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

[_marg]

It mentions it in 3 short paragraphs.

If one were to look at the Book of Mormon absent those paragraphs would one be able to deduce from the storyline that lehi could not be associated with the lost tribes? You didn't answer my question Glenn.."In other words what was it about the story that makes it obvious the characters could not have any association the mythical storyline of the lost tribes?"

If you were to look at the Book of Mormon absent those paragraphs, there is essentially nothing that would connect it to a lost tribes story. The only faintest connection is the fact that Lehi is a descendant of Manasseh, which is one of the lost tribes. And no matter how hard you try, you cannot logically adduce a lost tribes story as the ancestors of the American Indians from one man. From a population of approximately four million people, represented by one man. And then, those verses are in the Book of Mormon, which explicitly tell anyone reading the book that it definitely is not a lost tribes story.

But Glenn if those sections were taken out..could the story still fit in with a lost tribe explanation as the storyline. Isn’t it possible that Spalding could have begun his story with the mention that lehi was a descendant of a lost tribe and that he could also have explained in discussions that his story was an explanation of where the American Indians originated from … that they were descendants of a lost tribe? That doesn’t mean the entire story would keep mentioning lost tribes within the story. Yet , it would be as what the witnesses described “ a story showing that American Indians are descendents of lost tribes". All it would take for someone in writing the Book of Mormon to change that would be a few lines mentioning that the lost tribes lived elsewhere. That is why I asked you if there was something else about the story or within the story which would preclude it from being a story that involved lost tribes in particular what the witnesses said.

I don’t see why you can not “logically adduce a lost tribes story as the ancestors of American Indians from one man.” Of course that wouldn’t be an explanation of where all the lost tribes from 720B.C. went or ended up, however, it would be an explanation of American Indians being traced back to essentially one family, and that family descended from the 720 B.C. lost tribes, so that would make all American Indians as per Spalding’s story an explanation that they were lost tribe descendants.

With regard to the rest of your post I will have to make notes for you from Daniel Schacter’s book “Searching for Memory, The Brain, the Mind, In the Past”. The last chapter addresses specifically aging memory and how it differs to people’s memory below the age of 60.

[_marg]

Well I said I’d make notes from Daniel Schacter’s book. Apparently via memory study testing it is found that older adults around 70 years of age and up have deteriorating source memory as well as temporal order memories as a result of impairment in the frontal lobe. I’m not sure however whether these studies indicate problems with older memories as all studies are about recent memories. And I don’t find it’s clear in the book, though Daniel Schacter seems to indicate it applies to older memories of individuals that with his example of Ronald Reagan’s memory recall. Even so I don’t feel comfortable assuming Josiah had poor source memory or temporal order memory problems as a result of age. Just the same I thought the information in the chapter might be of interest so I’ll post it.

Chapter 10

Stories of Elders

Page 283. In experiments on aging memory, “old people” are usually healthy volunteers around 70 years of age, whereas “young people” are generally college students.

Page 284. If aging simply produced a general decline in memory, we would not expect to see elderly adults doing extremely well in some situations and poorly and others. Why does this happen?

The aging brain provides some important clues. Overall brain mass steadily shrinks as we enter our 60s and 70s, at roughly 5% to 10% per decade. Fluid filled ventricles enlarge and the brain’s blood flow and uptake of oxygen both decreased significantly. Many researchers have long believed that aging results in a widespread loss of neurons in the cortex, the seat have our most advanced cognitive functions and a major site of memory storage. This belief is based on studies of brains examined autopsies in which fewer numbers of neurons were found in the cortex of all people done of young people. But most of the studies were conducted decades ago, when researchers had only a limited awareness of Alzheimer’s disease and may have included both healthy and diseased brains in their studies. Newer studies that have excluded brains of people with signs of Alzheimer’s or other age-related brain diseases tell a different tale: loss of neuron’s in the cortex is either trivial but far less than what the earlier studies had shown. Recent research with monkeys lead to the same conclusion.

In a compelling confirmation of this point, researchers carefully examined several regions of the hippocampus that are known to produce memory loss when damaged. Normal aging was not associated with neuron loss in these regions, but there was considerable loss of hippocampal neurons in the brains of patients who had signs of Alzheimer’s disease when alive. This may be why an Alzheimer’s patient such as Frederick is unable to remember golf shots he hit minutes earlier: numerous neurons in the hippocampus have been destroyed. However an older adult who has difficulty with unaided recall of a recent experience, but remembers it well when given hints or cues, still has an ample supply of hippocampal neurons.

Page 285. If normal aging results in less neuron loss from the cortex and hippocampus than was previously suspected, why do older adults have memory problems? The hippocampus does show definite signs of atrophy with aging, and abundant hippocampal atrophy is associated with low levels of explicit memory on laboratory tests. Also, aging produces marked loss of neurons in a few sub cortical structures, including one I mentioned in connection with amnesic syndromes, the basal forebrain is important because it supplies the hippocampus with a chemical messenger called acetylcholine, which is known to be important for memory. As we have seen, memories are encoded by changes in the strengths of connections among neurons. Acetylcholine expedites these changes. When the basal forebrain is directly damaged, patients develop amnesia. Accordingly, a significant loss of neurons in the basal forebrain probably contributes to age-related memory difficulties

Changes in the frontal lobes provide important insights into why older adults show intact memory in some situations and substantial impairments in others. The frontal lobes appear to be hit hard during aging. Brain atrophy or shrinkage is most pronounced over frontal regions, as are reductions of blood flow and glucose utilization.

Page 285. Because some areas of the frontal lobe play a critical role in remembering, we have a potentially useful handle on the variations in explicit memory that are characteristic of older adults. Rather than resulting from a general decline in all aspects of brain function, many memory problems in older adults may stem from specific impairments in the frontal lobes. If so, then older adults should have special problems with memory tasks that rely on frontal regions. The weight of the scientific evidence is consistent with this suggestion.

>

Frontal regions are more important for recall than for recognition, which could account for the fact that older adults have more problems recalling words on their own than recognizing them when shown a list. Memory for temporal order depends on frontal regions, which may explain why elderly adults have problems remembering the order in which two sentences appear.

Page 287. How are age-related frontal impairment manifest in the everyday memory of older people? Recall that patients with frontal lobe damage are especially vulnerable to source amnesia: even when they can recall a newly learned fact, they have special problems recollecting who told it to them. This may be because retrieving source information requires the kind of effortful retrieval that depends on the frontal lobes. In the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan repeatedly told a heartbreaking story of a World War II bomber pilot who ordered his crew to bail out after his plane have been seriously damaged. An enemy hit his young belly gunner was wounded so seriously that he was unable to evacuate the bomber. Reagan could barely hold back his tears as he uttered the pilot’s heroic response: “ Never mind. We’ll ride it down together.” The press soon realized that this story was an almost exact duplicate of a scene in the 1944 film “a winged and a prayer” Reagan had apparently retained the facts but forgotten their source.

Evidence from several laboratory studies has linked this kind of source amnesia with frontal lobe dysfunction.
Page 287. Poor source memory in the elderly is related to their performance on tests that are sensitive to deficiencies in the frontal lobes. Elderly people who perform poorly on these tests also tend to have special problems remembering source information.

Page 288. Because forgetting the source of a memory opens the door to illusory recollections, older adults are especially vulnerable to certain types of memory distortions.

Page 289 Recalling source information is an important component of our subjective experience of remembering past events. When we recollect who told us something, or other details of an episode, our subjective experience will likely involve “remembering.” When we recall only an isolated fact, however, our subjective experience will likely involve “just knowing” that something is familiar. When asked to recollect recent episodes, older adults report less “visual reexperiencing” of the episodes than do younger adults. And older adults are also less likely than younger people to say that they “remember” having encountered words or phrases they studied several minutes earlier; they tend to say that they “just know” that the item appeared earlier.

Page 289. As with age-related source memory problems the frontal lobes play a role in an older persons recollection of the experience. Elderly adults who make “remember” judgments tend to do better on tests that are sensitive to frontal lobe impairment than do those who make fewer “remember” judgments.

All this evidence suggests that frontal lobe impairments lead to age-related difficulties in recalling and pulling together the diverse elements that constitute an everyday episode: what happened, when it happened, and who said what, the result is that older adults recollective experience of recent events is less vivid than younger adults recollective experience and they are especially vulnerable to illusions of memory.

[_marg]

So Glenn,

Well, a war is a pretty good gist item. His recollections also dovetail pretty well with the other accounts of Solomon's troubles. We know when the war started. We know about when Solomon left the area, which appears to be sometime in October of 1812. We know that his description of the book fits the Oberlin manuscript pretty well, in the time frame everyone says that he was writing the "Manuscript Found."

There are a few problems though Glenn. First when you look at what Josiah (and lets remember he is 90 years old and we are talking 40 + plus years previous that he’s recalling) he doesn't say explicitly that after the war broke out,then Solomon began the manuscript. Let’s look at what he says.. “The war that broke out with England seriously affected that country. That circumstance, with some other misfortunes that happened, placed us in difficult circumstances. We were under the necessity to make great sacrifices to pay our debts. I went to see my brother and staid with him some time. I found him unwell, and somewhat low in spirits. He began to compose his novel, which it is conjectured that the Mormons made use of in forming their Bible.".”

Had he been clear and said 'I remember when Spalding started the manuscript, it was after the war broke out'…that would be different. I realize the implication seems to be there but that could be attributed to careless writing and not being clear or thinking it was important. He also doesn’t explicitly say he went to stay with his brother after the war broke out. The fact that he placed the sentence of him going to stay with Spalding after he mentions the war does not mean he intended to say he went after the war began. It’s all happening in a matter of months. So he's recalling 40 years previous ..a period of time in months. So around that time ..essentially within that year when the war was, is what he probably meant.

Martha Spalding says she stayed with Spalding a short time before he left for Conneaut and Josiah says shortly after he left, Spalding left connueaut. Shortly after, when recalling 40 years previous could be 6 months. Neither Josiah nor Martha mention each other and yet both said they stayed with Spalding …so it doesn't appear they were there at the same time, and it seems likely she was there after Josiah left.

And then there is Matilda Davison who says Spalding read to neighbours and the story was written in "the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament". And she points to an exact date that she attributes him reading this manuscript as being 1812..Hull’s surrender at Detroit occurred near the same time. (Aug 1812)

So if you are trying to argue that Josiah’s statement which doesn’t explicitly state that Spalding started his manuscript after the war began should override Matilda’s statement which does offer an explicit date and association with that date for Manuscript Found , as well as Martha's visit in 1812 in which she recounts a manuscript written in biblical style..I don’t think your evidence of Josiah’s is enough to override the other evidences of witnesses who remember a different manuscript. And it can all be accounted for by Spalding beginning Manuscript Found after Josiah left.

The problem is dates are definitely confusable in memory. it is very difficult to assign a clear source memory to a particular date..unless one can associate that date with a known date. Sure Josiah did that but he wasn't explicit that the purpose of the data was to state exactly when he arrived and exactly when Spalding began the manuscript. Also if he had said, Spalding had completed the manuscript that would have made a difference, but he commented that in talking with Spalding's wife he learned Spalding continued writing.

But marge, Josiah had some very good encoding there. A war, nonetheless, and major financial problems that arose from the war. Well that is how wonderfully consistent that your witnesses are. How many of them said that he had already decided, before he left the Conneaut area, to try to have the manuscript published? Then, along comes Redick, who says "He called it Lost History Found, Lost Manuscript, or some such name: not disguising that it was wholly a work of the imagination, written to amuse himself, and without any immediate view to publication." This was in long after he had left the Conneaut area.

Right and Matilda Davison also said he wrote for amusement purposes. And yet she was also aware that he also wrote to have his manuscript published. In the scheme of things Redick’s comment is not enough to discount all the others who commented he wrote Manuscript found with an eye to publishing and paying off his debts.

So, when did he start writing the alleged manuscript found? It is apparent that Josiah was staying with Solomon some time after June of 1812. He would have seen the same manuscript that the others in the area would have seen. Even though he was at an advanced age, he gave a more detailed description, with some errors, than those contacted by Hurlbut.

[/quote]

He’s most definitely remembering Manuscript Story Conneaut creek..but one person is not enough to overturn the memories of others of a different manuscript written in biblical language, with use of a repetitive phrase “and it came to pass” and with particular same names.

[_marg]

Post reference: link

Dan,

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.

Ok that’s a possibility that what Rachel observed was her father appreciating what came next in the Book of Mormon was a function of him having read the Book of Mormon. But he doesn’t say in his statement that he personally read the Book of Mormon. And why would Hurlbut be reading the Book of Mormon to him if he’d already read it and was very familiar with it? What would be the point? Wouldn’t, if that were the case, that Miller would stop him and tell him there was no need, since he was very familiar with it. Why would Miller waste his time listening to Hurlbut if he’s read it himself and knew the contents so well he could tell Hurlbut in advance what came next?

A more likely scenario was that most of the witnesses likely didn’t spend too much time in reading the Book of Mormon and Hurlbut eager to get statements from them did what he could to make it easier for them, otherwise they likely would not have bothered giving any statement. Hurlbut and the witnesses knew the point of the statements was to indicate whether or not they recognized Spalding’s writing in the Book of Mormon and to do so, didn’t require one to read the Book of Mormon thoroughly or entirely.

When Miller say “I have recently examined the Book of Mormon”… he is likely referring to his examination with Hurlbut's help. Having Hurlbut read to him, would enable him to examine the Book of Mormon …which is what he said.

As far as Rachel’s memory of this what she describes is the makings of an elaboratively encoded memory.. a visual and hearing perceptual observation which is not likely to be confused with another event. She has a good source memory of where and from whom her memory originates. Even if it’s a 50-year-old memory it’s not all that detailed it’s more a general observation of observing the interactions between her father and Hurlbut. It'snot a memory easily confusable with another memory nor a memory very detailed and difficult to remember.

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.

Well I think with the retrieval cue of the Book of Mormon for some names and places, which they say were brought back fresh to memory, that they clearly remembered…that that gave them the impression at least, that portions of the Book of Mormon were direct copies from Spalding’s work. I think they were certain of that. What likelihood that a different book which didn’t use Spalding’s book existed and had the same name and places..and tThe same phrase “and it came to pass” and written in biblical language. So they recognized some things were exactly the same and had to have come from Spalding’s work, but they also recognized that writings in particular involving religion were not part of Spalding’s work. So I think John Miller’s statement is understandable and credible.

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.

I read that Hurlbut gave Howe many more statements collected from the area around Conneaut but that Howe wrote in his book there was no point including them since they didn’t have more value than were consistent with one another. With regards to your comment that... “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.”.... I don’t agree your speculation. When people don’t have good source memory, that is they don’t have a clear memory of where, when or from whom a memory came from..then they are susceptible to memory misattribution or confusing the memories with other memories.

The Conneaut witnesses had the opportunity of frequent hearing and seeing Spalding discuss and read his work along with relating that work to their knowledge of local mounds and biblical knowledge…which would have served to enable them to encode elaboratively the events. By events I mean the exposure via discussing reading hearing Spalding to the manuscript he was writing. Frequent exposure by repeatedly reading of certain names would also enable elaborative encoding of those details. And sometimes some details are visualized and simply are remembered because of the visualization that one relates to.

So it is reasonable to assume elaboratively encoded memories would have details forgotten with time but that they could be retrieved with the right retrieval cue. And it’s also reasonable that the rememberer would be aware when the memory is retrieved, that it is accurate. There are studies which indicate people have memories which are false and they truly believe those memories are true. But in those studies there are reasons why this occurs. It occurs usually because the source memory is poor and it’s easy to implant a false memory when there was no source memory using guided imagination or hypnosis. But that is not the situation for the Conneaut witnesses. What they describe is a situation in which they have good source memory which existed long before Hurlbut came along and long before their exposure to the Book of Mormon.

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.

The chances of contamination become unreasonable when one critically evaluates the evidence. We are not considering just one person's memory, we are considering quite a number of individuals, eight Conneaut witnesses, whose statements are consistent with one another, and the number of statements according to Howe were greater than eight but he only kept 8 for the book.. So couple that with the current understanding of memory, that source memory is a key ingredient as to why some people remember long-term and why others confuse memories both in the short term and long..and it's reasonable to accept theConneaut witnesses statements as being fairly accurate.

I’m not suggesting long-term memory is perfect but on the whole what the witnesses said they remembered was an overall general memory of what Spalding’s book was about and then each witness recalled whether they had remembered some detail or two. That’s reasonable considering they had good source memory of frequent exposure to listening, seeing, discussing Spalding’s work along with associating those events with their knowledge of local mountains and the Bible. So I agree with you that detail such as particular names would likely be forgotten in time but if there was some reason that they were well encoded such as through frequent repetitive exposure as an example, then it's reasonable the name would be recognized by some witnesses if given the right retrieval cue. As far as Miller’s claim to know passages verbatim, it may be a function of a of being very familiar with some aspects of Spalding’s writing which were retrieved in memory because of the Book of Mormon, along with perhaps him visualizing passages at the time he heard Spalding read. In examining his statement Miller seems to not only be very familiar with Spalding’s manuscripts but to have also taken a keen interest. He says he boarded with the Spaldings for several months during which time he was introduced to Spalding’s manuscripts. He said he “perused them as often as I had leisure.” He said one drew his attention. And that Spalding frequently read from it to company present. So his keen interest may be a factor why he recalls some passages verbatim.

As far as Spalding’s romance and the Book of Mormon being confusable to some extent that’s a possibility. There might be some confusion with Spalding's various manuscripts but on key details like particular names, and particular phrase “came up at the pass”, and biblical style writing of Manuscript Found, those aren't confusible type items.

And Miller said Spalding read from one manuscript in particular and that’s the one he himself took an interest in. He said after examining the Book of Mormon that some names Nephi, Lehi, and Moroni “are brought fresh to my recollection by the Golden Bible.” So he’s explaining how it is he can remember details such as the names.

With regards to your last line “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.”... I don’t see why Spalding’s book couldn’t have been about some lost tribes going from Jerusalem to America.

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.

I didn’t get back to Mikwut I suppose I should have. It was so blatantly obvious to me how the study he cited as being the best to correlate to the Conneaut witness experience did not correlate at all. Pretty much all the memory studies which illustrate memory misattribution are a function for various reasons of being caused by poor source memory. So for example, Mikwut brought up the study by Bartlett I believe done in 1932 referred to as “war of the ghosts” study. In that study subjects were asked to read a short story of a couple of paragraphs twice. And then their recall was tested later a number of times. It was found that memory deteriorated, details in particular were often replaced with details that were common in the subjects lives. The general outline of the story would be remembered longer than details. But it was obvious that the problem was a poor source memory as a result of brief exposure to the material and consequently people were confusing details with items they commonly knew. In additon a major difference between the study and what the conneuat witnesses experienced is that the study participants were not given any retrieval cues. Had they been the results would obviously have been different.


As far as you saying that “I don’t know whether the Book of Mormon brought clear memories or corrupted memories” I think one can deduce they have clear memories when they commented that their memories had been refreshed and that they clearly remembered. This gets back to an appreciation of how memory is affected by whether or not one has good source memory. When individuals know the context of their memory that they are recalling they are not susceptible to “misattribution” of memory. When you couple that with their explicit comment of clearly remembering it is with high probability that they do clearly remember. People do “remember” versus “just know” or have some familiarity with an explicit memory. I’m not making that up that’s what I’ve read in Daniel Schacter’s book on memory and I have posted quotes from the book which addressed this.

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.

Dan, the memory studies say something about memory under the conditions imposed by the studies. And if you don’t appreciate what those conditions are you cannot appreciate what the studies say or how they should be applied to situations outside the studies. I can’t make it clearer than that... I don’t think. You should conceptually understand this concept if you are a logical person. I am not asking for a replication of what the Conneaut witnesses experienced. And I was not the one to bring up studies initially. It may very well be that there is no study that can show long-term memory for explicit memory is lost in time or deteriorates such that memories become confusable. From what I’ve read memory diminishes but with the right retrieval cues can be recalled. That is what the Conneaut describe. My point is that it’s a incorrect to use memory studies to dismiss their statements when the memory studies are not applicable. Quite frankly I’m old enough and you’re old enough to know that our 20-year-old memories don’t disappear, and that we can remember some details which may appear lost, when given retrieval cues that are appropriate.

Apparently people were interested in Spalding’s story, he made it somewhat exciting by pretending he was translating a manuscript he had found. And so friends and neighbors would come and listen to his latest alleged translations of a historical account of America. They related to it. And I suppose they didn't have lots of competing other entertainment available to them. No TV, movies, computer, and perhaps not even many books.

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.

Dan, if the Mormon witness testimonies were from people who were trustworthy reliable witnesses you might have a point. But they are the antithesis of trustworthy reliable witnesses. It’s ridiculous to argue that you are using them to discount the Conneaut witnesses.

There are other reasons why the lost 116 pages were simply not replaced by copying a manuscript again. How about this idea, that as they were copying the manuscript the first time, they made changes, additions and deletions. If they started again with that same manuscript they couldn’t duplicate all those additions and deletions that were in their dictation copy only. And maybe the changes were inputs from different people making it even more difficult to reproduce that dictation copy. That’s just one suggestion.


Loftus's studies are only pertinent Dan, if they correlate well to the experience that the witnesses had. All studies involving false memory or memory substitution are not relevant Dan. Yes those studies do say memory can be fooled but memory is fooled only under certain circumstances. When people don’t have a good source memory that is they don’t clearly remember the context of where that memory came from, then they are susceptible to memory misattribution. Show me one Loftus study where poor source memory wasn’t a factor. And your sentence is tautalogical reasoning Dann. You say “if the Spalding witnesses memories were corrupted by popular theories about the 10 tribes and the Book of Mormon, then Loftus’s studies are pertinent. That’s tautological. If you assume the memories are corrupted such that they are confusing their memory with another memory of 10 tribes or the Book of Mormon is implanting memories then yes of course Loftus’s study applies which test for that apply. But you really need to warrant why their memories would be corrupted in the first place before you can make that assumption of corruption. As I pointed out in previous posts for the most part the witnesses memories were very general and general memories do last long-term. It’s the details which diminish long-term, but studies show with retrieval cues details can be accurately recalled. And it so happens that the Book of Mormon would make an excellent retrieval cue if it had been produced using Spalding’s manuscript. And as I said memory studies show that people with good source memory are able to appreciate whether or not they are truly remembering versus whether they only have some familiarity and just know.

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.

I think 8 witnesses, none of them contradicting each other, giving statements which essentially was a general summary of what Spalding’s book was about along with a few details after they had reviewed the Book of Mormon is strong evidence consistent with memory studies. There was nothing spectacular about their memory. Appreciating the general outline of behind Spalding’s book does not require amazing feats of memory after 20 years. A book they took an interest in written by someone they knew intimately and the storyline they could associate with personally to the local mounds in the area.. along with their experience of discussing with Spalding and listening to him read…are all factors which would warrant their memories for the general outline of Spalding's book. I agree that details after 20 years would be extremely difficult to recall especially without any retrieval cue. But we know that that was not the situation for them as they had the Book of Mormon.

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.

Of the witnesses who were not believers.. I’m aware of Emma’s dad. Apparently Cowdery and Smith wrote in a small cottage down the hill on his property. It would be easy for them to keep a watch as to when he would be approaching and temporarily put on a "head in the hat" act for him. I’m sure he didn’t visit them often. And there was someone else.. a brother I believe though I can’t remember whom, but again for short periods of time they could put on an act.

As to your second sentence, “ that I have no evidence that anyone besides Joseph Smith was involved in the con, except by some convoluted and circular reasoning,”would do you think I’ve been arguing with the Conneaut witnesses. That’s not convoluted evidence nor circular reasoning. The Conneaut witnesses are strong evidence. There was no personal benefit to them, in giving their statements. They were sought after for their statements, they didn't seek people out to give them.

It’s ridiculous to assume that Smith dictated to Cowdery without any reviewing or written preparations in front of him. And from my readings Harris was very gullible, but also had a vested interest in making a return on his money..hence a motivation to lie. And Cowdery and the Whitmers were not trustworthy honest individuals. And as to your last sentence “claims of visions is not evidence of lying.” I think it is. When someone claims that they have seen angels and it’s part of an obvious con, I don’t assume they are hallucinating but rather that they are fully aware they are using “Angels” for the con..to convince gullible individuals to believe them...and I consider that lying.

[_GlennThigpen]

But Glenn if those sections were taken out..could the story still fit in with a lost tribe explanation as the storyline. Isn’t it possible that Spalding could have begun his story with the mention that lehi was a descendant of a lost tribe and that he could also have explained in discussions that his story was an explanation of where the American Indians originated from … that they were descendants of a lost tribe? That doesn’t mean the entire story would keep mentioning lost tribes within the story. Yet , it would be as what the witnesses described “ a story showing that American Indians are descendents of lost tribes". All it would take for someone in writing the Book of Mormon to change that would be a few lines mentioning that the lost tribes lived elsewhere. That is why I asked you if there was something else about the story or within the story which would preclude it from being a story that involved lost tribes in particular what the witnesses said.

marge, even without those passages, not one person in a hundred would read that book as a lost tribes story. You have to approach that story the way the a person who is familiar with the lost tribes fable would. Would those people who spoke about Solomon writing about the lost tribes be speaking about a small group of people of whom five, (Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, and Sam) were found to be descendants of Joseph. Or would they be speaking about the lost tribes that were exiled to somewhere in Chaldea around 722-723 B.C. and the story of them being led away found in I believe the second book of Macabees in the apocrypha? You cannot put your own interpretation on this story. You have to understand what the people who were discussing the quaestion would have understood about it.

As I have said, that theory seemed to have been a popular subject of discussion in the early American settlements. There are reports of the idea as early as the 1600's. And the popular idea is that they were led to the America's vis the Bering straits. No one at thetime envisioned a large group of people coming over via a ship, or even ships.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Martha Spalding says she stayed with Spalding a short time before he left for Conneaut and Josiah says shortly after he left, Spalding left connueaut. Shortly after, when recalling 40 years previous could be 6 months. Neither Josiah nor Martha mention each other and yet both said they stayed with Spalding …so it doesn't appear they were there at the same time, and it seems likely she was there after Josiah left.

marge, If you recall, John and Martha Spalding, according to Dale, lived within walking distance of Solomon's house in Conneaut. Evidently they did not visit very often, but it is doubtful that they even stayed overnight. As far as the financial difficulties, they were mostly tied into the land speculation that he and Solomon had partnered in. That is pretty much on record. Those problems were caused by circumstances owing to the war of 1812, which started in June of that year. People who had bought land from them did not pay up. And, I assume they had borrowed money to purchase those lands in the first place. Josiah says that it was the financial problems that occasioned him to go stay with his brother. How long after the war started that Josiah moved to Ohio, he does not say, nor does he say how long he stayed with him nor if he moved to Pittsburgh with him. There is no logical reason to infer that he moved there any earlier than June of 1812, and godd reason to infer that he moved there in July or August of 1812.

And then there is Matilda Davison who says Spalding read to neighbours and the story was written in "the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament". And she points to an exact date that she attributes him reading this manuscript as being 1812..Hull’s surrender at Detroit occurred near the same time. (Aug 1812)

So if you are trying to argue that Josiah’s statement which doesn’t explicitly state that Spalding started his manuscript after the war began should override Matilda’s statement which does offer an explicit date and association with that date for Manuscript Found , as well as Martha's visit in 1812 in which she recounts a manuscript written in biblical style..I don’t think your evidence of Josiah’s is enough to override the other evidences of witnesses who remember a different manuscript. And it can all be accounted for by Spalding beginning Manuscript Found after Josiah left.

Except that you do not know when Josiah left. You need to ascertain that before reaching a conclusion. And Josiah's statement says that he went to stay with Solomon, then he started writing his story. He went to stay with Solomon after the war broke out and they were beset by financial problems.

The problem is dates are definitely confusable in memory. it is very difficult to assign a clear source memory to a particular date..unless one can associate that date with a known date. Sure Josiah did that but he wasn't explicit that the purpose of the data was to state exactly when he arrived and exactly when Spalding began the manuscript. Also if he had said, Spalding had completed the manuscript that would have made a difference, but he commented that in talking with Spalding's wife he learned Spalding continued writing.

Dates are confusable, very much so. But events such as a war are memorable. The sequence is logical. The war broke out. Solomon and Josiah had financial problems related to the war and their land speculation. Josiah went to stay with Solomon. And when did the war break out? Also, Josiah is not sure about Matilda telling him that Solomon had finished the story. "If I recollect correctly" is not a definte statement.

Right and Matilda Davison also said he wrote for amusement purposes. And yet she was also aware that he also wrote to have his manuscript published. In the scheme of things Redick’s comment is not enough to discount all the others who commented he wrote Manuscript found with an eye to publishing and paying off his debts.

Well, some say one thing and some say another. They are some of the inconsistencies that I have been talking about.

He’s most definitely remembering Manuscript Story Conneaut creek..but one person is not enough to overturn the memories of others of a different manuscript written in biblical language, with use of a repetitive phrase “and it came to pass” and with particular same names.

Yes, Josiah saw tne Manuscript Found, the same one that the other witnesses saw. If you recall, Oliver Smith says that he saw it in 1810, when Solomon was living with him while Matilda Davison pegs the time he started it to 1812, and August. Another little contradiction.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Martha Spalding says she stayed with Spalding a short time before he left for Conneaut and Josiah says shortly after he left, Spalding left connueaut. Shortly after, when recalling 40 years previous could be 6 months. Neither Josiah nor Martha mention each other and yet both said they stayed with Spalding …so it doesn't appear they were there at the same time, and it seems likely she was there after Josiah left.

marge, If you recall, John and Martha Spalding, according to Dale, lived within walking distance of Solomon's house in Conneaut. Evidently they did not visit very often, but it is doubtful that they even stayed overnight. Martha only says that she was at Solomon's house a short time be fore he left the area. That does not connote staying with him, but a visit. As far as the financial difficulties, they were mostly tied into the land speculation that he and Solomon had partnered in. That is pretty much on record. Those problems were caused by circumstances owing to the war of 1812, which started in June of that year. People who had bought land from them did not pay up. And, I assume they had borrowed money to purchase those lands in the first place. Josiah says that it was the financial problems that occasioned him to go stay with his brother. How long after the war started that Josiah moved to Ohio, he does not say, nor does he say how long he stayed with him nor if he moved to Pittsburgh with him. There is no logical reason to infer that he moved there any earlier than June of 1812, and godd reason to infer that he moved there in July or August of 1812.

And then there is Matilda Davison who says Spalding read to neighbours and the story was written in "the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament". And she points to an exact date that she attributes him reading this manuscript as being 1812..Hull’s surrender at Detroit occurred near the same time. (Aug 1812)

So if you are trying to argue that Josiah’s statement which doesn’t explicitly state that Spalding started his manuscript after the war began should override Matilda’s statement which does offer an explicit date and association with that date for Manuscript Found , as well as Martha's visit in 1812 in which she recounts a manuscript written in biblical style..I don’t think your evidence of Josiah’s is enough to override the other evidences of witnesses who remember a different manuscript. And it can all be accounted for by Spalding beginning Manuscript Found after Josiah left.

Except that you do not know when Josiah left. You need to ascertain that before reaching a conclusion. And Josiah's statement says that he went to stay with Solomon, then he started writing his story. He went to stay with Solomon after the war broke out and they were beset by financial problems.

The problem is dates are definitely confusable in memory. it is very difficult to assign a clear source memory to a particular date..unless one can associate that date with a known date. Sure Josiah did that but he wasn't explicit that the purpose of the data was to state exactly when he arrived and exactly when Spalding began the manuscript. Also if he had said, Spalding had completed the manuscript that would have made a difference, but he commented that in talking with Spalding's wife he learned Spalding continued writing.

Dates are confusable, very much so. But events such as a war are memorable. The sequence is logical. The war broke out. Solomon and Josiah had financial problems related to the war and their land speculation. Josiah went to stay with Solomon. And when did the war break out? Also, Josiah is not sure about Matilda telling him that Solomon had finished the story. "If I recollect correctly" is not a definte statement.

Right and Matilda Davison also said he wrote for amusement purposes. And yet she was also aware that he also wrote to have his manuscript published. In the scheme of things Redick’s comment is not enough to discount all the others who commented he wrote Manuscript found with an eye to publishing and paying off his debts.

Well, some say one thing and some say another. They are some of the inconsistencies that I have been talking about.

He’s most definitely remembering Manuscript Story Conneaut creek..but one person is not enough to overturn the memories of others of a different manuscript written in biblical language, with use of a repetitive phrase “and it came to pass” and with particular same names.

Yes, Josiah saw tne Manuscript Found, the same one that the other witnesses saw. If you recall, Oliver Smith says that he saw it in 1810, when Solomon was living with him while Matilda Davison pegs the time he started it to 1812, and August. Another little contradiction.

Glenn

[_marg]

marge, even without those passages, not one person in a hundred would read that book as a lost tribes story.

Well they are summarizing what Spalding's book was about not the Book of Mormon.

You have to approach that story the way the a person who is familiar with the lost tribes fable would. Would those people who spoke about Solomon writing about the lost tribes be speaking about a small group of people of whom five, (Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, and Sam) were found to be descendants of Joseph. Or would they be speaking about the lost tribes that were exiled to somewhere in Chaldea around 722-723 B.C. and the story of them being led away found in I believe the second book of Macabees in the apocrypha? You cannot put your own interpretation on this story. You have to understand what the people who were discussing the quaestion would have understood about it.

Right what they were talking about is that spalding wrote an explanation of the history of American Indians and his historical account was that they were descendants of lost tribes, because the family from which they descended were descendents of lost tribes.

As I have said, that theory seemed to have been a popular subject of discussion in the early American settlements. There are reports of the idea as early as the 1600's. And the popular idea is that they were led to the America's vis the Bering straits. No one at thetime envisioned a large group of people coming over via a ship, or even ships.

Glenn

My understanding is that there were 2 theories bandied about at the time, one is that a group came from the Middle East across the Atlantic and another that a group came via the Bering Strait..and I suppose in both cases a lost tribe theory may have also been speculated, but not necessarily, it was a version.

[Guest]

marge, If you recall, John and Martha Spalding, according to Dale, lived within walking distance of Solomon's house in Conneaut. Evidently they did not visit very often, but it is doubtful that they even stayed overnight.

Well actually Martha says in her statement she stayed a short time before Spalding left Conneaut. In the "Who Wrote the Book of Mormon book they theorize she may have stayed a short time to help them with their move.

As far as the financial difficulties, they were mostly tied into the land speculation that he and Solomon had partnered in. That is pretty much on record. Those problems were caused by circumstances owing to the war of 1812, which started in June of that year.
People who had bought land from them did not pay up. And, I assume they had borrowed money to purchase those lands in the first place. Josiah says that it was the financial problems that occasioned him to go stay with his brother.

No he does not specifically say it was because of financial difficulties as a result of the war that the stayed with Spalding. I've covered that already. And he had financial difficulties due to health previous to the war. Matilda Spalding says shortly after arriving in Conneaut his "health sunk" and "he was laid aside from active labors."

How long after the war started that Josiah moved to Ohio, he does not say, nor does he say how long he stayed with him nor if he moved to Pittsburgh with him. There is no logical reason to infer that he moved there any earlier than June of 1812, and godd reason to infer that he moved there in July or August of 1812.

His statements do not override numerous others. Matilda Davidson said he was working on the manuscript written in biblical language in Aug 1812. He is not explicitly specific exactly when he arrived and when Spalding was working on the manuscript he recalled. At to that he is recalling 40 + year memory at the age of 90.

Except that you do not know when Josiah left. You need to ascertain that before reaching a conclusion. And Josiah's statement says that he went to stay with Solomon, then he started writing his story. He went to stay with Solomon after the war broke out and they were beset by financial problems.

No he does not say explicitly he went to Spalding's after the war broke out.

Dates are confusable, very much so. But events such as a war are memorable. The sequence is logical. The war broke out. Solomon and Josiah had financial problems related to the war and their land speculation. Josiah went to stay with Solomon. And when did the war break out? Also, Josiah is not sure about Matilda telling him that Solomon had finished the story. "If I recollect correctly" is not a definte statement.

I've covered this in my previous post, he is not explicit for when he went to the Spalding's, Spalding had financial difficulties previous to the war due to health issues. Josiah doesn't even make clear that financial difficulties is the reason for visiting him. And he notes at the beginning of the his statement that one needs to appreciate his memory may have failed as he's 90 years old.

Well, some say one thing and some say another. They are some of the inconsistencies that I have been talking about.

Most of inconsistencies that you've been talking about are simply one witness mentioning something and another mentioning something else..those are differences but are not contradictions. Now Redick saying he wrote for amusement purposes only, contradicts others who say he wrote to have a manuscript published...but hey Glenn we know he wrote to have a manuscript published so on that point Redick is either wrong or like Matilda the wife who appreciated Spalding wrote for amusement purposes would also have had to appreciate that on one manuscript he also wrote with the intent of having it published.

Yes, Josiah saw tne Manuscript Found, the same one that the other witnesses saw. If you recall, Oliver Smith says that he saw it in 1810, when Solomon was living with him while Matilda Davison pegs the time he started it to 1812, and August. Another little contradiction.

[/quote]

What I think Glenn is that Spalding read Manuscript Found to neighbours, I don't think he read Manuscript Story -Conneaut Creek. I think he may have read to get their feed back since he was intending to have it published. Matilda recalled friends and neighbours coming to listen to him read and with that visualization she pegged him reading at a particular date Aug 1812. I don't think she took much interest in his stories, but she commented that he wrote in biblical style and that she detail she could easily have noticed without paying much attention to the story.

Dates being highly confusable, one should be skeptical about relying too much on them. It would be unreasonable to assume Josiah is the only one with an accurate memory and all the others are mistaken..especially when he's 90 years old ..recalling memories from 40 years previous. The studies do find that many not all, old people due to dysfunction in the frontal lobes have problems with source memory as well as temporal memory. Perhaps Josiahs' recall is impaired on some facts because of this.

[_marg]

Post reference: link


Cont'd... in error I didn’t realize there was more to your post.

Dan,

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.

Yes a week or so ago, I mentioned that I would only continue if I purchased Dragon Dictation as I knew I wouldn’t have the time to quote books not on the Net and respond to you Mikwut and Glenn.

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

Well these “well informed historians are not making well warranted arguments..i.e. Brodie. She dismissed the Conneaut witnesses by saying they must have faulty memory. I appreciate you’ve added to that argument by saying you find the Book of Mormon witnesses credible and believe them... that Smith dictated with “his head in the hat”. So basically you believe the witnesses who are related to one another all except Harris, who are involved in the con, who were motivated by perceived personal gain, who were not trusted reliable honest individuals and yet you find them so credible that you can not conceive they could possibly be lying about the process involved..despite the fact that their statements are not even consistent with one another as far as the process and despite them describing extraordinary events which could not possibly have transpired as they claimed.

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.

Loftus’s studies did not test recall after retrieval cues..that just one major difference.

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.

Thanks to Wade? What has he said other than link to his web site. As far as the lost 116 pages other explanations as I pointed out in my other post are conceivable. Had they been making changes to Rigdon’s manuscript as they wrote..they would no longer have a copy of what they had dictated..that’s one possibility why they’d want to start again.

The more you talk Dan, it becomes apparent you are not a very logical person at all.

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.

Correct ...in this discussion you are not getting much support. However, outside this discussion you don’t get much flack for example on the MAD board ,nor flack from the church apologists..because they can accept it the Smith alone theory.