Mormonism in their own neighborhood, not necessarily to become missionaries against Mormonism like Hurlbut. But when asked by Hurlbut, some of them seem overly eager to provide evidence against Mormonism, which caused them to overstate their case. For example, John N. Miller’s statement--“Many of the passages in the Mormon Book are verbatim from Spalding, and others in part.”—is not credible. His memory is so good that he knows some passages are only partially from Spalding—he doesn’t question that these passages may be verbatim but his memory vague. These kinds of overstatements show their eagerness to provide evidence against Mormonism.

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 blending various kinds of witnesses separated by decades. The testimony is complex and one theory might not explain all of them. I’m primarily concerned with the first witnesses who got the ball rolling. I’m not sure the Conneaut witnesses were the only one’s from the community who had memories of Spalding and his MS; they were the only one’s Hurlbut pursued for statements. Feasibly, thee were others in the community who had different memories, but didn’t come forward thinking that they must have seen a different MS than those who made statements. Of course, the Book of Mormon provided the material that contaminated their memories and Hurlbut asked leading questions, but discussion among the witnesses may have helped the process along. Like Loftus, one witness could have said to another: “I remember the names Nephi and Lehi don’t you?” The other says: “I’m not sure, but maybe.” Loftus’s research would suggest that this “maybe” could become more certain in time.

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 hences 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 can’t rule out contamination based on a speculation that the Conneaut witnesses had long term memories. You don’t know that. There isn’t enough data to make that determination. Besides, long term memory isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t mean everything about the event is long term either. While general things would be long lasting, it’s not likely that strange names would be deeply imbedded in any case. Unless someone said, “I know Spalding MS used the name Lehi because I remember thinking at the time the name was a variation of the Valley or River of Lehigh in Pennsylvania.” That would be personalizing the information in a way that it would make it more likely to remember—but none of them did that.
Miller’s claim to know passages were verbatim is extremely doubtful. After twenty years, these memories would have become vague. Memory is selective and records what is meaningful at the time, not meaningful later. Spalding’s romance and the Book of Mormon are similar in their borrowing of the Mound Builder Myth, which makes it confusable. We know some of the information they claimed to remember had been corrupted with their recent exposure to the Book of Mormon, which lead them to confuse the popular ten tribe theory with the Book of Mormon.

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.

I hope you and Mikwut continue your discussion. I was waiting for that to happen before I posted this reply. But, sadly, it didn’t. Nevertheless, you don’t know that the Book of Mormon brought clear memories or corrupted memories, unless you can read their minds. Miller’s statement is clearly an exaggeration, which brings his statement into question. We have to be skeptical of what he said he remembered. Mikwut’s study shows what is know generally about memory. I don’t know that the Conneaut witnesses’ memories were better prepared than the one’s in the study. They read or were read different segments from the same MS—not the same MS over and over. In essence, they were asked to remember several short stories over a longer period of time without knowing they were going to be tested.

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.

My argument is backed up by the evidence, just not by your interpretation of the evidence. First, I have consistently generalized the evidence to what is learned about memory; you have demanded replication to what the Conneaut witnesses experienced, assuming you knew what that was. Second, I have always maintained that the Mormon witnesses’ testimonies that there was no MS used (which is supported by Joseph Smith’s inability to replace the lost 116-page MS and the ad hoc way the Book of Mormon was put together) are strong evidence against the reliability of the Conneaut witnesses’ memories; in such case, false memory theory offers an explanation for what may have occurred. If the Spalding witnesses’ memories were corrupted by popular theories about the ten tribes and the Book of Mormon, then Loftus’s studies are pertinent. All studies involving false memory or memory substitution are relevant since they tell us how memory can be fooled.

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.

I was thinking the same about your arguments. In my estimation, they are little more than quibbling and stonewalling. You are attempting to defend the accuracy of the Conneaut witnesses’ memories, without any means of testing them.

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, trushworthy 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.

You don’t know what you are talking about. First, you don’t know who all the witnesses were—some were not even believers. Second, you have no evidence that anyone beside Joseph Smith was involved in the con, except by some convoluted and circular reasoning. Third, Harris, Cowdery, and the Whitmers were trusted members of their communities after their years as Mormons. Fourth, claims of visions is not evidence of lying.

So those witnesses are not the least bit reliable and if that's your reasoning to dismiss the cannot witnesses it's a pretty poor argument. I realize there are few anti Mormon witnesses to the translation process but those witnesses were exposed briefly and under cicumstances 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.

Again, you don’t know what you are talking about. By “cannot witnesses” you mean Conneaut witnesses. I always dread reading things written using voice recognition software. The post is a lot longer than need be, and not well thought out--basically, it’s a waste of my time, so I’ll skip some of your uninformed ramblings.

You seem to think that if one supports the Spalding theory they must be extremely anti-Mormon in doing. 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 and didn’t happen that way.

Why is it that no well-informed historian of Mormonism follows the Spalding theory? Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

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.

Wrong. I rejected the Spalding testimony based on the superior Mormon testimony and offered false memory theory as a possible explanation for what may have happened to the Conneaut witnesses. That’s very different. Loftus’s studies do correlate with what I said happened to the Conneaut witnesses, but you insist I find a study that matches what you said happened. From the beginning you have been playing games. Of course, no study of false memory is going to fit your assumption of infallible long term memory.

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 and flimsy 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 witness claims….is pathetically sad. It floors me that you’d argue this, that you can not appreciate all the reason why those witnesses are the opposite of being reliable. Could you imagine a lawyer defending a group of criminals in on a con arguing that what they say should be believed because they are reliable, but that all the witnesses against them shouldn’t be believe because they must have talked themselves into false memories? That’s essentially what you are doing there Dan. It’s so ridiculous.

Well, I have kept talking since you originally posted these comments, and my position of the Mormon witnesses has gotten stronger. Thanks to Wade, we have discussed how Joseph Smith’s inability to restore the lost MS supports Whitmer and the others. We have also discussed how textual problems in the Book of Mormon tend to show that it was an ad hoc dictation, rather than a well-prepared MS. On the other hand, the more you talk, the more you show how you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the Book of Mormon and Mormon witnesses.

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.

In the discussion since you posted this, it has become clear that the apologists don’t support everything I say, so I’m pretty much on my own here.