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

[_Roger]

Too much to comment on and not enough time, but this:

Of course in real life Dan, conspiracies do occur and when they do they will be much more complex than some simple theory eliminating the conspiracy. But you can't just willy nilly decide a theory is too complex for you and on that basis should be dismissed. That's utterly absurd.

Is right on the money.

The truth of the matter is that conspiracies--unless they are put forth by stupid people--are difficult to prove. And good conspirators will do everything in their power to make it even more difficult. That's the true challenge S/R faces. Attempting to see through the attempts to cover up. But what complicates this even more is the religious element. As I pointed out earlier, no followers of a faith healer would ever think there was some sort of "conspiracy" going on. And in the example I mentioned, I highly doubt that even the apprentice faith healer would have thought (admitted) he was in any way a part of a conspiracy. And yet I have no doubt that one way or another, whether it was spelled out for him in simple terms or not, he knew what was expected of him when it was his turn to get prayed over. Whether or not that is rightly labelled "conspiracy" I can't say, but there is certainly something more going on there than an honest fellow objectively being slain in the spirit. Again, I have no doubt the kind of answers he would have given if I had asked him is this really real?

I see no difference between this and Book of Mormon witnesses. They were predisposed to believe in signs and wonders, which in turn made them either

A. more vulnerable to Joseph Smith's cons or
B. more willing to play along (as in overlooking whatever appeared wrong, failing to mention everything, embellishing or even lying to help the cause)

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

Note, too, we are translating a scientific model to a debate about history to make our discussions more rigorous and to prevent or at least highlight wild speculation and anything-goes responses to adverse evidence.

First, I agree with marg that you (Dan) are misapplying ad hoc fallacy and Occam's Razor, but since you want to apply a scientific approach to this, let's give it a shot: how would the Smith-alone theory predict error distribution patterns should fall across the Book of Mormon? Wouldn't Smith alone predict a relatively steady pattern of error distribution, except, of course, for plagiarized sections?

In a similar line of questioning, how does Smith-alone explain the wherefore/therefore shift pattern in a way that is not ad hoc? If Smith dictated the entire thing off the top of his head, we would be surprised to learn that a preference for wherefore exists at the beginning and ending of the Book of Mormon as contrasted by a preference for therefore in the middle. And yet that's exactly what we find. Correct me if I am wrong, but Smith-alone has no explanation for why this occurred other than to speculate that Smith must have gotten bored with therefore and gradually shifted to wherefore. Or is there a better explanation from a Smith-alone perspective?

[_GlennThigpen]

Do you really expect to summon forth even the slightest shred of
human decency and rational response?

It's been frustrating for you..you've been up against a well orchestrated machine. I wouldn't be surprised if Dan is a part of that machine. If somehow it was discovered that the church has been paying Dan to work as an apologist for them, and he's actually a true believer in Mormonism, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

marge, this goes well beyond any ad hoc reasoning out into a world where logic and reason are not found. Dan's Smith alone theory is not compatible with the LDS story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I am not sure what you mean by a well orchestrated machine, but Dan has been going his own way and forming his own opinions for years. That led hin out of the LDS church and inti atheism.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...Smith alone theory is not compatible with the LDS story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
...

The Mormons have always realized that they would not be able to
convert the entire world -- and that they would have to spend
years, or decades, or even centuries, dealing with Gentiles. They
would have to interact with Gentiles (and apostates) even if their
missionary work was extremely successful -- even if they were able
to establish a significant influence in modern society and politics.

Given that reality, what sort of "enemies" are easiest to deal with?
Probably those opponents who do not feel immediately threatened
by a large, cohesive and effective organization -- adversaries who
do not suspect that organization is attempting to impact and change
their lives.

Adversaries who think of the Mormon Church as an honest, respectable,
benign group, led by sincere Christians, will be less hostile than those
adversaries who view Mormonism as a secretive conspiracy to effect
major societal changes outside of its own ranks.

If the non-LDS world reverted back to its pre-1890 viewpoint -- that
Joe Smith worked with others, secretly, to establish his new church --
that Mormonism itself was a secret political conspiracy, along the lines
of the "Council of Fifty" -- then the Mormons' opponents would be much
more dangerous and much more hostile than they are today, in 2011.

The Mormon leaders' best choice in this matter is to let the Gentiles
believe Smith was an imaginative, innovative religious genius who
wrote his own latter day scripture and whose followers were all honest
people, who simply made a poor choice in believing that religious genius.

I believe that truth would be best served by our returning to the 1890
viewpoint regarding Mormonism. But I realize that is not going to happen.
The non-LDS world will continue to believe that Mormonism is a benign
force in contemporary life -- and we can thank (?) the Brodieites for their
help in spreading that successful mass message.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...B. more willing to play along (as in overlooking whatever appeared wrong, failing to mention everything, embellishing or even lying to help the cause)

I once got into an extended argument with a Mormon, over the topic of
"lying for the Lord."

Finally, after many contentious exchanges, the fellow was ready to admit
that perhaps John D. Lee, Emma Hale Smith, John C. Bennett, and
a few other "bad apples" had occasionally strayed from the truth -- but
that Joseph Smith, Jr., his family, and his faithful followers never told lies
to further the cause of their religion.

Others can correct me if I'm wrong -- but is this not a major LDS tenet --
that their members and leaders are generally the most honest, truthful,
and trustworthy people on the face of this planet?

UD

[_marg]

marge, this goes well beyond any ad hoc reasoning out into a world where logic and reason are not found.

Do you mean fallacious ad hoc or simply ad hoc? In the context in which you are using "ad hoc" it sounds as if you mean fallacious. Every time an individual offers some after the fact reasoning, that does not make it fallacious Glenn.

Dan's Smith alone theory is not compatible with the LDS story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I am not sure what you mean by a well orchestrated machine, but Dan has been going his own way and forming his own opinions for years. That led hin out of the LDS church and inti atheism.

[/quote]
Right and I've also seen that when he's being described as an atheist he's also described as a skeptic.

A skeptic would not be taking the Book of Mormon witnesses' claims at face value. A skeptic with any sort of intelligence would never say as Dan did:

" 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."

That's a believer's perspective, Glenn. That's something you'd say because you'd have a hard time wrapping your mind around the idea that Smith didn't have amazing abilities so you wouldn't doubt that Cowdery truly asked to try to translate a stone. To a skeptic Glenn, Cowdery would have had to be a drooling moron, to have asked Smith to try to translate the stone and to have been fooled by Smith into thinking Smith obtained any sort of abilities for translation via the stone.

I realize you can't wrap your mind around what I'm saying...I don't expect you to.

[_GlennThigpen]

Dan's Smith alone theory is not compatible with the LDS story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I am not sure what you mean by a well orchestrated machine, but Dan has been going his own way and forming his own opinions for years. That led hin out of the LDS church and inti atheism.

Right and I've also seen that when he's being described as an atheist he's also described as a skeptic.

A skeptic would not be taking the Book of Mormon witnesses' claims at face value. A skeptic with any sort of intelligence would never say as Dan did:

" 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."

That's a believer's perspective, Glenn. That's something you'd say because you'd have a hard time wrapping your mind around the idea that Smith didn't have amazing abilities so you wouldn't doubt that Cowdery truly asked to try to translate a stone. To a skeptic Glenn, Cowdery would have had to be a drooling moron, to have asked Smith to try to translate the stone and to have been fooled by Smith into thinking Smith obtained any sort of abilities for translation via the stone.

I realize you can't wrap your mind around what I'm saying...I don't expect you to.[/quote]


marge, you flew right past my point. You were saying that you would not be surprised if Dan were being paid by the LDS church to be an apologist. I was only replying to that. Whatever Dan's beliefs, or disbeliefs, they are far from in line with any LDS teachings on the provenance of the Book of Mormon and cannot logically be conceived as apologetic in any sense.

His theory that Joseph Smith was a cunning conman with a vivid imagination is hardly something that any LDS authority or scholar would view as apologetic or in any way endorsing the LDS church.

Glenn

[_marg]

marge, you flew right past my point. You were saying that you would not be surprised if Dan were being paid by the LDS church to be an apologist. I was only replying to that. Whatever Dan's beliefs, or disbeliefs, they are far from in line with any LDS teachings on the provenance of the Book of Mormon and cannot logically be conceived as apologetic in any sense.

His theory that Joseph Smith was a cunning conman with a vivid imagination is hardly something that any LDS authority or scholar would view as apologetic or in any way endorsing the LDS church.

in my opinion Dan's view is more along the lines of Smith was a creative genius (as opposed to a "cunning conman"), who was a true God believer in an interfering in mankind sort of God and had religiously motivated good intentions. That perspective sits well with a believer and the church. Come on Glenn admit it, you have no problems with that perspective. Sure there are differences between the perspective of 'Smith with divine' help versus 'Smith as a creative genius, religiously sincere and well intended and perhaps inspired'..the latter perspective leaves open the possibility of inspiration from the divine...so the theories do not conflict in a significant way.

[Guest]

Marg, Dan's counter-Mormon arguments are for those on the outer edge of Mormonism. He has his place, for those who fear reading other materials. And simple counter-Mormon arguments are easier to understand for those whose minds have been boxed up in the narrow view. He is definitely NOT a Mormon, although his restricted viewpoint seems TBM-ish.

For example, he believes that my search for sources, initially ignoring S/R, has merit. We agree that it has to be done well in order to be effective.

[_Uncle Dale]

...to work as an apologist for them, and he's actually a true believer in Mormonism, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

It is probably not a matter worth losing sleep over.

I suppose that a semi-professional historical researcher these days
can share some opinions with the LDS leadership, without necessarily
being on their payroll or on their active tithe-payers list. The very
act of soliciting assistance from folks in the LDS Archives generally
establishes a certain level of shared interest -- and appreciation
that the LDS professionals continue to make those unique resources
at least partly available for inspection.

If our primary goal is establishing the facts and probable facts of
history, we ought not to care very much who supplies information
leading to the publication of those facts.

For example --

We just naturally assume that a North Korean national, working as
a professional historian, will write and think along lines acceptable to
(and generally promoting) the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
If we discover a non-Korean (or former citizen) whose writings help
support the DPRK, we need not assume he is on their payroll. If the
facts he/she publishes are reliable and veritable, we might chalk up
that oddity to a coincidence in shared interests, etc.

As for the Brodieites -- I do not care if their friends and families
hope to bring them into the Celestial Kingdom, either before or after
their demise. There are always dedicated relatives who are ready to
perform the necessary temple work to restore an apostate to the
loving arms of his/her "eternal family."

I would, however, be a bit less forgiving of a Brodieite who (like
W.W. Phelps in 1839) claimed to have left the Church -- only to be
found back among its ranks when that association was convenient.
Can anybody believe that Daniel H. Wells (of MMM fame) was truly
a non-Mormon at Nauvoo? Or that Col. Kane was truly a disinterested
Gentile, when he brokered the 1858 federal pardon for Brigham & Co.?

No doubt there have been times when the Mormon leaders thought it
best to have a few helpful "non-members" out in the public eye, doing
things that promoted the Church's interests, while not being seen as
full-fledged Mormons themselves.

The name of William B. Backenstos, mid-1840s Sheriff of Hancock Co.,
Illinois comes to mind...

UD