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

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

How is concluding that a Bible was the only possible external source used to produce the Book of Mormon not an anything goes response to adverse evidence? The adverse evidence comes in the form of text that is nearly identical to KJV Isaiah which makes it borderline absurd to come to the conclusion that a Bible was not used. And when we consider that the 1830 Book of Mormon text repeats KJV grammatical mistakes, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Book of Mormon text relies on the KJV. But no Book of Mormon witness that you otherwise rely on ever acknowledges that a Bible was used. Nevertheless, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you acknowledge that a Bible was used. But you draw the line at the Bible.

If a Bible was used but never acknowledged, what ground is there to conclude that nothing else was used but never acknowledged? Unless I missed something in our earlier discussion, the only basis you have for coming to that conclusion is the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses. Correct?

I’m having difficulty following your reasoning here. We’ve gone over this before; you should have gotten this by now, Roger. You can’t smuggle a MS into the translation room through an argument from silence. There is nothing demanding that the witnesses mention the use of the Bible; Emma’s and Whitmer’s comments against use of a MS were designed to specifically respond to claims about Spalding. You can’t show a purposeful suppression of using a Bible. What they said is far more important than what they didn’t say. Silence is silence—not evidence.

You are using sources for polemical purposes, not trying to reconstruct events. You are arguing, “you accept the Bible and it wasn’t mentioned, so you must accept a S/R MS could have also been used and not mentioned in order to be consistent.” As I explained, that is an ad hominem (circumstantial), or an argument from personal circumstances. It does nothing to positively establish your theory.

You have no text to compare to the Book of Mormon. All you have are the very problematic testimonies based on 20-year-old memories given to an individual bent on destroying Mormonism. I don’t believe that kind of evidence can overturn Mormon witnesses (and at least two non-Mormons), some of whom specifically denied Joseph Smith’s use of a MS. They gave their testimonies independently years after Joseph Smith was dead—years after such testimony would have been most needed. The original Book of Mormon MS is consistent with dictation, and the loss of the 116-page MS supports their testimonies.

This is not an anything goes (imagination) or ad hoc theory to ward off negative evidence. I’m using sources and incidental supportive evidence. On the other hand, theories about trick hats and special displays of head in hat are ad hoc. Negating testimony of some witnesses (Cowdery, Whitmer, Harris) by including them in the conspiracy is also ad hoc and unfounded.

[_marg]

Glenn,

I think your response to me (link to post)was getting a little off track. Your original point was that you disagreed with me that Dan's perspective could be perceived as apologetic for the Mormon church..and so you were telling me that you disagreed with his take that Oliver was duped..to show me where there is a disagreement.

I do acknowledge Glenn there are differences between your perspective and Dan's. However Dan's perspective is such that the Book of Mormon witnesses and Smith were all honest, well intentioned individuals, who truly believed what they claimed..perhaps some were duped. But even Smith truly believed that which he claimed. So with regards to their intentions, integrity and morals ..Dan and your perspective are in agreement. You aren't in any way offended by his perspective. In addition I think Dan's perspective reinforces your beliefs. That is although he says he's a skeptic what you are saying is he's not a good one, because how could Smith possibly dupe as intelligent an individual as Cowdery who worked so closely with Smith for so long. And you are absolutely right on that point. Dan isn't a good skeptic.

On the other hand there is nothing in the S/R theory that would reinforce your beliefs. It truly is a skeptical position which calls into question the honesty of Smith and all the rest his relatives involved..and of course all the claims of the church.

[_Uncle Dale]

...there is nothing in the S/R theory that would reinforce your beliefs. It truly is a skeptical position which calls into question the honesty of Smith and all the rest his relatives involved.

Yes, I think that is true. But, as I understand the theory, it also
allows for reassessment based upon examination of additional
evidence. For example, Palmyra meat-packer William Hyde gave a
largely derogatory account of the Smith family to a Chicago paper,
but then softened his condemnations in a subsequent interview
published in the Deseret News.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LD ... htm#111088

For Hyde, at least, the Smiths could appear respectable and honest,
despite their secretive intrigues and treasure-seeking failures. I
suppose that witnesses such as William Hyde, Benjamin Saunders,
and others provide some balance against the conclusion that the
Smiths were universally despised by their neighbors.

Even neighbors who had provided damning statements for Howe's
book, in 1833, could later arrive in the Kirtland area and feel OK
in visiting there with Joe Smith -- as did one of the Caprons, on
his way to southern Geauga County to visit with some of the
same Manchester-Palmyra families who had earlier known Smith.

People can be forgiving -- they can overlook lies and duplicity
when circumstances seem to warrant such generosity (or for
sundry self-interests).

I hope that S/R advocates can summon up enough curiosity to
look past all the negative reports on the Smiths and their associates

I hope we can agree that these were complex people, involved in
complex interactions, which may not always be easily comprehended
by us moderns.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn,

I think your response to me (link to post)was getting a little off track. Your original point was that you disagreed with me that Dan's perspective could be perceived as apologetic for the Mormon church..and so you were telling me that you disagreed with his take that Oliver was duped..to show me where there is a disagreement.

I do acknowledge Glenn there are differences between your perspective and Dan's. However Dan's perspective is such that the Book of Mormon witnesses and Smith were all honest, well intentioned individuals, who truly believed what they claimed..perhaps some were duped. But even Smith truly believed that which he claimed. So with regards to their intentions, integrity and morals ..Dan and your perspective are in agreement. You aren't in any way offended by his perspective. In addition I think Dan's perspective reinforces your beliefs. That is although he says he's a skeptic what you are saying is he's not a good one, because how could Smith possibly dupe as intelligent an individual as Cowdery who worked so closely with Smith for so long. And you are absolutely right on that point. Dan isn't a good skeptic.

On the other hand there is nothing in the S/R theory that would reinforce your beliefs. It truly is a skeptical position which calls into question the honesty of Smith and all the rest his relatives involved..and of course all the claims of the church.

This whole thread is way off track.

There is nothing in either theory that would reinforce my beliefs. I am as against Dan's theory as I am the S/R theory.

The S/R theory is requires a leap of faith also. It requires that the proponents do not inspect the evidence with rigor or any amount of skepticism but accept uncritically contradicting statements, make up explanations out of thin air to mitigate the damage that contrary evidence does to the theory, and to accept as a facts things that are not remotely proven by the evidence.

And, there are no good skeptics. They are only skeptical of other peoples ideas, not their own. <grin>

Glenn

[_marg]

All you have are the very problematic testimonies based on 20-year-old memories given to an individual bent on destroying Mormonism.

If Hurlbut was so bent on destroying Mormonism it would have served his purposes much better to not give anyone MSCC. Showing MSCC to the Conneaut witnesses and giving it to Howe only served to give evidence of a manuscript..that didn't match to the Book of Mormon.

So contrary to your biased self serving propagandist statement, the objective evidence shows he couldn't have been all that bent on destroying Mormonism.

[_marg]

I’m having difficulty following your reasoning here. We’ve gone over this before; you should have gotten this by now, Roger. You can’t smuggle a MS into the translation room through an argument from silence. There is nothing demanding that the witnesses mention the use of the Bible; Emma’s and Whitmer’s comments against use of a MS were designed to specifically respond to claims about Spalding. You can’t show a purposeful suppression of using a Bible. What they said is far more important than what they didn’t say. Silence is silence—not evidence.

Actually what they say is not reliable...as they are not reliable credible witnesses. They have a vested interest as well as related to one another and their claims are extraordinary. We've gone over this before Dan, you should have gotten this by now. Had the witnesses mentioned a Bible was used, that would have helped their severely lacking credibility ..it would have been consistent with the physical evidence and would have showed they were being honest at least with one apsect of what actually occurred.

Inductive reasoning leads one to speculate why they'd specifically mention no material was present and yet not mention that a Bible was. Obviously they'd be aware that to others asking it would be important whatever material Smith used during the process.

As well if one expects evidence and it is lacking that can be evidence.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence. So Roger is making a valid point. He thinks it is reasonable to expect that the witnesses should have mentioned the Bible if it had been used. Their not mentioning it, when it is important and they should have appreciated its importance and to some extent indicated they did by specifying that Smith didn't use anything during the process ..indicates their truthfulness is questionable.

You are using sources for polemical purposes, not trying to reconstruct events. You are arguing, “you accept the Bible and it wasn’t mentioned, so you must accept a S/R MS could have also been used and not mentioned in order to be consistent.” As I explained, that is an ad hominem (circumstantial), or an argument from personal circumstances. It does nothing to positively establish your theory.

You know Dan you've got nothing that positively establishes your theory...it doesn't seem to bother you though.

You have no text to compare to the Book of Mormon.

And you find that surprising?

All you have are the very problematic testimonies based on 20-year-old memories given to an individual bent on destroying Mormonism.

That's Mormon apologetic propaganda. Hurlbut couldn't have been all that bent on destroying Mormonism for him to hand over to Howe a manuscript which worked against destroying Mormonism.

I don’t believe that kind of evidence can overturn Mormon witnesses (and at least two non-Mormons),

Your witnesses are not credible, so it's not a matter of overturning them, their credibility has not been established. As far as Emma's dad describing the head in the hat, I've mentioned this previously. Cowdery and Smith worked in a cabin on his land. All it would take is for the few occasions that he might pop by to simply put on a temporary act.

some of whom specifically denied Joseph Smith’s use of a MS.

Again your witnesses are not reliable or credible.

They gave their testimonies independently years after Joseph Smith was dead—years after such testimony would have been most needed. The original Book of Mormon MS is consistent with dictation, and the loss of the 116-page MS supports their testimonies.

Why wouldn't it be consistent with dictation.

This is not an anything goes (imagination) or ad hoc theory to ward off negative evidence. I’m using sources and incidental supportive evidence. On the other hand, theories about trick hats and special displays of head in hat are ad hoc. Negating testimony of some witnesses (Cowdery, Whitmer, Harris) by including them in the conspiracy is also ad hoc and unfounded.

When you use the words "ad hoc"..are you saying ad hoc fallacious?

You really do not understand fallacious ad hoc. At some point it become downright intellectually dishonest to ignore the reasoning/discussion on this and continue on misusing logical concepts for self serving purposes.

In order for ad hoc fallacious to apply, the initial claim must be objectively verifiable, the counter claim falsifies the original claim with objective verifiable evidence and the claimant then pulls an ad hoc fallacy by bringing in assumptions which disallows the possibility of the objective verifiable counter evidence to be used.

After the fact reasoning, explanation or speculation on what may have occurred in some historical event is NOT A FALLACIOUS AD HOC.

[_Roger]

Wow, this thread still doesn't appear to be dying any time soon.

Dan, I noticed you responded to my last post, but missed this one:

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?

Let's interject some science into the mix. How would the Smith-alone theory predict error patterns should fall across the 1830 Book of Mormon text? And does Smith-alone have a good reason to explain why the wherefore/therefore shift occurred?

[_GlennThigpen]

After the fact reasoning, explanation or speculation on what may have occurred in some historical event is NOT A FALLACIOUS AD HOC.

It is if it has no evidentiary support, goes against the normally accepted ideas of the time, and against the the witnesses of the time.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Let's interject some science into the mix. How would the Smith-alone theory predict error patterns should fall across the 1830 Book of Mormon text? And does Smith-alone have a good reason to explain why the wherefore/therefore shift occurred?

But let's ignore the science that indicates that Solomon Spalding, Sydney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, Joseph Smith, or Oliver Cowdery were not authors of the Book of Mormon. (Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available)

Glenn

[_jon]

Let's interject some science into the mix. How would the Smith-alone theory predict error patterns should fall across the 1830 Book of Mormon text? And does Smith-alone have a good reason to explain why the wherefore/therefore shift occurred?

But let's ignore the science that indicates that Solomon Spalding, Sydney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, Joseph Smith, or Oliver Cowdery were not authors of the Book of Mormon. (Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available)

Glenn

Hi Glenn, okay I accept all the science that tells us that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be. A history of the literal ancestors of the Native Americans who populated the land saved solely for them by God, during the period of a thousand years ending 400 A.D. Translated from the direct record on the gold plates. I accept that there were many millions of them, that they built great cities and were a significant civilization - exactly as explained within the Book of Mormon. That there were great wars and many deaths.

Now if you could just point out for me where, just exactly where, in the America's this great civilization lived...