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

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

I'm not going to CFR for quotes but I will say that I am confident you can pull whatever quote you want of mine and you won't find one where I accuse you of "being illogical and stupid."

Not in those words. I was trying to capture an attitude. Foremost in my mind as I wrote were Marg’s exchanges with Glenn, especially on memory studies.

How could you possibly know the extent of "real knowledge" either marg or I have? Are you God? Are you a mind reader? If not, then why phrase things so forcefully? It's ironic that you claim we use personal insults, such as allegedly calling you stupid, when you won't find one example of it, and yet in the same post, here you are, claiming to know the extent of our "real knowledge."

Your knowledge of logic is apparent in what you write--I don’t have to mind read or guess--which is why I find your accusing others of being illogical ironic.

And I told you from the beginning that I am not concerned about following pre-determined rules for the formal structure of arguments or formally identifying logical fallacies.

Yes. That is the statement I made. I stand by it then and now. You overreacted then and you seem to be overreacting still. …

Once again, you won't find that in anything I wrote. It is, in fact, a mischaracterization on your part. And I don't understand why you feel the need to so mischaracterize. …

Not once does this quote say that I am going to "violate logic anyway." You're an author. You should know that words carry meaning and I generally try to choose my words carefully.

What it says is that I am not concerned about playing the type of game you want to play where you get to anoint yourself logic police, prosecutor, judge and jury. Instead I told you what I am interested in. Did you read that part?

Who are you to try and put limits on how I respond to your arguments? If you’re not concerned about logic, I am. Why should your concerns protect you from criticism? If you recall, Marg came to your defense by criticizing me for continuing to label your fallacious arguments, saying that since you didn’t care about logic it was abuse to continue using it. Debate works that way. It’s about who has the best arguments and evidence, isn’t it? It has nothing to do with me trying to be the “logic police, prosecutor, judge and jury”—talk about overreaction. You certainly try to use all the logic and reason you can muster, so why can’t I?

Which is why I pointed out many pages ago, that it I am not in this for the sake of debate, and I can't speak for marg, but I am guessing it's likely the same with her. We are interested in who really produced the content for the Book of Mormon. That's what we're interested in. Not in winning some juvenile debate. I have much better ways of spending my time than attempting to beat you at a meaningless internet debate. In fact IF I WERE in it merely to win a debate, my approach would be entirely different. I have been very candid and open with you but that would not be the case if I were simply attempting to win a debate.

None of that is to say that I object to forceful & meaningful challenges to S/R. If S/R is not the best explanation for the Book of Mormon I am interested in knowing that. But I'm not interested in debate merely for the sake of debate.

This statement rings hollow when I read the entirety of your posts. I don’t understand why you use polemics and then deny it? Perhaps that’s your style of gamesmanship. It may come as a surprise to you, but what you describe above as your motivations isn’t borne out in your posts. The way you argued against Whitmer’s testimony using Knight’s statement was pure polemics, and not the search for truth you claim for yourself. I’m not interested in that kind of debate, Roger. I’m not interested in polemics or fallacious reasoning. Along the same lines as above you quoted yourself saying:

Whatever maneuvers I may or may not be guilty of are operating at a subconscious level. In other words it is not my intention to maneuver you or manipulate your answer or trap you or anything of the kind. My intention is not to "win" an argument, here, it is to understand your position and after doing so to challenge you in areas where I think your conclusions are wrong. I respect your opinion and I think we actually agree on several things. In fact, quite honestly, I really don't think there is much difference between your position and mine when it comes right down to it.

Don’t you see the irony in saying your only motive is “to understand your position and after doing so to challenge you in areas where I think your conclusions are wrong.” I’ve seen what “challenge” means to you—it means using fallacious arguments from silence, ad hominem, etc.

On the intentional fallacy: This came up when I was commenting on Marg’s use of a Mormon apologist’s critique of my biography, particularly its approach to the Book of Mormon as autobiography. He misunderstood that I was using it as proof that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon against his belief that it is ancient. As I explained, I wasn’t arguing that in my biography. It was written with the assumption Joseph Smith is the author in order to mine it for insight into his motivations, beliefs, and future plans. To this, you asked what would prevent you from doing the same with the assumption that Spalding was author. My response was that you would run into the intentional fallacy, because with Spalding as author the Book of Mormon is fiction, and fiction doesn’t have to be believed. On the other hand, if Joseph Smith is author, it’s no long just a novel—it’s didactic and rhetorical, designed to make readers believe and join a movement. Marg changed the context of the statement. I was allowing both our assumptions about authorship in order to make a point. In other words, I was suspending debate about authorship; she tried to bring it back in and highjack my statement for her own purposes. I don’t want to belabor this point here.

I don't know how many times I've pointed out that statements like these are a gross over-generalization. Do I need to come up with a fancy logical fallacy name for it? Shall we call it the "Intentional Over-generalization Fallacy"? Let's review:

1. S/R does not (nor to my knowledge ever has) claimed that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon.

2. No Spalding advocate that I know has ever claimed that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon

3. Critics of S/R DO erroneously claim that S/R claims that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon.

4. Those critics are building straw men

Of course, I understand that you and others believe Spalding’s MS was redacted by Rigdon (possibly others). I’m using shorthand. I was also mirroring your words, If I recall correctly. The witnesses only mention Spalding as author of the historical parts, but maybe with Rigdon as author of the religious parts you might avoid the intentional fallacy.

But in answer to Glenn, I doubt that there was much direct, verbatim copying. S/R critics are quick to disbelieve our Conneaut friends on other details, never failing to point out the twenty year gap as the logic for dismissing whatever they want to dismiss, but are then eager to take "verbatim" as literally as possible.

Verbatim might give them a chance of recognizing it, the redacting process you describe makes one wonder how they would recognize the similarities, especially after 20 years.

[_GlennThigpen]

When you formulate a hypothesis, Glenn, you look at the overall picture, then you formulate, then you look at the details to see if they fit. It is possible that Spalding wrote a lost Jewish tribes story and then changed it to lost Norse tribes. The point is that the parallels, other than Biblical and Apocryphal and Clavigero, are with British and Icelandic material that was available in English at that time. Which was my original contention. Spalding may have spoken or even written about the Jewish tribes theory, but discarded it as much less believable than a lost Norse tribes story. Even M'Kee, a later witness, was vague about the ethnicities involved. Maybe Ether is a residue of the earlier story. Then Smith & Co. replaced many of the names with Old Testament'ish sounding ones, along with their other changes.

When you say Norse tribes are you referring to the northern tribes of Israel or the Norse of Scandinavia, or maybe saying that the ten tribes migrated north to Scandinavia and became the Norse people?

Glenn

[_marg]

You’re the one who couldn’t accurately describe Occam’s Razor in the previous post, confusing phenomenon with “conclusion”.

I wrote: The situation with the S/R theory and Smith alone theories is that they are explanations with different conclusions. They are competing theories but they are not equal explanatory theories for the same conclusion.

And you wrote in response (after your review of wiki): "Occam'sRazor deals with competing theories that attempt to explain the same phenomenon-here the phenomenon is the Book of Mormon. It's not "less data" vs more data; it's about competing theories to explain all the data, or at least most of it, with the least qualification, elaborations, and ad hoc hypothesizing."

So there is no confusion Dan..the observed phenomenon to be explained is the Book of Mormon. The 2 competing theories and their associated explanations are called Smith alone and Spalding/Rigdon theories. They each have data and reasoning which warrants different conclusions in order to explain the phenomenon...the Book of Mormon.

Occam's Razor can not logically be used as a decision tool to choose one theory over the other.

Occam's Razor may work in situations amenable to verification..because it can then be determined whether or not an explanation actually works. It's a useless determining factor for deciding true historical events..because the point of Occam's Razor is not to be used to determine "truth" the point of it is to use as a decision tool where all things being equal simplicity for choosing one over the other often makes sense.

You hadn’t the foggiest idea what you were talking about, and still don’t. Now, you persist in trying to find a loophole that will prove you right in a different way.

No Dan it's you trying to find the loop hole using an accusation of ad hoc fallacy. Trying to tell me in essence that the S/R theory is the same as the Smith theory except it has ad hoc explanations added. And that the reason you bring up Occam's Razor is to razor away unnecessary ad hoc additions of the S/R theory. And that ad hoc's are a sure sign of a problematic theory.

Ad hoc's the way wiki was explaining it could only be ignored or razored away because the sort of ad hocs they were talking about had no basis at all in fact, no evidence what so ever that God or leprechauns exist so to add them to explain away a problem adds no more explanatory information all it does is explain away. The problem is with your misinterpretation of ad hoc fallacy and how it should be determined.

The pious fraud smith only theory or just smith only theory is a very different theory to a conspiracy theory involving Smith not as the initial planner or instigator but as a much more minor player and number of other individuals, one or more of which is/are even more influential than Smith. The S/R theory is not simply the Smith alone theory with some ad hoc justifications added.

Look, there are three competing theories attempting to explain the Book of Mormon—S/R, Smith alone, and inspired translation of an actual record (or possibly inspired fiction)—and the various advocates believe their theory is the best explanation for the Book of Mormon’s existence. No theory explains all data. All the data aren’t amenable to explanation. In science the data that must be accounted for are harder than in historiography, which makes it much more difficult for us to agree on sufficiency. Choices are made as to what questions are the most important ones to have answered, and which evidences are more salient. Nevertheless, since all sides believe they have answered the most important questions, have the most salient evidence, and can account for most of the counter-evidence, it’s time to take inventory and see whose theory is the most complicated--which makes the most assumptions and resorts to elaborate explanations ad hoc hypotheses to explain counter-evidence. It’s not likely that either side will agree that the other has an equally explanatory theory. That’s why the need to see not who can explain most of the data, but to see how that data is being dealt with—who is resorting to special pleading, wild speculation, and ad hoc invention.

Ok first of all, going forward, please don't use occam's razor or any form of simplicity as a reasoning in choosing theories, it doesn't apply. Next, science is very different from history..its focus is not truth its focus is useful explanations of phenomenon which offer predictive value. So Occam'sRazor and ad hoc applied to theories as explained in wiki don't apply the same to historical theories as they could in science.

So there are 3 theories. We can whittle that down to 2. The divine theory is the Smith alone theory with the added God component. God is used to explain how Smith given his lack of education, his disinterest in writing, could have dictated without preplanning, reviewing, correcting, a complex novel filled with many characters with a story over a long period of time. God does not add extra explanatory power. There is no evidence for this God. God increases the complexity to the theory. And as you counter, it is a possibility that a person could write the Book of Mormon.

So we are down to 2 theories...Smith alone versus S/R theory. The S/R data Dan, is not ad hoc justifications. Yes it's complex, and messy and difficult to appreciate..but that's real life. If you are looking for truth as opposed to a theory which will make do irrespective of truth, then real theories can get complex. Hence simplicity is not a criteria to dismiss a historical theory seeking truth. This is why Dan, when you give explanations such as you rely on the Book of Mormon witnesses and use their testimony to dismiss the S/R witnesses...your reasoning shows up as weak, not well grounded. It's plain as daylight, that the Book of Mormon witnesses for motivational reason alone can not be accepted at face value and one needs to employs a higher degree of skepticism of their claims than the S/R witnesses. You've latched on to memory studies to dismiss the S/R witnesses, but Dan, people do remember when given memory retrieval cues- they know whether or not their memory is jogged and whether they can remember clearly or not.

You write: "That’s why the need to see not who can explain most of the data, but to see how that data is being dealt with—who is resorting to special pleading, wild speculation, and ad hoc invention."

Correct, and that's why years ago I wanted to see your reasoning and evidence supporting the Smith alone. At that point although the S/R theory seemed well warranted I had observed you on FAIR and you seemed intelligent, so I wanted to see your reasoning. That discussion occurred on this board. I came away from that discussion with the impression you really had nothing substantial for your argument. You were saying then what you've said now, that you dismiss the S/R witnesses based on your acceptance of the reliability of the Book of Mormon witnesses. That's not dealing with the data, very well. Nor is using scientific memory theories incorrectly to dismiss the S/R witnesses evaluating the data well.

Put another way, the requirement that both theories account for all data will cause the wrong theory to make more assumptions.

It's not a matter of all the data, because some data could wrong, and obviously if a conspiracy is involved the data may be misleading..plus when we add the motivation of the church and its power one must consider they might want the smith alone theory to be the theory accepted after the divine one and might try to suppress information.

So rather than all the data, it's a matter of good critical thinking of the data..of what exists and appreciating why data may be lacking or poor. Lots is dependent on motivational factors of all people involved. For example, why did Hurlbut stop in Palmyra to not only say he had what he set out for but as well he was informed by Spalding's widow that Rigdon was the one to add the religious material. What would motivate Hurlbut to say that, if all he had was MSCC? Why even bother to mention Rigdon if all he had was MSCC? So it requires objective critical evaluation of the data..not a superficial acceptance and non critical examination of evidence. Of course, if one isn't interested in the truth then the simplest theory will do.

You don’t like me teaching you anything, right? I never said that Occam’s Razor proves my thesis right and yours wrong. It’s only a rule of thumb, I said. I also said a theory can’t be decisively disproved, but multiplying ad hoc hypotheses are a sure sign that a theory is on its way out of favor and that it will usually begin to fade away. Your insistence that differences between theories prevent Occam’s Razor being used in this case is just another stalling tactic, similar to what you did for false memory theory.

Dan it's not even a rule of thumb to be used in this case. It has nada, zilch, nothing to benefit this case.

Also Dan the S/R theory is not a pile of ad hoc justifications added on to the Smith alone thoery. You are misunderstanding what the wiki article was talking about with Occam's as well as ad hoc.

When the wiki is talking about ad hoc they really are referring to absurd unlikely explanations..which have been resorted to solely as a means to maintain a theory and the ad hoc's explain away as opposed to offer an explanation which seeks a true alternate possibility or probability.

What I did with "false memory" is learn and understand what memory research was actually saying.

I’m not talking about razoring anything. We’re talking about which theory has the strongest position by noting the tactics being used to defend the Spalding theory against counter-evidence. Ad hoc hypothesizing can be about the supernatural, but not necessarily. Those are examples that are easily understood. Scientists don’t normally resort to supernatural arguments. Ad hoc hypotheses usually are untestable and can’t be disproved or falsified. Occam’s Razor isn’t applied to ad hoc hypotheses so that a theory has fewer of them. It’s a way of assessing theories and preferring one over another. The theory with the fewest assumptions is most likely true, but not necessarily so.

Well in science Dan..when a theory is falsified that can be determined via testing and verification. So that's a different situation that a history issue such as this of who actually wrote the Book of Mormon and how. If someone presents a theory in science and then it's falsified the originator of the theory can't resort to absurd untestable explanations to save the theory..such as the supernatural. So sure Occam's Razor applies. But even science doesn't need occam's razor...all science has to say is adding God or anything for which there is no evidence doesn't add any explanatory power, it only explains away evidence.

In this history situation... the S/R theory is not ad hoc additions to the Smith alone theory. It's not the same situation to what wiki was referring to.

I sort of understand what you are saying...to you Smith alone is plausible and so adding further additional people is ad hoc. But that's not the case. If you take the data available and critically evaluate it, the most likely or best fit theory is the S/R theory. With the approach you take, it seems as if you started in your life believing in the Divine theory, you eliminated the divine and that left you with the Smith alone. From that point you may not have ever really considered seriously or even looked into evidence for the S/R theory. So to you, it seems that Smith alone rationally enjoys presumption. And to you, all the conspiracy data complicates things and you figure it's just added on so why not razor it off and what's left is Smith alone

But frankly the reason Smith alone has had support and little challenge is not because it's the most rational explanation but rather because few people even care about Mormonism other than Mormons..the investigations right from the beginning were poorly handled, the church from the beginning has been highly motivated to promote a Smith alone theory and suppress a conspiracy and it's just much easier to convince disinterested people with a simple theory as opposed to a very complex one. So by convention one might say Smith alone enjoys presumption but it hasn't been rationally warranted.

So to summarize ..because I know how keenly interested you are in logic and I don't want you to keep on misusing Occam's razor in your argumentation.

First off…you have argued that Occam's razor should be used a a decision tool in favor of Smith alone theory over S/R because it is the simpler theory. You are incorrect in your application of Occam's Razor. Those are competing theories offering completely different conclusions.

Different “conclusions” is the wrong word. We’re talking about different explanations of the same phenomenon.

No we are talking about different conclusions..it's not the wrong word. Smith alone is a conclusion ..it's about a one man show. S/R theory is a conclusion...it is Smith with co conspirators..along with Spalding and perhaps other outside source material. What differentiates the theories are the different conclusions..warranted by the evidence and reasoning supporting those conclusions.

What? It doesn’t matter what private reasoning you had, you were defending the Spalding theory against counter-evidence. That you would argue in this manner is ludicrous. Are you sure you’re not punking me? You lost that debate hands down, but you provided us with good examples of ad hoc hypothesizing.

That's what discussing is about. People make a claim or argue against a claim, and the other person responds either agreeing or countering or simply exploring different ideas. You are the one arguing in a ludicrous manner. You assume the Smith alone doesn't need to be warranted with evidence and reasoning. You assume the S/R theory is simply ad hocs of additional people added on to Smith alone. You declare you've falsified the S/R theory with your "lost tribe" argument and then if I don't accept you assumptions and reasoning and provide different assumptions and reasoning you accuse of ad hoc'ing in order to stop you falsifying. That's not what the wiki was referring to.

I have not made that argument. Razoring away ad hoc theories is not what Occam’s Razor is designed to do. You are attempting to assign your misunderstanding to me. When I first brought up Occam’s Razor, it was in connection with the complexity and convoluted argumentation necessary to maintain the Spalding theory—and you agreed!

Dan I've never agreed that you have falsified the S/R theory and that I used ad hoc justification to maintain it. And even in this thread you have talked about simplicity as being a decision tool which should be used in deciding between Smith alone and S/R.
All I want you to appreciate is that simplicity ..whether you call it Occam's Razor, parsimony or simply 'simplicity'..is not a logical decision tool which should be employed to determine in this case which theory is most likely true..Smith on his own or with co-conspirators.



As far as the rest of your post on ad hoc..I'm not going to bother with that now. You probably missed or ignored the point I made that you did not falsify the S/R theory What you call my ad hoc justifications to stop you falsifying the S/R theory is not what occurred. You never destroyed or falsified the theory in the first place. If that's what you do in discussion Dan..claim victory and anyone who disagrees with you, is ad hoc'ing...that's pretty sad.

Most certainly Dan, the S/R theory is not simply a pile of ad hocs onto the Smith alone theory. The church appreciates how weak the Smith alone theory is, it's obvious it's a weak theory. If it was so easy for Smith and he was so capable of being the writer ...the divine explanation would have a much weaker believability factor in order to sell. If someone already believes in a God, it's only a small step to be sold that Smith couldn't have possibly written this therefore ..God did it.

[_MCB]

When you say Norse tribes are you referring to the northern tribes of Israel or the Norse of Scandinavia, or maybe saying that the ten tribes migrated north to Scandinavia and became the Norse people? Glenn

LOL. You are always looking through one tiny little shredded loophole to climb through, Glenn. Well, here it is. If you have not read Monmouth, perhaps you ought to. It has the Celtic British people coming from Troy, I believe. Modern ethnologists have the Celts as originating in Turkey. Close enough. And it is undeniable that the Norse people, particularly the Icelandic "tribe" had plenty of Irish, and Irish ancestry among them.
In addition, one text has the Slavic people as being of the "Samartan" race, close enough in spelling to be construed into "Samaritan."

There are legends about Irish - Native interaction before Columbus.

So, however mangled, the book has some truth in it, other than what came directly from the Bible.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Correct, and that's why years ago I wanted to see your reasoning and evidence supporting the Smith alone. At that point although the S/R theory seemed well warranted I had observed you on FAIR and you seemed intelligent, so I wanted to see your reasoning. That discussion occurred on this board. I came away from that discussion with the impression you really had nothing substantial for your argument. You were saying then what you've said now, that you dismiss the S/R witnesses based on your acceptance of the reliability of the Book of Mormon witnesses. That's not dealing with the data, very well. Nor is using scientific memory theories incorrectly to dismiss the S/R witnesses evaluating the data well.

I didn’t discuss the Smith-alone theory vs. Spalding on FAIR or in my book. I’ve only done it on the two threads on this board. And I don’t use memory theories to dismiss the Spalding witnesses. You should know better. It’s an alternative explanation for accepting the stronger testimony of the Mormon witnesses. You have no viable alternative theory for the Mormon testimony—other than to accuse them of being simultaneously gullible and liars. Neither of which you have demonstrated except by circular reasoning.

Dan it's not even a rule of thumb to be used in this case. It has nada, zilch, nothing to benefit this case.

Also Dan the S/R theory is not a pile of ad hoc justifications added on to the Smith alone thoery. You are misunderstanding what the wiki article was talking about with Occam's as well as ad hoc.

When the wiki is talking about ad hoc they really are referring to absurd unlikely explanations..which have been resorted to solely as a means to maintain a theory and the ad hoc's explain away as opposed to offer an explanation which seeks a true alternate possibility or probability.

What I did with "false memory" is learn and understand what memory research was actually saying.

No, you looked only for what you needed to debate and refused to generalize the principles we referenced while at the same time generalizing things that supported your view that the witnesses’ memories were good. None of which you can demonstrate from the sources.

You still misunderstand both Occam’s Razor and ad hoc hypotheses. You are just playing the same game you played with the memory studies. The fact is the wild speculations and special pleadings thrown out by you are ad hoc hypotheses designed to save your theory. As I said, what happens in this situation is that the theory isn’t disproved decisively, but resort to these kinds of explanations weakens the theory and it finds less and less defenders. There will always be die-hards.

Well in science Dan..when a theory is falsified that can be determined via testing and verification. So that's a different situation that a history issue such as this of who actually wrote the Book of Mormon and how. If someone presents a theory in science and then it's falsified the originator of the theory can't resort to absurd untestable explanations to save the theory..such as the supernatural. So sure Occam's Razor applies. But even science doesn't need occam's razor...all science has to say is adding God or anything for which there is no evidence doesn't add any explanatory power, it only explains away evidence.

Didn’t you read the examples I gave. You can find others on the internet. Ad hoc hypotheses are just about the supernatural—it’s about the untestable.

In this history situation... the S/R theory is not ad hoc additions to the Smith alone theory. It's not the same situation to what wiki was referring to.

That’s not at all what I said. Didn’t you read the examples I gave? The S/R theory resorts to ad hoc hypotheses in response to counter-evidence.

I sort of understand what you are saying...to you Smith alone is plausible and so adding further additional people is ad hoc. But that's not the case. If you take the data available and critically evaluate it, the most likely or best fit theory is the S/R theory. With the approach you take, it seems as if you started in your life believing in the Divine theory, you eliminated the divine and that left you with the Smith alone. From that point you may not have ever really considered seriously or even looked into evidence for the S/R theory. So to you, it seems that Smith alone rationally enjoys presumption. And to you, all the conspiracy data complicates things and you figure it's just added on so why not razor it off and what's left is Smith alone

The conspiracy theory was added as a response to adverse evidence—to explain away witnesses. It’s ad hoc because it has no explanatory power outside its use to deflect evidence.

But frankly the reason Smith alone has had support and little challenge is not because it's the most rational explanation but rather because few people even care about Mormonism other than Mormons..the investigations right from the beginning were poorly handled, the church from the beginning has been highly motivated to promote a Smith alone theory and suppress a conspiracy and it's just much easier to convince disinterested people with a simple theory as opposed to a very complex one. So by convention one might say Smith alone enjoys presumption but it hasn't been rationally warranted.

Spaldingites always seem to be people who never were Mormons, because they don’t know the Mormon sources very well.

No we are talking about different conclusions..it's not the wrong word. Smith alone is a conclusion ..it's about a one man show. S/R theory is a conclusion...it is Smith with co conspirators..along with Spalding and perhaps other outside source material. What differentiates the theories are the different conclusions..warranted by the evidence and reasoning supporting those conclusions.

You are confusing the discussion by replacing theory with conclusion. S/R and Smith-alone are different theories attempting to explain the Book of Mormon. When you say “What differentiates the theories are the different conclusions,” you are merely repeating yourself--“What differentiates the THEORIES are the different THEORIES,” or “What differentiates the CONCLUSIONS are the different CONCLUSIONS,” as to who wrote the Book of Mormon. And the razor IS designed to assess different theories/conclusions that explain the same phenomenon—the Book of Mormon.

That's what discussing is about. People make a claim or argue against a claim, and the other person responds either agreeing or countering or simply exploring different ideas. You are the one arguing in a ludicrous manner. You assume the Smith alone doesn't need to be warranted with evidence and reasoning. You assume the S/R theory is simply ad hocs of additional people added on to Smith alone. You declare you've falsified the S/R theory with your "lost tribe" argument and then if I don't accept you assumptions and reasoning and provide different assumptions and reasoning you accuse of ad hoc'ing in order to stop you falsifying. That's not what the wiki was referring to.

I don’t believe Smith-alone doesn’t need defending, but I usually have that discussion with those who think the Book of Mormon is inspired translation and Smith couldn’t do it. So the focus in rightly on Spalding advocates, for the moment, for the simple reason that if it could be shown that Smith couldn’t have done it alone it still wouldn’t establish your theory. The only thing the “lost tribes” discussion (you keep leaving out the plural, by the way) shows is that the witnesses are confused on a major element of the testimony. It’s an element that leads to possible explanation, but in and of itself is not a refutation of the Spalding theory. However, your response was ad hoc and desperate to say the least. Perhaps you need to read some more on this topic. You were making things up in an effort to resist. You didn’t resort to logic, reason, or evidence—you offered a one-time explanation of what “lost tribes” could have meant to the witnesses and ignored what it meant in the context of cultural discussion at the time they were speaking.

This game of “you can’t pin me down” can go on forever—but reasonable people know what’s going on.

Dan I've never agreed that you have falsified the S/R theory and that I used ad hoc justification to maintain it. And even in this thread you have talked about simplicity as being a decision tool which should be used in deciding between Smith alone and S/R.
All I want you to appreciate is that simplicity ..whether you call it Occam's Razor, parsimony or simply 'simplicity'..is not a logical decision tool which should be employed to determine in this case which theory is most likely true..Smith on his own or with co-conspirators.

Good. I’ve never claimed any such thing. Instead, you agreed here and elsewhere that the Spalding theory is more complicated and cumbersome than Smith-alone. The first time you agreed, ad hoc hadn’t been brought up—but I hope now that you become more aware of your style of argumentation is weak and has a weakening effect on the theory as a whole.

As far as the rest of your post on ad hoc..I'm not going to bother with that now. You probably missed or ignored the point I made that you did not falsify the S/R theory What you call my ad hoc justifications to stop you falsifying the S/R theory is not what occurred. You never destroyed or falsified the theory in the first place. If that's what you do in discussion Dan..claim victory and anyone who disagrees with you, is ad hoc'ing...that's pretty sad.

Ad hominem isn’t going to help you. I certainly don’t believe all arguments against my position are ad hoc fallacies, or that all defenses against my presentation of counter-evidence are ad hoc. Nor do I necessarily believe resort to ad hoc defenses disproves a theory—it’s the repeated tendency that weighs a theory down.

Most certainly Dan, the S/R theory is not simply a pile of ad hocs onto the Smith alone theory. The church appreciates how weak the Smith alone theory is, it's obvious it's a weak theory. If it was so easy for Smith and he was so capable of being the writer ...the divine explanation would have a much weaker believability factor in order to sell. If someone already believes in a God, it's only a small step to be sold that Smith couldn't have possibly written this therefore ..God did it.

I don’t make arguments based on what the Church thinks.

[_MCB]

Dan,

People of Mormon cultural heritage still carry with them a certain hesitation to look in more recent literature than the Bible, because of the sacredness of the Book of Mormon. People of nonMormon cultural heritage, particularly those with mine, have no such culturally-defined inhibitions. Despite your achievements, you still have limitations.

People like Marg and (with all respect) Dale have retreated to a defensive posture with their ad-hoc counters which (I agree) complicate S/R. It takes a radically different approach to keep it simple.

[_marg]

I didn’t discuss the Smith-alone theory vs. Spalding on FAIR or in my book. I’ve only done it on the two threads on this board.

Correct, I didn't say you had discussed the theories on FAIR, I only said I oberved your discussion of the theories on this board.

And I don’t use memory theories to dismiss the Spalding witnesses. You should know better. It’s an alternative explanation for accepting the stronger testimony of the Mormon witnesses.

Dan on motivational factors alone ..one needs to be more skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses than the S/R witnesses. It is ludicrous for you to argue they have stronger testimony. Although you say you don't use memory studies to dismiss them you have. You have cited Loftus's 'lost in the mall study'..to argue the witnesses's memories after 20 years should be rejected for false memory. That study was not applicable to their situation.

You have no viable alternative theory for the Mormon testimony—other than to accuse them of being simultaneously gullible and liars. Neither of which you have demonstrated except by circular reasoning.

Let's do some critical evaluation to determine is this is simply a matter of accusing them with no justification that they could be liars and perhaps in some cases a degree of credulousness involved such as with Harris.

From Critical Thinking: an Introduction
By Alex Fisher 2001

Chapter 7 - JUDGING THE CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES SKILFULLY

Since so many of our beliefs are based on what other people tell us, on TV or by word of mouth, the critical thinker needs to know how to decide who to believe and in what circumstances. The criteria which apply will depend on the case, but relevant considerations will often include:

–these source's reputation for reliability (contrast the BBC and the Sun newspaper)

–whether the source has a vested interest e.g. someone accused of war crimes who denies any responsibility)

-whether there is corroboration of the claim from independent sources (as when it was claimed that ColdFusion had been produced)

-whether the source has the relevant expertise/training (as when a police officer give evidence in court)

- the nature of the claim itself as when someone claims to have witnessed a miracle

- whether this source can provide credible reasons for the claimant they made (as when someone claims to have encountered aliens from another planet)

We shall divide what we say on this topic into five sections these will deal with the questions about

(i) the person/source whose credibility we wish to judge

(ii)the circumstances/context in which the claim is made which affects its credibility

(iii)the justification the source offers or can offer in support of the claim which affects its credibility

(iv) the nature of the claim which influence its credibility

(v)whether there is corroboration from other sources


Thus, for example, a British policeman (the source) might testify in court (the context) that he saw (the justification) the defendant pass sword through a woman on stage (nature of the claim) and others might testify that they saw too (corroboration) ; or a newspaper reporter employed on the US National Enquirer (the person) might report in the newspaper (the context) that he had been informed (the justification) that the Titanic had resurfaced (nature of the claim) and that the U.S. Navy had eyewitness reports about this remarkable event corroboration) (such report was really published in the National Enquirer a few years ago). The division of our comments into these categories is arbitrary to some ( for example, where should one put the discussion of vested interests?) But it helps organize one's questioning.

Ok so Dan if we very briefly go through a critical examination of the credibility of the sources one can see there is good reason to be highly skeptical of the witnesses.


i) Source/Person: all related except one(Harris) to each other. These individuals when it comes to Mormonism, and claims of angels, God and Smith's claims are not skeptical, inquisitive, independent, objective individuals. All tied to the enterprise Mormonism with participating functions available to them once it starts up. All at the beginning have potential rewards ..financial benefits, power, employment ..whether those materialize is irrelevant to the initial perceptions. All living in extremely hard times in need of work/livelihood (except Harris who is the financial backer) with few opportunities available at the time for uneducated or for those with no assets given by family such as a farm.

The person they testify about is a noted con-artist/magician apparently very persuasive. The details are not clear in their statements in order to be able to rule out that tricks by Smith were not employed. He used a top hat as a prop and as we know top hats have been used by magician, in fact the "rabbit in the hat" trick had been done in Smith's day. It is questionable that they were alert to what he was doing..at least the ones he used tricks with to fool them..such as a few hostile witnesses, perhaps Harris a noted credulous individual and perhaps his wife Emma. Objective individuals do not know the true circumstances of what went on, we only have a brief sketch given by non objective witnesses and only a few hostile witnesses perhaps only one, as Emma's brother in law is once again a related individual who may not be hostile. In any event the circumstances of their exposure was limited and within the control of Smith.

Hurlbut collected statements by Palmyra residents and the reputation of Smith and family were not that they were honest individuals.

ii Circumstance/context:

Smith and family controlled the context in which information was given out. They controlled what people were informed and when. Very few people who were objective observed the initial stages of the enterprise.

iii Justification the source offers or can offer in support of the claim which affects credibility

- the Book of Mormon witness statements indicate witnesses did not require good justifications..plates they testify to knowing they exists were not seen..."spiritual eyes" is word play. Handling them under cloth does not give anyone good justification to know with certainty what the object is. In addition these plates do not even exist for independent evaluation and there is no evidence objectively obtained that they ever existed.

(iv) [b]the nature of the claim which influence its credibility

The nature of the claims are extraordinary, not only claims involving seeing angels and god but just the nature that Smith had little education, little interest in writing, was not observed to have done any preplanning, prewriting, reviewing, or corrections..so the nature of the claim being extraordinary affects the credibility of all involved adversely

(v) whether there is corroboration from other sources

- There is very limited objective hostile witness corroboration. Of that evidence, Smith and co-horts had control.

So let's look at your statement again Dan [i]You have no viable alternative theory for the Mormon testimony—other than to accuse them of being simultaneously gullible and liars. Neither of which you have demonstrated except by circular reasoning/i]

The person with the circular reasoning here is you. You accept at face value the Book of Mormon witness statements. You've done no critical evaluation that I can tell. When one goes through very briefly the list Alec Fisher suggests in evaluating witnesses one can see that there is very good justification to not accept the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements and to assume they are completely unreliable. On all factors it indicates that.

What I did with "false memory" is learn and understand what memory research was actually saying.

No, you looked only for what you needed to debate and refused to generalize the principles we referenced while at the same time generalizing things that supported your view that the witnesses’ memories were good. None of which you can demonstrate from the sources.

Dan, people do remember and know they remember in situations where they had memories of something before a questioner (such as in memory studies or a therapist ) gets involved. So when it's not implanted memories but rather memories that actually occurred in their past lives..i.e. episodic memory, with a retreival memory cue, not only can memories resurface but an individual can know whether they clearly remember something versus just sort of knowing. So the witnesses acknowledged some memory had gone and the Book of Mormon didn't not help with the retrieval.."lost tribes" was such a memory. And some bring up lost tribes and some don't. And there is a bit of inconsistency. But on some things which could only be referencing the MF and not MSCC..they say they clearly remember...biblical style (which the printer also remembered) the phrase "and it came to pass" and then some remembered uniqued things like certain passages or names. This is consistent with how memory works. The memory studies were to demonstrate under certain limited circumstance..memory can be faulty. Those limited circumstances in all the memory were not applicable to the S/R witnesses.

So that's it for today...I'm not going to spend more time on this.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Dan on motivational factors alone ..one needs to be more skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses than the S/R witnesses.
...

I was still a rather young and intensely loyal Latter Day Saint,
when I was first exposed to Hyrum Smith's 1841 Nauvoo Conference
lies about Martha Brotherton. His obvious, patent cover-up of early
LDS polygamy caused me quite a headache, but I compartmentalized
the problem and went happily along --- until I encountered the
vile character assassination published by Hyrum's younger brother
William, in the 1842 Nauvoo Wasp -- again at poor Martha's
expense. I realized I was beginning to detect a lying pattern.

By the time I read Ebenezer Robinson's explanations for Smith
family deceit, I had already discarded my old trust in the earliest
Mormons. Some may have been honest -- and some may have
given what they believed was accurate, truthful testimony.

But, to assume that all the early witnesses supporting Joseph Smith
were continually and fully reliable in their statements is ludicrous.

I have long had the strong impression, that anything and anybody
Joseph Smith came into contact with was either soon corrupted or
else soon repulsed. I cannot trust any early member who supported
Smith beyond their initial encounter with the man.

When the only source available to me (for establishing a historical
date or event) is a Mormon one, I always use that information as
though it were provisional and easily subject to change, upon the
uncovering of additional information.

Any would-be historian (or biographer) who relies fully upon the
early Mormons for accuracy, honesty and reliability is a fool.

Uncle Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

I have long had the strong impression, that anything and anybody
Joseph Smith came into contact with was either soon corrupted or
else soon repulsed. I cannot trust any early member who supported
Smith beyond their initial encounter with the man. …

Any would-be historian (or biographer) who relies fully upon the
early Mormons for accuracy, honesty and reliability is a fool.

This is what the Mormons say about Hurlbut and anti-Mormon sources. Either way, it’s ad hominal. There are no disinterested sources, and it’s not about trust. Distrust is what a conspiracy theory thrives on. It’s more complicated than that. There are ways of teasing out the truth.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Dan on motivational factors alone ..one needs to be more skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses than the S/R witnesses. It is ludicrous for you to argue they have stronger testimony. Although you say you don't use memory studies to dismiss them you have. You have cited Loftus's 'lost in the mall study'..to argue the witnesses's memories after 20 years should be rejected for false memory. That study was not applicable to their situation.

All witness have motive where Mormonism is concerned. Its claims—as Dale noted—have a polarizing tendency. The Mormon testimony IS historically stronger than the Spalding witnesses’ testimonies for various reasons. You have demonstrated their strength by resorting to the desperate and ad hoc hat trick theory. I didn’t cite Loftus as evidence that the Spalding witnesses were mistaken, but as an explanation should their statements be rejected for other reasons. You never showed that the Spalding witness’ memories could not have failed them, because that is impossible; nor did you show that Loftus’ false memory studies were irrelevant, because you couldn’t immunize the witnesses against possible memory corruption. Despite your quibbling and insistence on exact replication, the basic principles of Loftus’ studies (and others) of vague memory being vulnerable to suggestion can apply to the Conneaut witnesses. You tried, but it’s not possible to establish how strong their memories were before contronting the Book of Mormon.

Let's do some critical evaluation to determine is this is simply a matter of accusing them with no justification that they could be liars and perhaps in some cases a degree of credulousness involved such as with Harris.

You might want to supplement your assessment of witnesses with a good historical primer. There are differences between analyzing contemporary sources and historical ones. Nevertheless, you are misusing your own criteria and using your own bias to assess the witnesses.

Ok so Dan if we very briefly go through a critical examination of the credibility of the sources one can see there is good reason to be highly skeptical of the witnesses.


i) Source/Person: all related except one(Harris) to each other. These individuals when it comes to Mormonism, and claims of angels, God and Smith's claims are not skeptical, inquisitive, independent, objective individuals. All tied to the enterprise Mormonism with participating functions available to them once it starts up. All at the beginning have potential rewards ..financial benefits, power, employment ..whether those materialize is irrelevant to the initial perceptions. All living in extremely hard times in need of work/livelihood (except Harris who is the financial backer) with few opportunities available at the time for uneducated or for those with no assets given by family such as a farm.

There’s no gene for dishonesty or gullibility. But you oversimplify--Harris, Smiths, Hales, Whitmers, Cowdery, Morris, and Knight. It comes down to those who had access to become a witness; being related is not a reason for skepticism. It’s not even on your list.

Being a believer doesn’t disqualify a person as a witness, especially since their belief came as a result of what they witnessed. You are demanding that the witnesses be critical, atheistic, investigators to have credibility in your eyes. Again, these criteria aren’t even on your list. The witnesses in this instance aren’t reporting a vision or a miracle. They might have visions, but they aren’t reporting a vision or miracle. Anyone could see Joseph Smith with head in hat dictating—nothing delusional about that. You are setting up a circular definition, where only those who rejected Joseph Smith’s claims can be skeptical, independent, objective individuals. You don’t know who was initially skeptical and who wasn’t. Harris is called the skeptical witness because he tested Joseph Smith. Whitmer described the translation process while at the same time criticizing Joseph Smith for his shortcomings and errors, and doing so while a member and while Joseph Smith was still alive. Many of the witness gave their reasons for believing. Joseph Smith was good at what he did—the witnesses were not stupid fools. One reason people don’t report being conned is because people make assumptions about the characters and intelligence of dupes. It’s wrong. None of these things makes a person a bad or dishonest witness.

The witness had no promises of financial award in converting to Mormonism. Harris had a financial interest in publishing the Book of Mormon, but that is irrelevant since there were no financial prospects at the times he related his testimony. Nevertheless, you are inventing financial gain as an argument since you have no evidence for it. Converts to Mormonism joined for the same reasons anyone affiliates with a church. Church membership doesn’t disqualify a person as a witness, especially when the witness is no longer a member of that church when giving testimony—which might incline apologists to be skeptical. Ultimately, you are inventing vested interest.

The person they testify about is a noted con-artist/magician apparently very persuasive. The details are not clear in their statements in order to be able to rule out that tricks by Smith were not employed.

Guilt by association and argument from silence. You don’t get to keep your hat-trick theory because they didn’t rule it out. However, if you read the quotes I gave, you will see that Emma specifically denies the use of a MS, as does also David Whitmer. So the details are clear. However, this has nothing to do with assessing the reliability of witnesses.

He used a top hat as a prop and as we know top hats have been used by magician, in fact the "rabbit in the hat" trick had been done in Smith's day.

LOL. Robert Houdin in the 1840s in France is usually credited with modernizing stage magic by wearing the tuxedo and top hat, and the rabbit trick isn’t usually done with a false bottom in the hat.

It is questionable that they were alert to what he was doing..at least the ones he used tricks with to fool them..such as a few hostile witnesses, perhaps Harris a noted credulous individual and perhaps his wife Emma. Objective individuals do not know the true circumstances of what went on, we only have a brief sketch given by non objective witnesses and only a few hostile witnesses perhaps only one, as Emma's brother in law is once again a related individual who may not be hostile. In any event the circumstances of their exposure was limited and within the control of Smith.

Speculation is not evidence against the witnesses. You can’t disqualify Emma’s brother simply because he’s related to Emma. He’s highly credible because he’s unfriendly and still supports his sister’s testimony.

Hurlbut collected statements by Palmyra residents and the reputation of Smith and family were not that they were honest individuals.

You need to pay attention to why these residents said the Smiths weren’t honest, and who these people were. The two affidavits signed by multiple people are not particularly reliable since most signers didn’t know the Smiths. However, none of Hurlbut’s documents pertain the honesty of the witnesses we are discussing.

ii Circumstance/context:

Smith and family controlled the context in which information was given out. They controlled what people were informed and when. Very few people who were objective observed the initial stages of the enterprise.

The Smith family was in Manchester, and the Book of Mormon was translated in Harmony, PA, and Fayette, NY. That’s one reason you don’t find Smiths on the list of witnesses. You don’t know how much control Joseph Smith exercised over this environment—you are just asserting it. None of the witnesses were members, because there was no Church yet. When Joseph Smith arrived at the Whitmers’ home, there was no expectation of belief since no one knew enough about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith to form a belief. The Whitmers only knew about Joseph Smith through Cowdery’s two letters sent from Harmony to David. From his statements, it’s clear that the family had access to the room where Joseph Smith was dictating. It was these observations that convinced the Whitmers.

iii Justification the source offers or can offer in support of the claim which affects credibility

- the Book of Mormon witness statements indicate witnesses did not require good justifications..plates they testify to knowing they exists were not seen..."spiritual eyes" is word play. Handling them under cloth does not give anyone good justification to know with certainty what the object is. In addition these plates do not even exist for independent evaluation and there is no evidence objectively obtained that they ever existed.

This doesn’t mean justification for religious belief, but justification for what is being testified to. They claimed they saw Joseph Smith with head in hat dictating and no possibility of a MS being used. Did they have access to the information they claim? Yes. If a stranger from another town or state made the same claim, we would want to know the circumstances under which he made the observations. If it sounds fishy, then we would be skeptical.

(iv) [b]the nature of the claim which influence its credibility

The nature of the claims are extraordinary, not only claims involving seeing angels and god but just the nature that Smith had little education, little interest in writing, was not observed to have done any preplanning, prewriting, reviewing, or corrections..so the nature of the claim being extraordinary affects the credibility of all involved adversely

Some of these people had or were going to have visions, but they are not testifying to visions or miracles in this instance. Seeing Joseph Smith with head in hat doesn’t arouse skepticism about the witnesses and their characters. Joseph Smith’s claim that he saw the translation in the stone does arouse skepticism. Not even the witnesses’ report of what Joseph Smith told them he saw shouldn’t make us skeptical about the witnesses’ testimony in that regard. People who have religious experiences aren’t automatically disqualified as witnesses.

(v) whether there is corroboration from other sources

- There is very limited objective hostile witness corroboration. Of that evidence, Smith and co-horts had control.

Multiple testimonies by witnesses no longer connected to the Church, given repeatedly and independently over decades is corroboration from other sources.

So let's look at your statement again Dan You have no viable alternative theory for the Mormon testimony—other than to accuse them of being simultaneously gullible and liars. Neither of which you have demonstrated except by circular reasoning

The person with the circular reasoning here is you. You accept at face value the Book of Mormon witness statements. You've done no critical evaluation that I can tell. When one goes through very briefly the list Alec Fisher suggests in evaluating witnesses one can see that there is very good justification to not accept the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements and to assume they are completely unreliable. On all factors it indicates that.

What we have shown is that you don’t understand Fisher’s simple list. You have dismissed Mormon testimony simply because it’s Mormon. You have forced your bias into Fisher’s list to make it appear you have carefully considered the witnesses, but you have demonstrated just the opposite. I rest my case.