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

[_aussieguy55]

Some years ago Wesley Walters sent me a photocopy of pages of an account book by a Palmyra merchant called Mr Durfee. In there, were entries of Hyrum and Joseph doing hoeing for him. Other entries indicate that they bought barrels of cider liquor.Did this mean as some affidavits claim they drank heavily ? Maybe.

[_aussieguy55]

deleted - duplicate post

[_Roger]

Mikwut:

There is so much unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric in your posts I find it next to impossible to take whatever you attempt to offer in terms of actual substance seriously.

You wrote this:

We don't see discourse from you such as, "you know Dan that is an excellent point", "that is indeed evidence for what your arguing", "I recognize the weaknesses in my theory" etc.....

I demonstrated that is simply not the case at all.

I also challenged you to:

1. please show me, as in CFR, where Dan (or you) have ever acknowledged what the weakest aspect of Smith-alone is.

Which you will not do because you can't.

And I challenged you to:

2. please pull some quotes where either Dan (or you) explicitly state:

"you know [Roger] that is an excellent point", "that is indeed evidence for what your arguing", "I recognize the weaknesses in my theory" etc.....

Which, of course, you also cannot do because neither of you has ever made any statements even remotely similar to what you hypocritically demand from me.

Lawyers make their living attempting to paint the best possible rhetorical picture of their clients and the worst of their opponents, but this is not a courtroom and your tactic is plain to see. It is also an unwarranted distraction.

You accept the fallacy so the discussion can progress.

Clearly acquiescence and submission is all that will satisfy you but you can't browbeat those who oppose your point of view into submission--especially when you haven't responded to the problems in your own Book of Mormon production theory while mischaracterizing those of S/R. Intimidation simply doesn't work with me.

[_Roger]

On the contrary, there was every reason to avoid mentioning it because the text itself implies the copying was done by ancient Nephite authors! The evidence shows otherwise.

This is a good point.
Their lack of mentioning a Bible indicates he either concealed a Bible, if not then it is a good indication some acted as accomplices keeping silent on information they appreciated was detrimental to reveal. They made it known that Smith used nothing to copy from, so if they were all honest, one or more of them should have mentioned the use of a Bible. But of course, they couldn't because to do so would expose the con of existence of Nephites..so the likelihood, contrary to Dan's position that they were all duped, is that some at the very least were accomplices..willing to lie by omission of obvious important information.

I agree. There seems to be no way around this. It was not clear to me at first the extent to which Dan's thesis apparently rests on the paradox of arbitrarily accepting and rejecting elements from the Book of Mormon witness testimony while concluding that these were all honest dupes with Joseph being the only one among them applying deception. Without that basic assumption in place, it would seem, Dan's take on S/A must be totally re-evaluated.

But the very fact that the Book of Mormon itself declares that the Isaiah quotes were made by ancient Nephites renders the use of a Bible in 1829 completely unwarranted. That is why it was never mentioned. Not because no one ever thought to ask. Yet, recognizing that the evidence for Bible use is overwhelming, S/A proponents and even some LDS apologists are willing to admit that a Bible was used, however their respective theories come up with different but apparently ad hoc reasons for it--or at the very least, speculative.

Smith-Alone (I presume) theorizes dependence on the Bible in order to find sufficient filler material to replace the 116 page loss.

Smith-Divine (I presume) assumes Joseph must have noticed the quotation of Isaiah and simply switched to a Bible in order to save the strain on his eyes.

Only S/D assumes no deception in the process but offers a pretty weak excuse for borrowing from the Bible. It also suffers from the inconsistency of assuming (ad hoc) that a Bible must have been used but never mentioned and even denied by implication.

S/A on the other hand involves a much more complex dynamic. Either we have Smith needing to come up with filler material on his own while still maintaining the con over his loyal but honest dupes, OR we have accomplices who were willing to hide information in order to protect the cause.

In the case of the former, any Bible use would have necessarily raised red flags precisely because of the claims of the text itself (!) and, in light that, should have compelled honest dupes to carefully and explicitly mention and adequately explain the need to quote from a King James Bible when the text declares it was ancient Nephites doing the quoting of the original. But they never mention it, and instead, they deny it by implication by explicitly mentioning the method Joseph used while never once even hinting that a modern Bible was used.

In the face of this adverse evidence, Dan's version of S/A responds by speculating that none of them mentioned a Bible because it was a trivial matter that would not have raised red flags and no one directly asked them about it. But that does not square with the claims of the text itself which had to have been believed if S/A is to maintain its dependence on honest dupes.

It is reasonable then to conclude for willing accomplices over honest dupes. Some of them perhaps were accomplices on a deeper level than others but they were nonetheless willing to avoid mentioning certain key information that would have been damaging to the cause, for which, as Dale points out, we have later precedent by the very individuals we're talking about.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Although to him people were easily manipulated and gullible he liked people with their weaknesses and all. But I don't think it bothered him to knowingly take advantage of others even if at times they suffered because of his influence and decisions.

I generally try to avoid psychoanalyzing the Smiths -- even those descendants
still living today, with whom I've interacted occasionally in RLDS ranks.

I do think they were dishonest and manipulative -- that they felt entitled to a
loftier reputation and lifestyle than the average human being.

Whether or not they ever suffered any pangs of guilt over their lies and frauds,
I cannot say. History tells us that many, many early converts were left destitute
by the Smiths' religious operations. I do not suppose that bothered them much.
I do not suppose that they were much bothered by what went on at Far West,
until the moment when annihilation by the surrounding Missouri Militia became
an impending reality.

Could they work hard? Apparently so.
Did they always work hard? -- When their financial crisis was at a high point
Joe Smith Sr. took off on wild goose chase treasure hunts. He could have been
laboring 18 hours a day then -- digging ditches or chopping trees for local
farmers. Even if his own crops were a failure, or insufficient to pay off his
debts, he still could have "gone down fighting," by honest hard manual labor.

When Joe Jr. got to Kirtland he fabricated a "revelation," saying that he did
not have to work. Instead of real labor he played at various occupations --
including operating a general store and running a bank. He could occasionally
be seen doing some gardening, or wrestling in the streets with young boys,
but I hear no accounts of his doing real manual labor after the early 1820s.
He became the richest man in Nauvoo, I was told by an RLDS historian. How
did he manage that, if he never worked for wages?

I really do not care. I see the Smiths as a bad influence upon the Saints,
no matter how diligently the Mormons and Brodieites try to defend them.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...It was not clear to me at first the extent to which Dan's thesis apparently rests on the paradox of arbitrarily accepting and rejecting elements from the Book of Mormon witness testimony while concluding that these were all honest dupes with Joseph being the only one among them applying deception.
...

He can speak for himself, I suppose. But there must be some specific "cut-off date"
when Cowdery's accounts of events become unreliable. Did Joe Smith so corrupt
him, that Cowdery eventually became a co-conspirator (after having been a truly
honest and sincere witness, to begin with)?

Was Sidney Rigdon a true convert in 1830, who eventually became the liar and
cheat that even the highest Mormon sources acknowledged him to be, later on?

I think that the Smith-alone theory can only be salvaged by our employing
some sort of a "corrupting" influence on Smith's part -- whereby his honest
followers of 1828-1830 were led into later deceit and dishonesty.

Either that, or we accept their greater testimony as reliable, and pronounce
not only the Book of Mormon, but Mormonism itself "true."

UD

[_Roger]

Dale:

Did Cowdery ever publicly--as in outside of Mormon circles--acknowledge Smith's polygamy?

What about Whitmer and Harris? Off the top of my head I don't remember if An Address to all Believers specifically condemns Joseph's polygamy or if the condemnation is implied ambiguously.

[_marg]

Post reference: link to post by Dan - Mon May 16, 2011 6:21 am

I never said that Smith-alone is the correct theory merely because it was the simplest. I said that Occam’s Razor favors the theory that makes the fewest assumptions and ad hoc theories, that when a theory increasingly relies on these things that it will eventually fall out of favor.

To the first part regarding Occam’s Razor it is applicable only in situations where they are 2 or more theories with equal explanatory power explaining the data equally well. In that case simplest explanation is usually the best choice...less unnecessary data.

Smith alone and S/R theory do not have equal explanatory power ..do not explain the data equally..Occam’s Razor is not applicable in any sense in choosing between those 2 theories.

Now onto your second part which is ‘that increasing ad hoc justification indicates a problem with a theory’.

In science theories are dependent on assumptions such as the tools or apparatus used, reasoning applied/interpretation of data, previously accepted theories. So a new hypothesis relies upon previously established information, tools and theories. In science all of the previous data is considered temporary...not absolute. So it's perfectly acceptable to changes assumptions if it seems doing so is warranted. So if a new hypothesis changes the background assumptions that other previously accepted data, tools, theories are not reliable and it’s done for the sole reason of maintaining the new hypothesis..the chances are going to be that the more assumptions that have previously been established as reliable that need to be changed, the more likely the problem is with the new hypothesis. The more ad hoc changed assumptions to previously accepted theories the more likely it is the ad hoc changes that are wrong as opposed to the previous theories and/or tools, data or theories.

That is why Dan, it is said the more ad hoc changes to assumptions(in science) done in order to maintain a hypothesis the more likely there is a problem with a new hypothesis.

What happens in science, is far removed rationally from what you are doing in your argumentation. Your counter arguments against S/R theory as I’ve pointed out are your opinion. There is no justification your opinion is superior to the opinion of S/R advocates. For S/R advocates to counter your opinion which has no objective verifiability ..is not irrational..especially when there are good warrants to do so.

To emphasize …your counter opinions to S/R theory have not been objectively established as being superior or more reliably true that S/R claims. So to respond to your opinion is not ad hoc fallacy,or another way of putting it. It is not faulty reasoning to respond to opinions which may themselves be faulty and unreliable.

So all those counter explanations to your opinion are not ad hoc fallacy.

A more complex theory such as S/R to Smith alone, which tries to address all the data is going to have more explanations. There is nothing wrong with that, that's actually what should be expected. So increased explanations does not equate to ad hoc fallacies. You have been erroneously misusing the concept of ad hoc fallacy against a more complex theory than Smith alone.

In effect all you have been arguing is that your theory smith alone is the simplest and on that basis alone should be the one accepted and all other theories more complex should be rejected. You've not been arguing any sort of rational justification why a simpler theory is more likely to get to the truth than a more complex theory.

[_marg]

But there must be some specific "cut-off date"
when Cowdery's accounts of events become unreliable.

I don't understand what you are saying.

Why must there be a cut-off date?

[Guest]

UD:

... there must be some specific "cut-off date"
when Cowdery's accounts of events become unreliable. Did Joe Smith so corrupt
him, that Cowdery eventually became a co-conspirator (after having been a truly
honest and sincere witness, to begin with)?

I think you've hit on the difference between the Vogel version of S/A and the Tanner version. From what I can tell, Vogel S/A would suggest that Cowdery was an honest dupe through the whole process but that Smith had such strong powers of persuasion as to be able to induce hallucinations among his honest dupes. The Tanner version, I think, would readily concede that Cowdery, and probably the others as well, became co-conspirators at some point.

Between the two, I think most rational thinkers would agree that the Tanner version is more plausible because it does not ascribe boy-wonder, miracle-inducer qualities to Joseph Smith.

It seems to me, this is what it comes down to if one is going to subscribe to S/A. If one wants to assume they were honest folks while rejecting the supernatural elements of their testimonies, one is forced to raise Joseph's power of persuasion to impressive, almost super-human levels. The alternative to that is honest folks who became corrupted by Joseph Smith to the extent that they were willing to withhold damaging information and even fabricate tales to aid the larger cause.

So the hallmark, shall we say, of Vogel Smith-Alone is a boy wonder surrounded by gullible but honest dupes. The hallmark of Tanner Smith-Alone is an influential, charismatic con-man who providentially runs into some corruptible everyday folks. And the hallmark of S/R is a few good conspirators. And of course, the hallmark of S/D is that any seeming gap can be filled by a rather devious, less than omnipotent god.

Glenn also brought up the possibility of automatic writing. I don't know much about the phenomenon, but don't actual examples tend to be more rambling and abstract than the Book of Mormon?