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

[_Roger]

I've been out all day and should get to bed, but I want to comment on this from Dan:

How exactly does having visions reflect on credibility in telling the truth? We are not talking about their testimony about visions and miracles, but their personal observations under ordinary conditions. Otherwise normal people have visions, speak in tongues, etc. You can’t be suggesting they hallucinated Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon with head in hat, so you must be accusing them of lying. Having visions doesn’t make one a liar.

Maybe not but it is definitely grounds for increased skepticism. There are several problems here. First, in this case you're attempting to label Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat while allegedly gazing into a stone (for Pete's sake!) and reading off words that magically appear and are said to be a divine translation of an otherwise unknown language "ordinary conditions." (!) I suspect your familiarity with early Mormonism leads you to that (probably subconscious) conclusion. There's nothing ordinary about that claim, even given the increased acceptance of a magical worldview in Joseph Smith's day. If it was ordinary, it wouldn't have been particularly noteworthy. So the claim itself is rather extraordinary and should raise legitimate questions about what is really going on.

Second, you acknowledge that these particular witnesses all had a propensity to see visions, speak in tongues, etc. I grew up in a Pentecostal church where such activity was considered "normal." But as I look back I have come to realize it was only normal among the circle of believers. Even other Christians who were not Pentecostal thought speaking in tongues was a bit odd--if not from the devil. For several reasons, I have become very skeptical of anyone who claims to speak in tongues. The question, for me, is, can anyone who claims to be speaking in tongues actually be telling the truth? I don't think so, and like I said, I grew up with it being "normal." I mentioned earlier that I was hired about a year ago to videotape a faith healer. It was quite obvious to me (especially having the ability to watch the video in slow motion) that this man is a fraud. And yet it sure seems as though his devoted followers truly think he's everything he claims to be. They fall over when he nudges them on the forehead. They begin speaking in tongues when he lays hands on them. Some even jump around claiming to have been healed of whatever ailment they had. But I'm 99.99% sure he's a fraud. I don't know whether he believes his own propaganda but I suspect not.

I will give one brief example to illustrate what I'm talking about. This is just one of his many stories. He claimed he was coming to Phoenix the previous year for a healing crusade and contacted a local pastor to encourage this pastor to bring his congregation and help spread the word, but the local pastor had a lack of faith and wanted a sign that this guy was really a "man of God." Okay, he agreed, here's your sign... when I come to Phoenix it will start raining and it won't stop until I leave. Of course, according to our faith-fraud, it started raining the minute he stepped off the plane and stopped when he left. This story would have worked, except that he made the mistake of being too specific with dates and he actually mentioned the month that this crusade took place.

Well it doesn't rain very often in Phoenix so I checked and sure enough, the entire month, that year, there was no rain in Phoenix.

Another one of his claims is that he was on the phone with a woman who's daughter had just died and while they were talking she came back to life. This is the kind of stuff we're dealing with.

So is this guy a liar? Does he believe his own propaganda? And when his followers jump around and claim to be experiencing miraculous events after coming into contact with this guy, are they lying?

Who knows how we should categorize such claims? But it's easy to note how people like this become fanatical about their charismatic leader and his claims and are willing to defend him or her even in the face of contrary evidence. One woman must have noticed my skeptical looks as she tried to convince me it was the real deal.

Many will eventually become disillusioned with that particular individual but usually not the concept of miraculous intervention in general--I've seen this happen. They may simply transfer their faith on to a new charismatic leader until they again become disillusioned.

This explains why early Mormons could leave the church or become disillusioned with Smith, while still believing in the Book of Mormon and the miraculous claims of how it came to be. But it could also be that some of them knew more than they were telling and yet still believed in the larger cause.

My faith-healer fraud friend had an accomplice. I noticed as he came out at the beginning of one of the services I taped, he had another guy come out with him who was carrying his Bible and sat with him on stage. Something like a faith-healer apprentice. It was interesting to note that after we had gone through well over an hour of miraculous story-telling, and we had gotten to the part where the congregation is supposed to come forward for healing, tongues and whatever, this apprentice was eventually prayed over, and wow, what a show he put on, not just falling slain in the spirit but simultaneously shaking, falling to the floor, kicking, moving arms and shouting. It was quite impressive. Obviously, this is how it's supposed to look. So is he a liar? Or just a highly devoted apprentice? How do you draw the line? If I had asked the guy I have no doubt he would have told me, yes of course I was slain in the spirit and you can be too.

Either way, the propensity to see visions, speak in tongues and work miracles is a red flag that should lead rational people to a higher degree of skepticism with regard to these kind of testimonies. And that's not just picking on early Mormons, Dan, that goes for any group making similar extraordinary claims. Personally, I don't rule such claims out on their face, but I do take them with a higher degree of skepticism. And again, I don't think it's valid to say the head in hat element of their testimonies is ordinary. Joseph may have put his head in his hat, but you and I agree it was done as part of an act. Every time he put his head in the hat, he was doing it to deceive.

And yes, he was obviously pretty good at fooling at least some people, but, again, the propensity to believe in miracles, tongues and visions points to someone who is naturally more open to being deceived or even more willing to play along--whether they stop to question their own doubts or not. When you add the element of faith-driven peer pressure, you have a recipe for devoted followers who just might be willing to lie (and could probably rationalize it as not lying) in order to preserve the larger cause, or to avoid being viewed as someone having a lack of faith.

This is the typical Book of Mormon witness. So was Whitmer, for example, lying when he claimed no Spalding ms was used? Maybe so. Given his devotion to Smith (at least in the early days) and the larger cause of restoration, I certainly wouldn't rule it out. On the other hand, there is nothing demanding that he would have been in a position to know anyway. Either way, I don't trust his word when it comes to that claim just like I don't trust his word when he claims words miraculously appeared in the stone.

[_MCB]

Roger,
And all along I thought you were never-Mo born Lutheran! Now I understand why you have such an excellent understanding of what is wrong with Mormonism. Sol's names in OMS are singularly uncreative. The names in the Book of Mormon are mostly either copied from the Bible, or evidence of glossolalia, which was frequent in early Mormonism. Therefore I believe that many of them were supplied by Smith & Co.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
This is the typical Book of Mormon witness.
...

My understanding is that the "typical Book of Mormon witness"
was subject to a con man's overt and covert manipulations;
but perhaps no more so than the average resident of Palmyra
or Manchester in 1829.

So -- why did the average guy reject the Mormon witness
testimony? Perhaps that question is worth asking. The average
guy in 1829 may have been a Federalist or a Jacksonian, or
a Presbyterian, or an anti-Mason -- but he was NOT a member
of a cult in which everybody absolutely had to believe the
exact same dogma -- that they constituted God's one and
only body of "chosen people" on the face of the earth.

The average guy back in 1829 would have been suspicious of
that sort of thing -- whether he believed in God or not --
whether he believed in latter day ministering angels or not.

Still, I do not disqualify early Mormon witness testimony just
because it came from cultish religious fanatics. Those folks
may have passed on some important, reliable historical
information. What they had to say should not be discarded,
out-of-hand, as conspiratorial falsehood.

However -- suppose that just one of those earliest Mormons
was indeed engaged in a conspiracy with Joe Smith, to
cover over Joe's lies and frauds -- to make him appear as
something other than he really was -- to make his latter day
assertions appear as something other than they really were.

It does not matter (for purposes of illustration here) whether
that co-conspirator was Hyrum Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Lucy
Mack Smith, or Gad Stafford -- what would matter is that
Joe possessed the secret assistance of a fellow con man; or
at least of a fellow liar. What a great help that would have
been, to his establishing Mormonism!

Before we assume that Joe had such a fellow conspirator back
in 1828-29, we ought to look at his later history, in order to
see if he ever engaged the assistance of such knowing liars
on his behalf, at Kirtland, or in Missouri, or in Illinois. If he did
so, then we ought to tread with caution through the early
Mormon witness statements.

Some of the information they provide may be reliable -- some
may entail memory errors, or the effects of delusion and the
practice of deception on Joe's part.

How would we go about uncovering, measuring and documenting
such unreliable Mormon witness testimony? That is a tough but
important question. I do not believe it has been adequately
answered in this thread.

How, for example, do we determine whether Abner Cole or
Lucy Mack Smith is more reliable in their reporting of the
Smith family involvement in a Gold Bible Company, before Joe
ever dictated a single word of the Nephite record? How do
we productively compare Cole's 1831 assertions, regarding
the book's contents and Joseph Smith, Sr.'s professions, with
what Smith Sr.'s wife had to say about those matters?

Since Cole was NOT the member of a conformist religious sect
bent upon promoting the Book of Mormon as the word of God,
I am inclined to give his testimony a little more weight in my
determinations, than I am inclined to trust Lucy Mack Smith.

Perhaps Lucy and her son William lied about seeing the magic
spectacles -- perhaps their descriptions are unreliable. Why
should I automatically accept such testimonial oddities, without
consulting contemporary reports regarding Smith (dis)honesty?

David Whitmer may have indeed seen the magic spectacles laid
out upon a table in the woods by a ministering angel. On the
other hand, he may have been duped and deluded. He may
have reported visionary observations as physical observations.

Now I will be accused of not employing Occam's razor -- and
of fabricating ad hoc arguments -- and of introducing fully
unjustified ad hominem attacks against the honest Whitmers.

So be it -- I've been living nearly seven decades in the shadow
of Mormon deception -- I suppose I can take a little more.

Uncle Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Since Cole was NOT the member of a conformist religious sect
bent upon promoting the Book of Mormon as the word of God,
I am inclined to give his testimony a little more weight in my
determinations, than I am inclined to trust Lucy Mack Smith.
...

Lucy's professions are well known and easily accessible. Abner
Cole's reporting may be a little less familiar to many Mormons:

In the commencement, the imposture of the "Book of Mormon,"
had no regular plan or features. At a time when the money
digging ardor was somewhat abated, the elder Smith declared
that his son Jo had seen the spirit, (which he then described as
a little old man with a long beard,) and was informed that he
(Jo) under certain circumstances, eventually should obtain great
treasures, and that in due time he (the spirit) would furnish him
(Jo) with a book, which would give an account of the Ancient
inhabitants (antideluvians) of this country and where they had
deposited their substance, consisting of costly furniture, &c.
at the approach of the great deluge, which had ever since that
time remained secure in his (the spirits) charge, in large and
spacious chambers, in sundry places in this vicinity, and these
tidings corresponded precisely with revelations made to, and
predictions made by the elder Smith a number of years before.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#021431

In this particular quote Cole does not precisely say that the
Gold Bible scheme began as a non-religious enterprise -- but in
a contemporary report he is a little more specific:

We have been credibly informed that the mother of the prophet
had connected herself with several religious societies before her
present illumination; this also was the case with other branches
of the family, but how far the father of the prophet, ever advanced
in these particulars, we are not precisely informed, it however
appears quite certain that the prophet himself never made any
serious pretentions to religion until his late pretended revelation.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#020131

A close reading of all of Abner Cole's reporting indicates that the
Gold Bible project began as a non-religious effort on the part of
the Smith family, but eventually developed into a new church.

Joseph Badger, a noted frontier preacher who lived for a few
years within 15 miles of the Smith family, had this to say:

The people called Mormons, arose some four or five years since,
in Manchester, about fifteen miles from my residence, through the
instrumentality of a young man by the name of Joseph Smith. --
Smith's father, I am informed, had for many years been associated
with a company of money-diggers in that neighbourhood, and the
son was frequently taken with them on those nocturnal excursions.
As it was thought the young man had a peculiar art of ascertaining
where money was deposited, he served as a sort of prophet or seer
for the company. This business, we understand, was pursued for
many years; and this was the school in which the young founder of
the Mormons was educated. But as they did not find so much money
as their neighbours who dug with the plow by the light of the sun,
the project was abandoned, and the company sunk in disgrace and
poverty. In 1827, young Joseph had become nearly twenty years of
age; and though his father was discouraged in the enterprise, and
the company broken up, yet the young man was not discomfited,
but put all his wits together -- looked into the hat again upon
the stone of enchantment; and being aided by several visions and
dreams, at length beholds the sacred plates of gold deposited in
a stone box, where they had rested undisturbed for many thousands
of years....

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#030033

Badger appears to agree with Cole, in the conclusion that Smith
family treasure-hunting evolved into the Gold Bible enterprise --
which only later took on overt religious pretensions.

James Gordon Bennett, after conducting investigative reporting
in the Palmyra area in 1831, had this to say:

This general impulse given to religious fanaticism by a set of men in Western New York, has been productive among other strange results of the infatuation of Mormonism. This piece of roguery, folly and frenzy (for it partakes of all) is the genuine fruit of the same seeds which produced the Sunday Mail movement--the Pioneer line of stages -- the Magdalen Reports &c. &c. It is religion run into madness by zealots and hypocrites.

It was during this state of public feeling in which the money diggers of Ontario county, by the suggestions of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, thought of turning their digging concern into a religious plot, and thereby have a better chance of working upon the credulity and ignorance of the [their] associates and the neighborhood. Money and a good living might be got in this way. It was given out that visions had appeared to Joe Smith -- that a set of golden plates on which was engraved the "Book of Mormon," enclosed in an iron chest, was deposited somewhere in the hill I have mentioned.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#090131

While Bennet may possibly have conflated the December 1830
appearance of Sidney Rigdon with earlier Smith family treasure
digging accounts, he again portrays the Gold Bible company as
evolving from a secular scheme into a religious scheme.

Willaim Hyde, a neighbor of the Smiths, reported this recollection:

it appeared to me that the elder Smith was desirous of great
wealth, and during the gold-digging excitement following the
discovery of the mysterious plates, I was at times led to think it
possible that the elder Smith might have planned some deep
scheme for making money; but when the religious society called
the "Chosen People" was formed, and he became active in
proselyting and preaching and baptizing, I was nonplussed, for
circumstances went to show that Smith could have had no such
aim, or if so, had given it up entirely.... [previously] Smith told me
of the stones his son Joseph had found, and by means of which
he could see hidden treasures and many wonderful things. They
had formed a society at that time -- not a religious society,
however.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LD ... htm#111088
cf:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL ... htm#101488

A number of other statements could be quoted here -- all giving
the impression that Smith family money-digging evolved into a
scheme to promote a book (or inscribed ancient plates) in that
family's possession. Although there was a magical context for
both the money-digging and the alleged plates discovery, the
element of restored Christian religion had not yet entered into
the scheme, as late as 1827 (and perhaps even 1828).

I do not think that this collection of non-Mormon accounts can be
easily reconciled with the LDS teaching -- that Joe Smith was
persecuted for his religious professions from 1820 onward -- nor
can it be easily reconciled with Lucy Mack Smith's portrayal of her
son's Gold Bible promotion as a purely religious effort.

Whatever conclusion the modern investigator may eventually come
to, I suggest that he/she take the trouble to compare these (and
many other similar) early reports against the testimony of those
witnesses advanced by the Mormons and their Brodieite allies.

The next time somebody undertakes the project of writing a Smith
biography, I hope that historian will take the trouble to inform us
exactly WHEN pretensions for the content of the "Nephite record"
were first advanced, and how those claims corresponded in time
and place, with Joe Smith's first dictation from "the plates."

Uncle Dale

[_GlennThigpen]

Roger,
And all along I thought you were never-Mo born Lutheran! Now I understand why you have such an excellent understanding of what is wrong with Mormonism. Sol's names in OMS are singularly uncreative. The names in the Book of Mormon are mostly either copied from the Bible, or evidence of glossolalia, which was frequent in early Mormonism. Therefore I believe that many of them were supplied by Smith & Co.

MCB, I think that you may be unaware of just what names are in the Book of Mormon. There is a body of work that has been done on the Book of Mormon names that show that the names are far from being psychobabble or made up names. I have some links and a few items in a close by previous post you may want to check out.

The Book of Mormon contains 337 proper names and 21 gentilics (or analogous forms) based on proper names. Included in this count are names that normally would not be called proper, such as kinds of animals, if they appear as transliterations in the English text and not as translations. Conversely, proper names that appear only in translation are not included, such as Bountiful and Desolation. Of these 337 proper names, 188 are unique to the Book of Mormon, while 149 are common to the Book of Mormon and the Bible. If the textual passages common to the Book of Mormon and the Bible are excluded, 53 names occur in both books.

The full article can be found here. http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=413

It seems that your assertions are not supported by the evidence.

Glenn

[Guest]

What criteria and sources are you using to conclude these witnesses are not “skeptical, inquisitive, and they are not independent, objective witnesses”?

It's a matter of general critical thinking applied. I gave one such reference explaining how to critically evaluate witnesses ..by Alec Fisher.

What would they have to do to qualify them as “skeptical, inquisitive, and they are not independent, objective witnesses”?

Well Joseph Smith wanted evidence..that's why he uses the testimonies in the beginning of the Book of Mormon. Had he used individuals with no vested interest, and even better if they had community respect and others testified to their lack of involvement..that would have made a difference. The circumstances are such that the individuals Joseph Smith chose..were not independent objective witnesses..other than a hostile witness or two. But of any hostile witness the circumstances described would have to be such that they were not in the position in which J. Smith controlled the situation.

That's not to say Dan..that just because they had a vested interest and just because Joseph Smith chose them, that that would automatically disqualify all and every claim they make. One has to evaluate the sorts of claims being made..and as you should be aware..the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence one should expect in order to rationally accept a claim. The evidence should commensurate with the claim. And that evidence, the Book of Mormon witnesses's claims should be considered within the context of all the other data. It helps if there is any objective independent data which would support their extraordinary claims..but in this case there isn't any.

I do think Smith used a "head in the hat' schtick..sometimes. But those times in which he did were temporary and for show and for people who he didn't want in on the know of what exactly was happening and in some cases i.e. Emma, I think some of those people didn't want to know all the details either. That's my opinion.

Now for the big question—assuming they were not “skeptical, inquisitive, … independent, objective witnesses”, how would that effect their statements about seeing Joseph Smith with head in hat dictating the Book of Mormon? Ah, that made them vulnerable to Joseph Smith’s trick hat, right? Wrong. That’s your groundless and baseless ad hoc theory—not to mention you have no evidence that these witnesses weren’t any of these things.

Dan the ad hoc fallacy is applicable in situations in which the claim is open to verifiability and therefore can be falsified. One can not refute a claim which is not falsifiable. What happens in a situation in which the ad hoc fallacy is applicable, a claim is made and a counter claim refutes with evidence, or falsified it..and the claimant responds by changing the assumptions in a particular way that makes the original claim unfalsifiable.

So ad hoc fallacy works in situations such as in science, in which scientific claims are open to verifiability through observation and testing. Scientific claims which can not be tested, can generally be verified because they have predictive power which eventually is open to verification. The ad hoc fallacy will also work with any claim which is potentially falsifiable with evidence. Unless the claim has been refuted or falsified ...the ad hoc fallacy would not be applicable to the argument or theory.

So the ad hoc fallacy works like this:
Step 1 - Person A makes a claim
Step 2 - Person B refutes it with evidence
Step 3 - Person A counters with an explanation that changes the originial assumptions and makes the claim impossible to falsify.
Step 4 - Person B is now justifed in responding that Person A has committed an ad hoc fallacy ..hence the discussion on that claim would be irrational to continue..as it could go on indefinitely..with reasoning being irrelevant to resolving the issue.

So my suggestion on how Smith might have performed his head in hat schtick..was not the original claim. I'm responding to the original claim (A) that Smith composed the entire Book of Mormon with his head in a hat..for all scribes. I'm suggesting a possibility (B) which might have occurred with some scribes. But that claim (A) as to what Smith did and the part the Book of Mormon witnesses played in the scheme is not open to evidential falsifiability. At least not that particular event with those particular participants. It's impossible to refute that claim (A), unless objective evidence can be obtained in order to do so..such as WP study which objectively shows more than one person composed the Book of Mormon and even further who some of those people were. So ad hoc fallacy is not applicable because right off to bat, the original claim of Smith with head'n hat supported by Book of Mormon witnesses is not open to falsifiability. So there is no ad hoc fallacy going on here Dan. All one can do, is critically evaluate the claim and offer reasoning why it should or should not be accepted and under what circumstances if it is rejected that it could eventually be accepted.

Now in addition, the burden of proof is on the claimant (Joseph Smith and Co and those who argue in his favor) making the extraordinary claims. It's not on the critics to disprove those claims.

Cowdery asked to try translating with the stone, and Harris tested Joseph Smith by switching the stone. You underestimate Joseph Smith’s ability to convince people of his gift. Some very intelligent people were fooled by him.

This information is within the control of those supplying it. One can not accept at face value, that Cowdery actually did ask to try to translate the stone. Obviously that can be planted information by the two of them. And the same goes for Harris's testing of Smith. Let's assume that Harris is not fully in the know like Cowdery is, and he truly is trying to test Smith. If Smith appreciates what Harris has done, it's a simple matter of him putting on an act..that the stone doesn't work. For fact of the matter is Dan..that no objective individual saw the stone work. There is absolutely no reason for us to think that it did. So of course, Smith had to have put on an act for Harris if that event actually happened. It's not as if Dan there was a stone which worked and Harris switched it with one which didn't.

Frankly it's not that very intelligent people close to him back then were fooled by him, but rather the ones being fooled are those who do not critically evaluate well what went on and accept at face value the claims, that applies to people back then as well as today.

So I did not say that religious individuals can't be trusted or that it's the Book of Mormon witnesses' religious beliefs as to why one should be skeptical of their claims.

You just said—“ In this case the 3 witnesses in the Book of Mormon testifying to seeing angels & God..reflects on their likely credibility.” How exactly does having visions reflect on credibility in telling the truth? We are not talking about their testimony about visions and miracles, but their personal observations under ordinary conditions. Otherwise normal people have visions, speak in tongues, etc. You can’t be suggesting they hallucinated Joseph Smith dictating the Book of Mormon with head in hat, so you must be accusing them of lying. Having visions doesn’t make one a liar.

Head in the hat and visions are 2 different things. Temporarily for some scribes it's possible he may have used a head in the hat schtick. The S/R theory though does not depend having to determine how Smith carried on this schtick..that is a trivial piece of the data. It's enough to know that he carried on a similar schtick in his treasure seeking days and that the witnesses are not reliable with regards to any extraordinary claims they make and not reliable when it comes to claiming what Smith may have done in composing the Book of Mormon because they have a vested interest as well are not independent and objective. So the S/R theory rightly is justified in dismissing the claims made in the "translation" process. The evidence offered in this regard does not commensurate with the claims made.

As far as how does testifying to God and angels apply..it's because these claims are used for evidence..and those claims are highly extraordinary. Hence the witnesses say so, witnesses who are not independent objective individuals who then make highly extraordinary claims is definitely not sufficient to warrant acceptance of their claims. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required.

Rather one needs to consider the sorts of sort of claims being made as a factor in evaluating those who make the claims. Because the Book of Mormon witnesses make extraordinary claims some more so than others, and as well the witnesses (except one or 2 hostile ones) are non objective, non skeptical witnesses..that leads one to conclude one must be highly skeptical of their claims. The sorts of claims being made need to be considered in determining if the evidence commensurates with the claims to warrant acceptance. Therefore for the sorts of extraordinary claims the Book of Mormon witnesses make...and the fact that they are not reliable witnesses(for various reasons such as lack of independence) ...leads one to conclude that they as evidence do not commensurate with the sorts of claims made. Those witnesses as evidence on their own do not meet a sufficient burden of proof to warrant acceptance of their claims.

You are bunching all the witnesses together based on their beliefs—there is no other criteria being used here. The witnesses aren’t making “extraordinary claims” in this instance. They were not testifying to miracles or visions, which does warrant skepticism, but to ordinary observations.

Dan it is extraordinary for an author of a book to spend hour after hour bent over, elbows on knees with a head in hat while dictating to scribes...and during the process does not check back on what was written to correct or make sure they are consistent. That is an extraordinary claim .. not supernatural but it is out of the ordinary.

Of course, bias is a legitimate concern, but that doesn’t warrant a conclusion that they were liars or unable to make sound observations. The only reason you question them on such a basic observation is because they stand in the way of your ad hoc trick-hat theory.

As I explained above the ad hoc fallacy does not apply. What I was doing was making a suggestion to account for what what may have occurred. That is I think he did use the "head in the hat schtick" on some occasions and may have even with a few of the monor scribes. But certainly I wasn't trying to rescue the S/R theory with my suggestion. The S/R theory doesn't need any explanation for how he translated with his relatives and Harris (the one with a financial interest). So they (the Book of Mormon witnesses do not stand in the way of the S/R theory at all Dan. They are not objective credible reliable witnesses when it comes to offering claims on how Smith carried on with them in composing the Book of Mormon.

There are good reasons to accept their descriptions of Joseph Smith’s translation method. There is independent evidence for their basic honesty and trustworthiness. There are multiple witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly. Your theory that the hat and stone were brought out when hostile witnesses came to visit is ad hoc.

It's not ad hoc fallacy. I'm not the claimant. Smith and Co are the claimants and you as well in support of them claiming the Smith alone theory. My counter that the hat and stone were likely brought out when hostile witnesses came to visit is not ad hoc fallacy. It is simply a suggested counter to the extraordinary claim being made that Smith composed the Book of Mormon ..dictating to scribes with his head in a hat the whole time. The evidence of hostile witnesses is not strong evidence when those witnesses were not in control of the situation, nor present an estimated 99% of the time.

While your criticisms of them focus on the time of their observations, you haven’t considered the dates of their statements. Most statements were given long after Joseph Smith was dead, and independent of one another. You are attempting to argue two things simultaneously—they aren’t trustworthy and they were fooled by the hat trick. Which is it? Either way, you don’t have warrant to dismiss all these witnesses categorically.

The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims to provide sufficient warrants to justify those claims, it's not on the skeptics of those claims to disprove them. The presumption is those extraordinary claims are not accepted until warranted with evidence which commensurates with the claim. The Book of Mormon witnesses other than one or two hostile witnesses...are not sufficient as evidence to warrant justification of acceptance of the extraordinary claims. I don't think any of them were fooled by the head'n hat schtick. When he used it for some of them, I think they played along including Harris. That's my opinion. Regarding trustworthy..sure each witness should be evaluated on their own terms..but overall there is no reason to assume any one of those non-hostile Book of Mormon witnesses were reliable credible skeptical, objective witnesses. That is why in order to accept their extraordinary claims more evidence is required, otherwise one is justified in rejecting their claims..when those claims are self serving.

Dan I've been reading lots of insults from you for a while now. You've appointed yourself the logic expert, but that's not good enough. With high frequency you make specific accusations that I don't understand logic, debate and various fallacies. Frankly it's really the reverse, it's you who has a poor understanding of good reasoning and you misunderstand and misapply fallacies. However, I haven't been insulting you nearly to the degree you have been insulting me.

Wrong. All I have done is name the fallacies.

Dan, you've been doing more than naming fallacies, you have numerous times commented that I and Roger are not logical, do not understand debate and that you do. Most of those times, when responding I ignored those comments..

You, on the other hand, manage to make it personal—mostly because you rely on a highly personal notion of what is logical—which is why you take it personally when logical fallacies are pointed out to you.

I'm not taking it personal. When you point out fallacies you are generally wrong. Last night, I wrote a post which showed the evolution of our discussion on Occam's Razor. As I pointed out not once did you address the reasoning involved which I offered, in why and when Occam's Razor was applicable, instead you shifted focus onto attempting to discredit me, for instance by saying I was using the concepts of "conclusion, theory and phenomenon" incorrectly. I hadn't been using those concepts incorrectly. But the main point is, you didn't address the actual issue, that is 'under what circumstances and how Occams' Razor is applicable'. The reason I brought up Occam's Razor was to show that you are using it illogically..that you are not as logical as you proclaim yourself to be time and again. And in that discussion you demonstrated you do not understand Occam's Razor. There are people on the Net who I admire for their logical argumentation and have conversed with them and when they would point out that my logic may be faulty on some issue, I welcomed their comments. But when someone is not logical and they frequently comment how logical they are because they use logical fallacy labels and proclaim others they are in discussion with aren't logical...then eventually something should be said.

You have tried to quibble your way out of some of these instances, all to no effect. However, even now you are making it personal. Even assuming your opinion of things is right, why do you get so insulted when someone points out logical fallacies? That’s what’s done in debate.

You complained to me that I had insulted you and I responded to you that you have been insulting to me...and I suggested that if you stop I will stop. My point was you are the initiator..so if you wish me to stop insults ..you need to stop and then I will.

So you misrepresented my reasoning on why one should be skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses, .and yes I did insult you because I've had enough of your insults and what looks to me like dishonesty when you are misrepresent what I've said. So you stop insulting me, and I'll stop insulting you.

That’s going to be hard to do since you interpret lessons in logic as an insult. Why do you interpret a paraphrase of your and Roger’s position, whether right or wrong, as dishonesty? Why not simply correct it without getting personal? Ironically, you confirm in this post that what I said was basically correct.

The misrepresentation of my position appears deliberate to me. We spent 6 days in which the concept of Occam's Razor was discussed. I argued why it wasn't applicable as a decision tool in determining best fit theory of actual historical events. Not once did you acknowledge or address that reasoning. That appears as deliberate dishonesty to me Dan, especially when instead of addressing the issue, you shifted focus to an attack on how I conceptually used words..yet your criticism of my words used was unwarranted. This to me is rhetorical game playing..it's not carrying on a discussion with intellectual honesty..in order to reach some mutually acceptable conclusion.

(ok so today I'm not going to spend any more time on the computer)

[_MCB]

Glenn said,

There is a body of work that has been done on the Book of Mormon names that show that the names are far from being psychobabble or made up names. I have some links and a few items in a close by previous post you may want to check out.

I won't even dignify your first comment to me with a response. As for the rest, at this point it is only an assertion. A more objective evaluation is in order, since you seem to regard it as an important point.

Some of the linguistics study on the "Letter to the Green Mountain Boys," as well as Chris Smith's recent study on Hebrew-sounding made-up names points me in the direction that I am taking.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Now I will be accused of not employing Occam's razor -- and
of fabricating ad hoc arguments -- and of introducing fully
unjustified ad hominem attacks against the honest Whitmers.
...

So -- if I understand the arguments of the Brodieites, then the
application of Occam's Razor to Book of Mormon authorship claims
can only end in one valid conclusion: That Joe wrote the book all
by himself, without any assistance or collusion -- and that all of
his converts were unwitting dupes, who engaged in no conspiracy
to cover up any of Joe's secret manipulations and frauds.

That is the simplest, most straightforward theory -- so it must
be the correct one; and we can thus save ourselves the trouble
of looking into any purportedly contrary evidence.

However, should we open our scholarly mouths, in order to offer
any contrary assessment, we are thus engaging in unwarranted
ad hoc arguments -- desperate flailings about, in a fruitless
attempt to justify Eber D. Howe's 1834 pronouncements, in the
face of the one true theory, already discovered by Occam's razor.

And, should we go so far as to question the reliability of those
early Mormon witnesses, we are engaging in vicious ad hominem
attacks against the testifiers already verified by Occam's razor.

For example, if I were to question Emma Hale Smith's testimony of
how her husband "translated" the Nephite record, I would not be
allowed to cite any examples of her telling known lies. No matter
that Brigham Young accused her of that exact invalidity -- and
no matter that she helped found an entire church upon the false
"fact" of her husband having been a practical monogamist.

No -- none of that sort of evidence can be cited in critical
response to the Brodieites. If I choose to quote Isaac Butts
(as they do), I can only quote the parts of his testimony that
are friendly to the Brodieites' own historical claims. If I choose
to cite Sarah Fowler Anderick (as they do), I cannot relate any
testimony about Sidney Rigdon. If I choose to read out a line
from Saunders, published by Shook, (as they do), I cannot tell
listeners anything from that source not pre-approved by Brodie
and her followers.

Playing by those rules, we really cannot say much at all. Either we
heap loads of praise upon Brodieite deductions, and grant them
awards and bibliographic loyalty -- or else we remain silent.

I'd rather try operating by some less restrictive rules -- even if
such a response incurs their derision and dismissals.

Uncle Dale

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn said,

There is a body of work that has been done on the Book of Mormon names that show that the names are far from being psychobabble or made up names. I have some links and a few items in a close by previous post you may want to check out.

I won't even dignify your first comment to me with a response. As for the rest, at this point it is only an assertion. A more objective evaluation is in order, since you seem to regard it as an important point.

Some of the linguistics study on the "Letter to the Green Mountain Boys," as well as Chris Smith's recent study on Hebrew-sounding made-up names points me in the direction that I am taking.

MCB, I don't understand. I was only referencing your assertion that most of the names in the Book of Mormon are glossolalia. I was not saying that you are engaging in psychobabble. That is how you seem to be addressing the content of the Book of Mormon. Do you have a reference to those studies you are talking about? I don't know what a letter to the Green Mountain Boys would have in common with the Book of Mormon. I have read before of people making up "Hebrew sounding" names and opining that it would have been fairly easy for Smith, or Pratt, or Rigdon, or Spalding to have done so. However, I have yet to see any linguist concur with that pronouncement.

Semitic names usually have meanings, and to coin an authentic semitic name would require coining one that has a Semitic meaning, else the results would be the glossolalia you attribute to the Book of Mormon names.

Please read the articles and check the qualifications of those writing the articles that I linked to. Then you will have something substantive to respond to. It is difficult to have any real debate if you do not reaspond to the points I made and the scholarship I presented as evidence.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Dale:

However -- suppose that just one of those earliest Mormons
was indeed engaged in a conspiracy with Joe Smith, to
cover over Joe's lies and frauds -- to make him appear as
something other than he really was -- to make his latter day
assertions appear as something other than they really were.

Here's my opinion, for whatever it's worth... I think it's possible that such a co-conspirator relationship might have been formalized, as in both (or all) members of the conspiracy knew that a fraud was being plotted and actively agreed to take part in, develop and reap the rewards of such a fraud. This is what most critics of S/R want to think of when they challenge a hypothetical S/R "conspiracy." I think that's possible. But I think it's equally possible (if not more likely) that such a "conspiracy" was never actually formally organized and/or recognized as such--like we might think of as in Ocean's 12 where a group of guys set out to commit a crime and carefully plan it all out.

My own experience suggests to me a natural (unrecognized) development is the more likely scenario. In other words fate brought like minded visionary-embracing people together who's own propensity to not only accept but to actively seek out miracles, signs and wonders provided the fertile ground for a cult-like cadre to develop around the concept of restoration. But a conspiracy to commit fraud for personal gain would certainly not have been admitted by those participants whether disaffected or not, and would likely not have even been thought of by them in those terms--exactly like none of the followers of the faith healer I mentioned earlier would ever admit that their leader was committing fraud for personal gain. And anyone who who would dare to suggest such a thing would be ostracized and denounced as being used by the devil.

And yet being a part of the movement as it was being born, gave them an identity and prestige within the circle of believers that provided the impetus to omit testimony of observations harmful to the cause or embellish testimony favorable to the cause or even outright lie to protect the cause.

How one goes about separating fact from fiction in their testimonies is anyone's guess. Dan seems to think it's merely a matter of rejecting angels, Nephites and words appearing in stones while accepting everything else. I don't think it's that clean cut.