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

[_MCB]

Marg:
You are like a cat playing with a dead mouse, killing it over and over and over, when it already is beginning to stink. Yet you persist in saying "It stinketh not." *

Persisting in defending the Spalding witnesses and attacking the Smith witnesses when the relibility of both sets is equally suspect is a defensive tactic, that makes the theory more complex , and therefore suspect in itself. It is sufficient to say, as Dan says, that the borrowing from the Bible, and the marks of Joseph' authorship are sufficient to any reasonable person.

My counter is that we are not dealing with reasonable people. Therefore I ask again, "What were the sources, other than Smith family dynamics and the Bible?"

The best defense is a good offense.


*

The king sat beside her, and thought that she would come to life again. And so it went for three years that he was sorrowing over her death, adn the people over his delusion. at last Thorleif the Wise succeeded, by his prudence, in curing him of his delusion by accosting him thus --"It is nowise wonderful, king, that thou grievest over so beautiful and noble a wife... It would be more suitable to raise her, and change her dress." As soon as the body was raised in the bed all sorts of corruption and foul smells came from it.. Now the king came to his understanding again, threw the madness out of his mind, and after that day ruled his kingdom as before.

From Sturlason's Heimskringla, pp 40-41.

[_marg]

Marg,

Dan what are your qualifications as a historian? I'm not interested in what you've written or studied on your own, I'm interested in your educational qualifications from Universities. What degree did you get, and in what area? Did you take in university a course addressing how to critically evaluate historical evidence?

Why the appeal authority combined with ad hominem?

It's because I'm skeptical of your ability to critically evaluate historical evidence well. In Hyam Maccoby's book The Mythmaker he explains how and why he interprets the information and it made good sense, in Bart Ehrman's course on the Historical Jesus he did the same thing and it made sense. I guess you know where I'm heading....

If you would simply open the book you said you had, you will find my qualifications on the flyleaf, or simply go to the Signature site, where you will find I have a BA in American history.

Are you skeptical I have the book? Ok I just checked the book jacket and I don't see anything there on your education.

I began as a philosophy/religious studies major, so I have had plenty of philosophy and logic courses. Then I switched to American history and social sciences. And, yes, I had courses on historical methodology. I won’t ask you the same question, because I don’t think it matters. I only care about evidence and argument.

You've said a number of times, words to the effect that as an historian you are obliged to approach data a particular way. So it's a starting point if you've had some education in this regard. Even with education qualifications for a particular field individuals are not necessarily objective in that field, but the education should help teach critical thinking.

My telling you to consult a good historical primer doesn’t justify this kind of response from you. I told you to read a primer on historical method, because there is more to analyzing historical sources and testimony than the list you presented from the critical thinking book, which by the way you used rather poorly.

I have no idea what your post is about, I skimmed perhaps 1 or 2 seconds and that sentence stood out. The questions asked was not because of that sentence, that sentence was the catalyst.

The list provided by Alec Fisher is a general approach to critically evaluating source information. With Bart Ehrman and Hyam Maccoby ..they didn't say 'as historians they HAD to approach the data in a particular way', they simply explained why and how they approached it as they did and it allowed the reader to evaluate their critical thinking on the matter. I haven't read your post yet in response to Alec Fisher's suggested approach...so I'll do that now.

[_marg]

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.

You say: "You have demonstrated their (S/R witnesses) strength by resorting to the desperate and ad hoc hat trick theory."

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You say: 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.

Dan you used the Loftus study to warrant false memory of the S/R witnesses. I explained why the study wasn't applicable. That study was about how it is possible to generate a memory in individuals which didn't exist previous to the study. So it was about implanted memories. The study generated a 25% success rate or a 75% failure rate depending on how one looks at it. If you talked to the 25% of the subjects and asked them about the implanted memory they'd acknowledge that they had no episodic memory of the event previous to the study. They would have no idea how and where the memory formed (source memory) other than after the study, they felt the episode of "being lost in a mall" happened. The study did not address how strongly they felt the event happened. The researchers also employed influencing factors such as the episode allegedly happened when they were 5 years old. Most people appreciate their memories at the age of 5 are weak at best and they don't trust those memories. And in addition they used authority, that the parents of the subjects had supplied the researchers of the information and that according to the parents the event actually happened. So with all those factors after 3 times of questioning the subjects...25 % said they recalled that episode. How rich their memory on that episode was, the study didn't mention. The main thing the study was interested in, was that it can happen in some situations that leading questions when people have very weak source memory, that a memory can be generated that didn't exist previously. So in a crime scene witnesses situation how police question witnesses is important. However Dan the S/R witnesses had repeated exposure to Spalding, discussions with him, listening to him read such that they had source memories associated with Spalding's manuscript. the way the brain works is memory is not stored in one place in the brain. The various perceptions of any episodic memory are stored in different areas and when one recalls an episodic memory one or more of those perceptions are recalled and that triggers usually more memory of the episode. The perceptual memory storages of an episode are linked together.

So Hurlbut could not have come along and implanted their memories of Spalding's manuscript, their source memory was in tack..there before Hurlbut came along. In addition other corroborating evidence such as R. Patterson the printer who stated Spalding's manuscript was written in biblical style and Amity witnesses ...strengthen's the case that the S/R witnesses were remembering a different manuscript to MSCC.

So the Loftus' study was not applicable to the situation with the Conneaut witnesses.

What you failed to understand Dan, is that all these memory studies are applicable under particular circumstances. You just can't take one memory study which shows memory can be fault (under particular circumstance) and apply that to all memory situations.

And to take it further, memory studies show when individuals have good source memory by that I mean they recall the context of when and how that memory formed ...and they remember an episode..they do know when they clearly recall something especially if the memory has been jogged, versus they "just know" but the memory is not strong or clear. So what the witnesses described on some things...where they said the Book of Mormon brought back fresh to their memory..certain names..that's consistent with how memory works. The witnesses also also acknowledged that on other things, many of the details they didn't have clear recall.

So there is not good justification to doubt their recall, of that which they say they clearly remember. And of the things they say they clearly remember...it can not be the MSCC...it has to be a different manuscript.

Well I believe I've now spent 1 1/2 hours at the computer so I'll leave this for now, and continue either later today or tomorrow.

[_Uncle Dale]

...I'll leave this for now, and continue either later today or tomorrow.

It's a losing battle -- as Mary has rightly concluded. We can no more
prove that Solomon Spalding wrote about preColumbian Christians than
we can prove that he wrote about Eric the Red.

Actually -- we can demonstrate that Spalding brought some preColumbian
Christians to America, to establish the first American Church, with its own
priestly leaders. But that is not much more convincing than our noting that
the Vatican once named a Bishop for Greenland who may have held cleric
jurisdiction over adjacent American Vinland.

No -- it's a losing battle. Abner Cole protested that Joe Smith could not
have written the Mormon Bible way back in 1830, and what have the LDS
offered in response? That the wicked Gentiles cannot summon up enough
honest faith to believe in Lehites, Mulekites and Whateversortofites, and
so they are reduced to fabricating impious theories against the Truth.

They will never accept any evidence to the contrary -- so why bother them?

As for the Brodieites, they may also be wicked Gentiles and Apostates -- but they
are equally convinced that they have proved poor old Abner Cole wrong. The
"past" has been established -- the Mormon Church was never a conspiracy --
there was no coverup of its origins. Lucy Mack Smith, John C. Bennett, Porter
Rockwell and honest William Smith were all examples of good Christians, who
never doubted their exalted leaders.... (well, perhaps an exception might be
made for President Bennett, I suppose).

But, my point is, the "past" has now been etched with lasers into diamond
media -- never again to be challenged. Nothing can be done to change that.

The only quibbling henceforth allowable will be over the nature of the "angels"
reportedly encountered by Prophet Smith in his producing the Nephite record.

I give up.

They've won.

Uncle Dale

[_marg]

It's a losing battle -- as Mary has rightly concluded.

Well Mary I don't think really understands my argument. She thinks (I believe) that I'm pitting one set of witnesses against the other set which isn't what I'm doing..that's what Dan is doing.

I noted in a previous post to Dan that this may never be settled. However I'm interested in the reasoning being applied. I'm satisfied personally that every time Dan responds whether it be his justification for applying Occam's Razor, or his interpretation on memory studies, or his dismissal of other's argument because he's determined they are ad hoc fallacies, or his justification of dismissing the S/R witnesses because he has greater trust in the Book of Mormon witnesses and he pits the Book of Mormon witnesses against them, ...with each argument he brings forward I personally see major weaknesses in his reasoning. I don't expect others to necessarily understand for example why the memory studies he uses doesn't apply to the S/R witnesses, or why it isn't good reasoning to use one set of witnesses the Book of Mormon witnesses to dismiss the S/R witnesses or why Occam's Razor isn't applicable as a decision tool in competing theories about historical facts with different conclusions. The majority of people aren't going to follow what's wrong with his reasoning. And that's okay for me. I'm at peace with myself and feel comfortable that Smith didn't write it on his own.

Had I come across Mormonism years ago and the only theory was that Smith had written it, that would have bothered me. because it wouldn't have made sense. The church does have a very good point..that Smith didn't write it on his own. It is not a matter of whether one man could possibly have written the story, it's a matter of whether it is probable under the circumstances described by Smith and witnesses and given what was known about him. And no it's not probable, it's highly improbable.

So I have been discussing with Dan, not necessarily to convince him, but to look at his reasoning..and evidence that he may have because I know he knows more of the facts than I..so I'm interested in his reasoning as applied to the facts and if he brings new information to the discussion to change anything that would be great. But discussion with him, keeps reinforcing for me..that even the church overturns his argument. It really does not take much to appreciate it's highly improbable Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.

So at this point, I'm satisfied, and it's a matter of should I bother continuing with Dan. Is it likely to be productive discussing with him and quite frankly I don't think it will be.

Mary said she was going to carrying on a discussion with Dan, which hasn't materialized. I stopped discussing for a bit, hoping she would do as she said.

So perhaps it is best to stop at this point. He wouldn't even acknowledge he was wrong using Occam's Razor, and that is such an obvious error on his part. If he's not going to acknowledge the obvious..the likelihood of him acknowledging areas with more shade involved are even less likely.

He's the best apologist the church could possibly have. What better apologist could they have than someone who claims to be an atheist, claims to believe only in the secular version of events..but who argues a position ..Smith-alone ..that the Church has no problem overturning and showing it to be highly improbable with a very simple argument..that Smith didn't have the interest, the education, and the knowledge to put together a complex book without preplanning, prewriting, reviewing and correcting. And his argument supports their position. They must just love him.

What I do know is that for health reasons, I must limit my time at any sitting to the amount I sit ..since it's bad for the joints which have begun to bother me...and so during the day I head to the YMCA.

I give up.

They've won.

Dan and Mormon apologists are in a world of their own. They are not representative of the average, objective intelligent individual...outside the world of Mormonism.

[_MCB]

The only quibbling henceforth allowable will be over the nature of the "angels"
reportedly encountered by Prophet Smith in his producing the Nephite record.

I give up.

They've won.

Uncle Dale

Fun subject. The young Joseph Smith hero-worshiping Sidney Rigdon, who brought him the answer to the problems presented by his deal with his father-in-law to give up treasure-digging. He must have seemed to him to be an angel in disguise.

Actually -- we can demonstrate that Spalding brought some preColumbian
Christians to America, to establish the first American Church, with its own
priestly leaders. And they will always refuse to believe that that story has anything to do with the fact that
the Vatican once named a Bishop for Greenland who may have held clerical
jurisdiction over adjacent American Vinland.

I will never give up. The dialogue has become fun in itself.

[_marg]

Marg:
You are like a cat playing with a dead mouse, killing it over and over and over, when it already is beginning to stink. Yet you persist in saying "It stinketh not." *

Persisting in defending the Spalding witnesses and attacking the Smith witnesses when the relibility of both sets is equally suspect is a defensive tactic, that makes the theory more complex , and therefore suspect in itself. It is sufficient to say, as Dan says, that the borrowing from the Bible, and the marks of Joseph' authorship are sufficient to any reasonable person.

As I mentioned to Dale I don't think you understand what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing perfect memory for the S/R witnesses however I am arguing they are credible witnesses. I'm also not pitting the S/R witnesses against the Book of Mormon witnesses, each set of witnesses need to be critically evaluated in their own right. Dan on the other hand is using as reasoning that because he accepts the Book of Mormon witnesses as credible he ties that to the his determination of the credibility of the S/R witnesses. That's just bad reasoning.

My counter is that we are not dealing with reasonable people. Therefore I ask again, "What were the sources, other than Smith family dynamics and the Bible?"

The best defense is a good offense.

When you say we are not dealing with reasonable people are you referring to Dan ..I'm assuming so.

Whatever your theory is because frankly I don't understand it, but it seems to me to be the most complex of them all and the most speculative and least likely to be provable because of the speculative nature. You seem to be saying that they were many books which influenced the writer/writers of the Book of Mormon. Well that may be, however that's a very difficult thing to prove. Even an artist doesn't necessarily know where their creativity came from because sometimes it's exposure that they've picked up and is in their subconscious.


*

The king sat beside her, and thought that she would come to life again. And so it went for three years that he was sorrowing over her death, adn the people over his delusion. at last Thorleif the Wise succeeded, by his prudence, in curing him of his delusion by accosting him thus --"It is nowise wonderful, king, that thou grievest over so beautiful and noble a wife... It would be more suitable to raise her, and change her dress." As soon as the body was raised in the bed all sorts of corruption and foul smells came from it.. Now the king came to his understanding again, threw the madness out of his mind, and after that day ruled his kingdom as before.

From Sturlason's Heimskringla, pp 40-41.[/quote]

Ummmm???? What is your point? Let's just say the writer of the Book of Mormon was influenced by the above..how are you going to be able to prove it?

[_MCB]

As Dale says-- the more options and possibilities that are proposed, the more confused they will become.

OTOH I am reworking my text to smooth out some of the more confusing points.

Even an artist doesn't necessarily know where their creativity came from because sometimes it's exposure that they've picked up and is in their subconscious.

Very good point. Material well-learned, and integrated into cognitive structures often is very naturally applied into creative works.

When you say we are not dealing with reasonable people are you referring to Dan ..I'm assuming so.

No, TBM's are the unreasonable people, although at times you get unreasonable, as anyone does. Dan is very reasonable, although somewhat restricted by his cultural heritage. However, that also gives him the ability to forsee any counters to what we never-Mo's might come up with. I have a great deal of respect for his scholarship, although I disagree with a lot of what he has written.

Let's just say the writer of the Book of Mormon was influenced by the above..how are you going to be able to prove it?

So give me the passage in the Book of Mormon that most closely resembles it.

[_marg]

As Dale says-- the more options and possibilities that are proposed, the more confused they will become.

Who is "they?

OTOH I am reworking my text to smooth out some of the more confusing points.

Have you presented your argument in as precise a manner as possible in this thread yet?

No, TBM's are the unreasonable people, although at times you get unreasonable, as anyone does. Dan is very reasonable, although somewhat restricted by his cultural heritage. However, that also gives him the ability to forsee any counters to what we never-Mo's might come up with. I have a great deal of respect for his scholarship, although I disagree with a lot of what he has written.

I get unreasonable? Give me an example.

On some things Mormon related perhaps a TBM might be unreasonable. I'm impressed with Glenn's critical thinking, I understand where he's coming from and I think he tries to be objective. I understand in areas of faith..critical thinking can be ignored.

Let's just say the writer of the Book of Mormon was influenced by the above..how are you going to be able to prove it?

So give me the passage in the Book of Mormon that most closely resembles it.

I have no idea, by the way I'm heading out the door atm.

[_Uncle Dale]

...As I mentioned to Dale I don't think you understand what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing perfect memory for the S/R witnesses however I am arguing they are credible witnesses.
...

I've yet to hear a Brodieite or a Mormon point out a single falsehood
in their respective accounts, other than specific allegations about
the Book of Mormon. If the many early witnesses are indeed so
unreliable, I would expect to be able to find further discrepancies
between what they said about themselves and events -- and what
objective investigators have been able to discover about them.

The Mormons themselves had bad things to say about the Whitmers,
Cowdery and Harris. Rigdon's reputation was crucified (and rightly
so) at his 1844 excommunication trial. Emma lied about polygamy,
and enough other things that Brigham Young called her the worst
liar in the world.

And yet --- these Saints (?) are relied upon, while the witnesses at
Conneaut, Amity, and sundry other places are dismissed as giving
no useful testimony whatsoever. The Mormons (and Brodieites) were
unable to destroy their reputations while the witnesses were yet
alive, and so the demonization and character assassinations were
carried out decades later, by Joseph F. Smith, George Reynolds,
and other great Deseret truth-sayers.

Well, so be it.
I think we lost in 1885 -- or, if not then, certainly by 1890.

See attached chart.

UD