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

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Roger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am

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

Post by _Roger »

marg:

I don't understand what you are saying.

Why must there be a cut-off date?


Dale points to Cowdery's vision of an angel and notes that no S/A proponent--whether of the Tanner variety or the Vogel variety--can accept Cowdery's testimony of that event as that of an honest man without also accepting the supernatural and, at that point, why not simply become a Mormon? So the only alternative is to agree that either:

A. Cowdery was, at that point, making up stories to benefit the cause (as in now an active participant in the deception) or
B. Smith actually caused an honest dupe to truly see angels

So far as I can tell, Dan has no alternative but to choose B.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

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

Post by _marg »

Roger wrote:Dale points to Cowdery's vision of an angel and notes that no S/A proponent--whether of the Tanner variety or the Vogel variety--can accept Cowdery's testimony of that event as that of an honest man without also accepting the supernatural and, at that point, why not simply become a Mormon? So the only alternative is to agree that either:

A. Cowdery was, at that point, making up stories to benefit the cause (as in now an active participant in the deception) or
B. Smith actually caused an honest dupe to truly see angels

So far as I can tell, Dan has no alternative but to choose B
.


Thanks Roger,

My understanding is Dan's position is # 2.

When it comes to hypnotism, those hypnotized are not completely unaware. That's why they say a hypnotized person won't do something which to them is morally repulsive or wrong. In a situation like the Book of Mormon witnesses they might play along (if hypnotism is a theory speculated) and what would be happening is the conscious mind would take a backseat to the subconscious, but there would still be awareness.. Afterwards when their conscious mind is fully in control they would be aware they didn't see angels.

I fully agree the extraordinary claims in the 3 Book of Mormon witness statements is evidence that they were active accomplices. For Harris if he didn't agree with what they claimed to have seen, he knew he'd be cut off from the inner circle so the pressure was great go along with it. But Cowdery and Whitmer were likely fully active accomplices, participating in the planning of what needed to be done and what propaganda to use.

I found it really odd when Dan mentioned that Cowdery had asked to try to translate with the stone...as if that was strong evidence he was duped and sincere.

How difficult and unlikely would it be for 2 scheming men who want to portray one of them as having a supernatural gift of translation of some ancient plates...to say one of them tried and failed? Not difficult at all and not very unlikely a thing to claim. This sort of evidence which is supposed to be extremely strong..is only extremely strong if one is a weak skeptical thinker and tends to accept claims uncritically at face value.
_Roger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am

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

Post by _Roger »

marg:

(if hypnotism is a theory speculated)


I'm not sure if hypnosis is the word Dan would use, but, if not, I don't know what else you'd call it.

Again, this is perfectly analogous to the influence modern faith healers have on their devoted followers. Does anyone (outside the faith circle, of course) think modern faith healers can really induce their followers into seeing angels? Can a case be made that faith healers hypnotize their followers? Isn't such an explanation playing into the notion that the faith healer is actually some sort of miracle worker? I think such a stance gives the faith healer too much credit. The faith healer IS NOTHING without the active participation of his loyal followers. It takes a certain gullible mindset to be taken in by a faith healer, no matter how charismatic they may be.

I think there are varying levels of "active participation." On the bottom level, I think, is where we will find most of the people who are analogous to Dan's version of honest dupes. These people aren't seeing angels... but they sure want to! They also aren't getting healed... but they sure want to. These are people like Ezra Booth or possibly William Mclellin. They take in every word of the charismatic leader and attempt to follow the actions of those on the next level up, those who appear to be closer to the inner circle and apparently are seeing angels and apparently are getting healed. The accomplice who put on a dramatic show in the example I mentioned earlier is one such case in point of this second level, active accomplice. This, I think, represents the analogy to the likes of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, and to a lesser extent, Martin Harris. After the 116 page loss, Harris was never fully accepted into the inner circle.

Whether they started out as innocent, gullible dupes or not is anyone's guess. But at the point at which they enter the drama, I am convinced they already have the mindset of the willing accomplice, analogous to my faith healer's accomplice who was more than willing to put on a dramatic show that was specifically designed to illustrate the incredible power of the faith healer--hence they are actively participating in contrived activity that is designed to promote the larger cause. Exactly like Cowdery and Whitmer. In fact this willingness to participate at a level above the average Joe is precisely why these were the key players under Joseph Smith. It is why we are discussing Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer today. He needed willing, loyal friends, just like faith healers need willing, devoted followers.

But so far as I can tell, Dan's version of S/A sees Cowdery and Whitmer as never moving beyond the level one dupe, and even deemphasizes their credulity and openness to the supernatural as being no different than any other normal, honest person in 1830 New York. Again, if one is going to attempt to make that argument stick, one has to move the explanation of the supernatural elements on to Joseph's amazing ability to induce hallucinations in any normal, honest person he came into contact with. I suppose that explanation is a possibility, but in my view it is not very plausible since it unnecessarily grants too much border-line super-human power to Joseph Smith and assumes the best about people in Smith's inner-circle when there is no warrant for doing either.

Simply put, according to Dan's way of thinking, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery were no different than anyone else in 1830 New York and only came under Joseph's influence apparently due to simply coming into contact with him. According to my way of thinking, they came under Joseph's influence precisely because they had the right mindset in the first place. A mindset that was perfectly suited for a level-two accomplice.

I think the complicating factor here is that Joseph Smith obviously could influence people (just like faith healers can today) and I think we all agree that he honed that skill as the years went by. But, again, I think the glaring weakness in Dan's version of S/A is that it takes that to the extreme and ignores the importance of having willing accomplices.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

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

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Roger wrote:...Does anyone (outside the faith circle, of course) think modern faith healers can really induce their followers into seeing angels?
...


In the case of Oliver Cowdery, in 1836, the claims for miraculous
manifestations go far beyond "seeing angels." Besides whatever
other biblical personages Cowdery and Smith said they encountered,
there was the primary report of their meeting Jesus Christ face-to-face.

For Mormons Jesus is far more than an angelic biblical personage --
he is simultaneously the Author of the Great Plan of Salvation, the
organizer of our world, the Saviour of all humankind, and the Judge
of the quick and the dead at the last day.

Such a Christophany as reported for Oliver Cowdery in Kirtland in
1836 far exceeds any dreamy vision or verbal epiphany -- it is
the life-altering event of meeting God Himself.

That is -- if it ever truly happened.

If Cowdery was a deceiver in 1836, then we must ask the Brodieites
whether or not he was also a holy deceiver in 1830, 1829 and 1828.

If he is unreliable in 1836, why should we trust his 1828-29 claims?

By 1838 the Mormons themselves were accusing Cowdery of all sorts
of nefarious transgressions ---- quite a turn-about for a sincere
Christian who had met his Maker less than two years before.

I do not suppose that the Brodieites will supply a cut-off date for
Oliver's honesty. And since they will not do us that favor, I reserve
the right to an opinion of Oliver as untrustworthy in 1828-30, as
well as in 1836 and 1838. If we cannot rely upon his early testimony
as sincere (and honest to the best of his comprehension), then we
need not accept the premise of Smith having written the book in
exactly the way he and Cowdery say it was compiled.

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_Roger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am

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

Post by _Roger »

Dale wrote:

I do not suppose that the Brodieites will supply a cut-off date for
Oliver's honesty. And since they will not do us that favor, I reserve
the right to an opinion of Oliver as untrustworthy in 1828-30, as
well as in 1836 and 1838. If we cannot rely upon his early testimony
as sincere (and honest to the best of his comprehension), then we
need not accept the premise of Smith having written the book in
exactly the way he and Cowdery say it was compiled.


Well said.

What do you think of the confession Cowdery allegedly made to Lang--who I think was his law partner?

Also, do you know if Cowdery ever publicly acknowledged Joseph's polygamy?
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
_Roger
_Emeritus
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:29 am

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

Post by _Roger »

Glenn:

Going back over some of the first pages of this thread refreshed my memory that Dale had already posted a chart that follows a similar pattern to the error pattern I have referred to earlier.

I would like to hear your take on the chart Dale posted on page 11 of this thread. That chart features the occurrences of a redundant "that" combined with the occurrences of "wherefore" across the 1830 Book of Mormon text. As you can tell, the resulting pattern is striking. You see a bunch of occurrences at the beginning and the end, but almost nothing in the middle. All indications are at this point that these are by no means the only examples that follow such a pattern.

From your perspective as a proponent of S/D, how do you explain that data?

Here's what Dale wrote (bold mine):

If you'll go back and read what I said, my conclusion is
that the shift actually begins with the 3rd Nephi Christophany
and then picks up steam in the Ether Christophany narrative.

The 3rd Nephi Christ seems not to have known about his previous
appearance to the Brother of Jared
. My conclusion is that when
3rd Nephi was being dictated, the Ether Christophany was not yet
fully composed -- that its finalized wording came later.

When the Ether Christophany was finally dictated, it copied
Matthew's "wherefore" language from the 3rd Nephi plagiarism of
the Bible ---- but it was not only "wherefore" that began to be
emphasized when this Ether change began. Rather, a whole
constellation of vocabulary and phraseology was brought into the
Ether-Moroni text and into the "small plates" text. There was a
noticeable shift away from the "a-going" sort of vernacular, over
to the "and after that..." sort of Early Modern English emulation.


Blame it all upon Joe Smith, if that seems logical to you.

My interest lies in matching up the Jockers' authorship attributions
to the pattern of language shifts just mentioned.

That is why I brought up the "a-going" style of vernacular that we
see in Alma (and once in Mormon), but not in the "small plates."
Generally speaking, Jockers matches of the "a-going" chapters with
Rigdon authorship attributions.

It is that sort of linguistic correspondence that most interests me.

However, if the Smith-alone crowd can present a logical reason for
the Book of Mormon language shift -- having nothing to do with Christophanies --
then I'm most eager to hear it.


So Glenn... from an S/D perspective, how do you explain the shift?
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."

- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

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

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Roger wrote:...

What do you think of the confession Cowdery allegedly made to Lang--who I think was his law partner?

Also, do you know if Cowdery ever publicly acknowledged Joseph's polygamy?


We must be careful with the Lang testimony. One version of it was
altered in R.B. Neal's pamphleteering efforts, I believe. The version
which appears in the Seneca County history actually says very
little -- that Cowdery indirectly confessed to the involvement of
Spalding's writings in the compilation of the book, etc. There's not
much evidence there for us to make use of.

I do not know of ANY post-1838 Oliver Cowdery public statements
on Mormonism. He obviously could have shed some light upon the
matter of polygamy in Smith's church -- but he chose not to.

I once heard a rumor -- traced back to some Whitmerites who
converted over to the RLDS Church in the early 1900s -- that
Oliver wrote out a full confession of early Mormon secrets, and
had the document placed in the hands of a trusted lawyer. If
he were to die of natural causes, the sealed document was to
be burned, without ever being opened. If he were to die from a
Danite assassination, the lawyer was to open and publish this
signed and witnessed confession. I do not know that the rumor
is true -- but I can picture Oliver threatening Brigham Young with
such a divulging of LDS secrets, if Brigham did not leave him
alone, to lead a hermit's life in Tiffin, Ohio.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer of February 29, 1896 published this:

After Cowdery left Kirtland he came to Tiffin and commenced
the practice of the law. He was a small, quiet and retiring man...
in Tiffin. He seldom left his house at night and the windows of his
residence were always closely curtained and his doors constantly
locked. It was the current impression there, that because of his
desertion of Mormonism he felt that he would be assassinated.

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

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

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Uncle Dale wrote:...such a divulging of LDS secrets
...


Recall also, that the first known accusation of Cowdery having been
the author of the Book of Mormon came from an early Ohio newspaper
report -- followed by Orsamus Turner's presumably better sourced
information involving Cowdery in the book's creation.

Later Ohio reports continued to credit Cowdery with a role in the book's
authorship, as did this one from 1878:

This man Cowdery was the most intelligent of all the men connected with the Mormon imposture, and it is now generally believed was the real author of the Mormon Bible. After the Nauvoo affair he left the Mormons and came back to Ohio. He located at Tiffin and practiced law there for several years, when he removed to Wisconsin. Subsequently we heard that he rejoined the Mormons and we do not know whether he is alive or dead, While a resident of Seneca county he was very secluded and retiring in his habits, and it was then said that he was fearful of the "Avenging Angels" of the Mormons, as they threatened his life for deserting them. It was alleged while residing in Tiffin, with his family, that he never would go on the streets after dark and changed his place of sleeping from one room to another every night. He was very moody and it was asserted he deeply regretted his connection with the Mormon Church, and confidentially said he possessed too many of the secrets of the Mormon leaders to make his life safe. He was considered a good lawyer, but had no gift for public speaking.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#090177


Reports of Sidney Rigdon's "salt sermon" given at Far West in the
spring of 1838, indicate that the topmost LDS leadership then
viewed Cowdery and the Whitmers as nothing better than salt
that had lost its savor, and which should be trodden underfoot
(that is, crushed and destroyed). Joseph Smith, Jr. sat upon the
same podium as Rigdon when these pronouncements were given,
and Smith clarified the First Presidency's threats against Cowdery
and the other Far West apostates, by saying they should lose
their heads (that is, be assassinated).

Cowdery and the Whitmers took the hint and fled Far West at once.
David Whitmer later provided some sketchy references to this very
dangerous period in his life -- his escape from the Danites, etc.

Whether or not Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon ever made actual
plans to assassinate Oliver Cowdery, I do not know. There is,
however, some reason to believe that Cowdery feared such an
attempt upon his life by the Mormon leaders.

Why did Oliver Cowdery never speak of Smith's cover-up of polygamy
in early times? Even David Whitmer alluded to that fact. Both men
knew enough about Smith to divulge some of his secret intimacies with
women (even before the full-blown affairs at Nauvoo). But Oliver
remained quiet, when a series of exposures of Smith, Young and the
other polygamous leaders might have made him famous and perhaps
even a wealthy man. Unlike John C. Bennett, Cowdery remained
silent and never divulged the secrets he knew. Mormon polygamy had
a safe cover-up, when it came to Cowdery's public statements.

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

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

Post by _Uncle Dale »

...
I once heard a rumor
...


Of course rumors are not proof -- and they often do not rise even
to the status of evidence. But they do provide possible leads for
further historical investigation. It was rumored that Joseph Smith
was bedding multiple female followers, long before the rumor was
backed up with sufficient evidence, as to constitute proof.

We in the Reorganization were always supposed to be proud of
Sister Catherine Smith Salisbury -- she was the faithfully honest
sister of Joseph Smith, Jr., who had seen the light and joined
with the RLDS in her later years -- obviously a source of much
truth and light, when it came to learning about early Mormonism.

Or -- perhaps not.

Consider this 1867 newspaper report, speaking of 1830-31:


In further illustration of the strange superstitions characterizing these pioneer disciples of
Mormonism, and to complete the chain of facts going to make up this truthful history, it is proper
to add one other important incident, which has never appeared in any accepted record of the saints.
Enthusiastic members of the brotherhood -- perhaps, it should be said the more visionary of the
believers -- had plied the "spirit of prophecy" in foretelling the advent of a miraculous birth in
association with an unmarried daughter of Joseph Smith, sen. This predicted event was to astonish the
gentile world as a second advent of triune humanity. Harris was exceedingly happy in the belief of
a forthcoming prophet or Messiah under the Mormon dispensation, and spoke unreservedly of an
"immaculate conception in our day and generation."

The ample shrewdness of the prophet had probably been called in requisition to allay some unfavorable
surmises on the part of his observing disciple, who was a frequenter at the family mansion, and it
is apparent that the theory invented was readily adopted by Harris. Rigdon had been an occasional
sojourner at Smith's for a year or more, though the reader may fail to perceive what this circumstance
had to do with the case. The upshot of the story is, that soon after the family started for Ohio, the
miracle eventuated somewhere on the route, in the birth of a lifeless female child! The accident was
readily set down to the account of Divine intervention to avenge some act of Mormon disobedience,
and Harris was thus easily reconciled.
(The New York World, Nov. 27, 1867)


cf: Geauga Gazette, Painesville, Ohio, May, 1831:

Every breeze wafts to us some new rumor from this prolific source
of fantasies, some of which proved true and some false. Fame now
whispers in sly and obscure hints, something about a miraculous
conception, from which we conclude the Mormon public mind is being
prepared for the nativity of some wonderful personage....
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#051731


This same Sister Catherine (whether or not she was pregnant without
any proper marriage in 1831), swore that Sidney Rigdon never made
an appearance at the Smith residence in Manchester. But even that
witness statement is fraught with error (or duplicity). I do not think
we can trust Catherine Smith Salisbury to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, when it comes to relating early Mormon history.

Witnesses such as Sister Catherine had a vested interest in keeping quiet,
(or actively cover over), any hidden event which might make the Church
look bad, and which might actually endanger the Saints themselves.

Catherine joined the Church that professed her brothers Joseph, Hyrum
and William to have been lifelong monogamists, who battled valiantly
against secret polygamy at Nauvoo.

Are we to accept Catherine's testimony regarding no Rigdon presence among
the Smiths until 1831? And, if we do that, must we also believe that her
brothers were monogamists?

I counsel that we exercise great caution in accepting early Mormon/RLDS
testimony at face value -- we need not ALWAYS believe those witnesses.

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_GlennThigpen
_Emeritus
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 pm

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

Post by _GlennThigpen »

Roger wrote:
So Glenn... from an S/D perspective, how do you explain the shift?



http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=1&id=137


Glenn
In order to give character to their lies, they dress them up with a great deal of piety; for a pious lie, you know, has a good deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one. Hence their lies came signed by the pious wife of a pious deceased priest. Sidney Rigdon QW J8-39
Post Reply