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

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

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.

Arbitrary? You haven’t responded to my list of

Historians don’t evaluate testimony like a polemicist does. There are no disinterested witnesses where Mormonism is concerned. Spalding witnesses aren’t objective either. Historians don’t just throw out interested testimony, but they are skeptical and proceed with caution. So, how can we test these witnesses?

Multiple witnesses. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Michael Morse (non-Mormon), Isaac Hale (non-Mormon), Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, Emma Hale Smith, Joseph Knight Sr.

Consistent story. Variety in minor details, but consistent in the main elements.

Independent testimony. Witnesses gave their testimonies in a variety of settings without collusion with one another.

Consistent over time. Essential elements remained the same from 1829 to 1880s.

Uncontroverted testimony. Any one of the named witnesses could have changed their testimony during their lifetimes, but they didn’t. Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris were excommunicated in 1838. Other witnesses to the translation who never gave a statement could have come forward at any time to contradict published accounts, but that never happened either.

Incidental witnesses. Cowdery, Harris, and Emma were scribes, but the others were incidental witnesses who happened to be present on various occasions.

Supported by physical evidence (MS consistent with dictation).

Supported by incidental event (losing 116-pages MS).

[Note that the testimony about the head in hat goes back before Spalding claims were made.]

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.

How do you know that was the motive? If someone had asked, or there was a situation where it was obvious that the Bible should have been mentioned, then one would look for motive. To suggest motive that is sinister (at trait of conspiracy theory) goes beyond what the sources can support. You therefore are expressing opinion that has no support, which can be safely ignored.

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.

In interpretive situations, it’s appropriate to offer suggestions or explanations for gaps in knowledge. In debate and situations that involve evidence and argument, there is no reason to give explanation to silence. You are attempting to shift burden to others. You are constructing an implied argument from silence, although in version 5.1 of this argument you are so far suppressing its conclusion.

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.

Some advocates of S/D (like Royal Skousen) argue that Joseph Smith never took his head out of the hat and that the impossible-to-memorize chapters from Isaiah are proof of inspired translation. Most apologists I believe accept the Bible was used as an aid. Use of the Bible is not ad hoc, because it’s founded on reasonable inference. Why it was used is going to be speculative and ad hoc. Smith/alone advocates might wonder what Joseph Smith might have said to the others to explain his use of a Bible, but this would be interpretive and discussed within his/her paradigm, and not part of any argument in paradigm-to-paradigm debates. To be sure, it’s not even necessary to answer this question in such debates.

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.

He doesn’t need accomplices. Why would he burden his project with unnecessary baggage? The tendency in conspiracy is to involve as few people as possible, except those you absolutely need. He needed witnesses, but he learned as a treasure seer how to get dupes to testify to his gifts. Josiah Stowell and Jonathan Thompson testified in court in March 1826 that Joseph Smith could really see buried treasure and find lost objects. He doesn’t need accomplices to hide his use of the Bible, because that can be more easily explained to dupes than inducing them to join a conspiracy.

In the case of the former, any Bible use would have necessarily raised red flags precisely because of the claims of the text itself (!)

There’s nothing in the text prohibiting the use of a Bible as a translation aid. A guy who translates with head in hat can do pretty much anything he wants. Where would they get the notion that Joseph Smith wasn’t supposed to use a Bible?

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.

Where do you get the notion that dupes have to mention this item to escape being called dishonest? I don’t think they gave it the significance you give it, that is, assuming they saw it, because you haven’t established they had to have seen it. It would have taken about two days out of thirty to copy from the Bible, with a few changes for good measure. These changes imply that those chapters were somehow part of the inspired process of translation, which would have made it less remarkable. There had to be some explanation and use of the stone accompanying the incorporation of the Isaiah chapter into the Book of Mormon. You’re trying to make a mountain of a molehill.

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.

Joseph Smith’s use of a Bible isn’t adverse evidence for Smith-alone theory. You think it’s adverse because you want to use it in an argument of silence to smuggle the S/R MS into the translation room. Because it’s a fallacious argument, I’m under no obligation to explain why the witnesses chose not to mention the use of a Bible, that is, assuming they did see it, which you haven’t established.

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.

This conclusion is not supported by any reasonable analysis of the evidence. Use of the Bible would not have been damaging to the cause—it would just have been more difficult to explain and off topic. They don’t even explain every detail of the head in the hat either.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Dan's insistence on focusing the discussion on alleged logical fallacies is a distraction in my opinion. You've done an admirable job attempting to accommodate his distraction but in my opinion it's a game to him. I've discussed S/R with a lot of other posters who disagree with me (Chris Smith and Don Bradley are just two who come to mind) but no one as obsessed with refocusing the discussion on logical fallacies as Dan.

The fact that others chose not approach S/R theory from a methodological point of view doesn’t make my discussion illegitimate. My hope is that you will learn that the arguments you rely on are fallacious and that the discussion can be turned towards more fruitful endeavors. The invention of ad hoc rationalizations is probably the most frequent error preventing progress.

In the beginning I accommodated Dan and studied up on the point he was trying to make about my alleged argument from silence. During the course of that investigation it became clear to me that Dan's theory relies more on an argument from silence than does S/R (in terms of Dan's admission that a Bible was used but never acknowledged). When I pointed it out to him, he came up with a nuanced version of the argument from silence that, in his mind, makes his argument from silence acceptable. It was at that point that I began to realize this is all a game to him. No matter what, he's going to figure out a way to claim logic is on his side and he's effectively moved the discussion to one of who best knows how to manipulate the guidelines of logic to his advantage. As I said way back on the early pages of this thread, that is not where my interest lies. I am interested in who produced content for the Book of Mormon.

You might be interested in the subject of who wrote the Book of Mormon, but you don’t know how to go about doing that. To really understand logic, it takes more than the Google of one fallacy. I was glad you looked up arguments from silence, but you came back with the idea that any interpretive filling in of gaps was the fallacy of argument from silence. I tried to explain that to you, but instead of learning the difference you accused me of inventing loopholes for myself. Worse, you kept right on repeating this argument from silence over and over. Roger, these tactic don’t work with people who know better. Sorry!

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Dan's insistence on focusing the discussion on alleged logical fallacies is a distraction in my opinion. You've done an admirable job attempting to accommodate his distraction but in my opinion it's a game to him. I've discussed S/R with a lot of other posters who disagree with me (Chris Smith and Don Bradley are just two who come to mind) but no one as obsessed with refocusing the discussion on logical fallacies as Dan.

The fact that others chose not approach S/R theory from a methodological point of view doesn’t make my discussion illegitimate. My hope is that you will learn that the arguments you rely on are fallacious and that the discussion can be turned towards more fruitful endeavors. The invention of ad hoc rationalizations is probably the most frequent error preventing progress.

In the beginning I accommodated Dan and studied up on the point he was trying to make about my alleged argument from silence. During the course of that investigation it became clear to me that Dan's theory relies more on an argument from silence than does S/R (in terms of Dan's admission that a Bible was used but never acknowledged). When I pointed it out to him, he came up with a nuanced version of the argument from silence that, in his mind, makes his argument from silence acceptable. It was at that point that I began to realize this is all a game to him. No matter what, he's going to figure out a way to claim logic is on his side and he's effectively moved the discussion to one of who best knows how to manipulate the guidelines of logic to his advantage. As I said way back on the early pages of this thread, that is not where my interest lies. I am interested in who produced content for the Book of Mormon.

You might be interested in the subject of who wrote the Book of Mormon, but you don’t know how to go about doing that. To really understand logic, it takes more than the Google of one fallacy. I was glad you looked up arguments from silence, but you came back with the idea that any interpretive filling in of gaps was the fallacy of argument from silence. I tried to explain that to you, but instead of learning the difference you accused me of inventing loopholes for myself. Worse, you kept right on repeating this argument from silence over and over. Roger, these tactics don’t work with people who know better. Sorry!

[_Roger]

Dan:

I have an observation and a question....

Joseph Smith’s use of a Bible isn’t adverse evidence for Smith-alone theory.

It is to your version of the S/A theory. I agree that under the Tanner's version, the use of a Bible isn't adverse since they are willing to see Cowdery (and probably Whitmer) as accomplices of Joseph Smith (at least I think Sandra would agree to that). You seem not to be so willing--although near the beginning of this thread you hypothesized that Cowdery might have done the KJV copying while Smith was gone. How you reconcile that speculation with an honest dupe is still not clear to me.

Smith/alone advocates might wonder what Joseph Smith might have said to the others to explain his use of a Bible, but this would be interpretive and discussed within his/her paradigm, and not part of any argument in paradigm-to-paradigm debates. To be sure, it’s not even necessary to answer this question in such debates.

I disagree. The evidence demands an explanation. A Bible was used but never acknowledged, while at the same time another explanation that does not include a Bible was offered as the answer to the question: how was the Book of Mormon produced?

I maintain that any knowledge by Cowdery or Whitmer (much less active participation!) of KJVB usage throws serious doubt on your hypothesis of honest dupes, precisely because the text itself claims to have already done the Bible quoting. If Joseph suddenly begins to use a Bible after he'd been doing everything via the hat and stone routine, it's going to raise red flags for honest dupes! Wait a minute Joseph! I thought you were getting every word from God in the stone and that God himself was correcting you and not allowing the translation to proceed until it was correct lest any man should boast.... why are you now using a Bible? No big deal, Oliver! The strain hurts my eyes and besides, Nephi is quoting the Bible anyway!

Something of that nature HAD to have taken place if you are to maintain the "honest" part of your dupe theory and some plausible explanation should be a part of your theory. For those honest dupes to have then gone on to avoid mentioning the reason a Bible was used--when they did, in fact, explain in some detail how the Book of Mormon was produced--Cowdery even going so far as to say every word as they fell from the lips of the prophet--amounts to the dishonest withholding of key information in order to protect the cause--especially when Joseph HAD to have given them an explanation that made sense to them while still keeping them duped.

So in my view, Bible use is indeed quite adverse to your version of S/A. You apparently are attempting to stave off the adversity by suggesting that I haven't shown they ever saw the Bible in action! That is ridiculous! Cowdery said he sat there for every word as it came from Smith's lips. Smith either had to be dictating from an open Bible or had to have memorized large chunks of Isaiah while simultaneously reacting to the KJV italics on the fly! A remarkable feat! But your version of S/A leaves you with no alternative.

Beyond that, it's not up to me to prove when they had their eyes open so you can apply it to your theory. My theory is perfectly in line with the data! My theory says that either they would have known about the Bible and not mentioned it because they were accomplices--much like the apprentice faith-healer I mentioned--or that another accomplice, probably Sidney Rigdon, did the Bible copying offsite so that Cowdery and Whitmer wouldn't have specifically witnessed that part of the process and therefore had no reason to mention it. You've already agreed that a Bible was used! And your theory demands that the whole thing was produced by Smith, not by someone else offsite--with the possible exception of your Cowdery speculation--which is a very interesting speculation coming from your point of view! So it's up to you to prove they were not in the room when it was used--which runs counter to Cowdery's "every word" testimony--or that Oliver had his eyes closed when Smith was dictating from the Bible.

The inescapable fact is that

1. a Bible was used
2. none of your honest witnesses ever acknowledged it

The raw data... Bible used, no one admits it.... falls perfectly in line with what we would expect from an S/R perspective but must be rationalized from an S/A and S/D point of view--which is exactly what you are attempting to do... explain why a Bible was used but never mentioned. That data fits with what S/R would expect but must be rationalized under your honest dupe version of S/A.

Interestingly enough, The Tanner version of S/A (which I am theorizing at this point but I'm pretty sure Sandra would have no problem thinking Oliver was in on the deception at some level) comes out on top because it concedes that Oliver and David could easily have been accomplices at that point, which, interestingly enough, is then closer to S/R than the Vogel version. I think you are reluctant to give any ground on this point because you know such a concession inevitably moves you closer to S/R than you want be.

Now... here's the question:

How do you explain the data on the chart Dale posted back on page 11 of this thread?

[_Uncle Dale]

...I'm pretty sure Sandra would have no problem thinking Oliver was in on the deception at some level
...

From my conversations with her, I'd guess that she would be
very reticent to name Cowdery as a knowing accomplice.

If she and Jerald would have ever started down that path,
they would have made some specific mention of Orsamus
Turner, Dr. John Stafford, Benjamin Winchester, D.H. Bays,
and other early sources who advocated involvement in the
Nephite record composition by Lucy Mack Smith and/or Cowdery.

The Tanners repeatedly cite such sources, but (so far as I
can recall) they always passed over the Cowdery-Lucy stuff.

Stephen Harding recounted in a couple of different instances,
his 1829 visit with Lucy, Oliver, and the others -- but even
those sorts of non-accusative references were ignored by the
Tanners. I take that as a sign that they also did not wish to
advance claims of Mormonism originating and progressing as
a secret conspiracy.

If you get a chance, you might ask Sandra who she thinks
composed the two witness statements in the 1830 book --
I suspect that she'll guess Joseph, and not Oliver.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

The inescapable fact is that

1. a Bible was used

That "fact" has not been established. It is a theory attempting to explain excerpts similar to passages in the Bible.

Now... here's the question:

How do you explain the data on the chart Dale posted back on page 11 of this thread?

The wherefore/therefore or therefore/wherefore shift is not indicative of anything without some rigorous textual analysis, which has yet to be done. A real shift relies on the theory that Mosiah was translated first and 1 and 2 Nephi was translated last. But there are reasons to believe that 1 and 2 Nephi were translated first, although Dan will not agree with that assertion.

Chris Smith has charts that show the two different scenarios at http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2009/02/mosiah-priority-and-thereforewherefore.html

If you had read some of the material by Skousen, Tdevetnes, et al, you would know that the redundant "that" is a Hebrew or semitic construct and is perfectly grammatical in Hebrew, but ungainly in English. That is why they were mostly editied out of the Book of Mormon in the 1837 edition by Joseph Smith.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

You're not following what I am asking. Either that or you're avoiding the question. I think you're just not getting it.

If you had read some of the material by Skousen, Tdevetnes, et al, you would know that the redundant "that" is a Hebrew or semitic construct and is perfectly grammatical in Hebrew, but ungainly in English. That is why they were mostly editied out of the Book of Mormon in the 1837 edition by Joseph Smith.

It doesn't matter whether its ungainly or not. For the purposes of this discussion it doesn't even matter whether it is "a Hebrew or semitic construct" (which of course both I and Dan would disagree with you on that). What matters is that it is distinguishable and the frequency of usage and the resulting pattern that emerges can be charted across the entire text.

It doesn't even matter if Mosiah came first or Nephi. Not important. In fact, if Nephi came first (as you seem to want to believe) then it's even more difficult to explain from either an S/A or an S/D point of view, because then you really have a pattern at the beginning of the translation that tapers off radically and then for no apparent reason, starts back up again at the end. If this all came from God, how do you explain it? God repeatedly produced a translation from a "Hebrew or semitic construct" only at the beginning and ending of the Book of Mormon but not in the middle? Why did he stop in the middle and then pick back up again at the end? And why would he do the same thing with his wherefore/therefore usage? And, as I pointed out, several other grammatical oddities that follow the same pattern?

Did the Nephites at the beginning of the book all sound like each other, but then a major change happened around Mosiah, which again comes into existence around 3 Nephi and really gets going at Ether? --such that the prophets at the end of the book produce the same grammatical oddities as the ones at the beginning? --but not the guys in the middle? But even that would not be the actual picture, of course, because Ether was supposed to have lived long before even 1st Nephi.

How do you explain it?

The wherefore/therefore or therefore/wherefore shift is not indicative of anything without some rigorous textual analysis, which has yet to be done. A real shift relies on the theory that Mosiah was translated first and 1 and 2 Nephi was translated last. But there are reasons to believe that 1 and 2 Nephi were translated first, although Dan will not agree with that assertion.

Chris Smith has charts that show the two different scenarios at http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2 ... efore.html

Glenn, either way the data is immovable and the pattern is real. If Mosiah represents the first in the translation chronology (which I think it does) then the shift is a clean shift which starts out as a therefore emphasis and shifts to a wherefore. If Nephi comes first then the shift happens twice, starting with wherefore, shifting to therefore and then back to wherefore. The Nephi priority is even more difficult for S/D or S/A to explain than Mosiah priority! But either works perfectly well with S/R because the premise of S/R is more than one guy in the 19th century contributing content to the text which does not have to follow the list of prophets. In other words Rigdon could have produced content for both Nephi and Ether (for example). But in your world, Nephi and Ether were two different prophets living at different times and, I think even speaking different languages! And its worse for Dan since in his world, the whole thing (minus the KJV stuff he concedes) came from Joseph Smith!

Like Dale points out... the only rational explanation for that (that I can think of) is Joseph Smith had an amazing ability to change his word usage patterns (apparently both consciously and unconsciously) which results in radically different patterns at the beginning (which for Dan is Mosiah) and at the end which is probably either Jarom or Ether.

The inescapable fact is that

1. a Bible was used

That "fact" has not been established. It is a theory attempting to explain excerpts similar to passages in the Bible.

I was addressing this to Dan. He agrees that a Bible was used. But if I were addressing it to you I'd point out that some LDS apologists concede that a Bible was used.

If a Bible was not used, Glenn, why do we find King James' grammatical mistakes in the Book of Mormon? We find "Cherubims" and "Seraphims" which is the equivalent to saying "mices" or "geeses."

[_Uncle Dale]

...We find "Cherubims" and "Seraphims" which is the equivalent to saying "mices" or "geeses."

As I recall, there are about half a dozen unique textual errors and
mistranslations, which identify the Book of Mormon text as having
been largely copied from a specific edition of the KJV.

Other than the italicized words, there are word-strings of over
100 identical words, in the exact same order, and with the exact
same spelling shared by the Nephite record and that particular
edition of the KJV that most scholars point out as the text's source.

However, if Glenn and others wish to maintain that there is no
dependence of the Book of Mormon text upon the English KJV
Bible, that is understandable. The person to ask in these matters
is not the common member, but rather the "living prophet." The
members will echo whatever he says, regardless of their own
studies and scholarship.

Perhaps one of Glenn's priesthood superiors has counseled him to
believe as he does -- but I do not suppose he gained that opinion
from attending graduate level standard works classes at BYU.

Over at the CoC's Lamoni campus of Graceland University, all of
the professors agree that a certain edition of the KJV was used.
So at least those particular Latter Day Saint "experts" will not
disagree with us.

I suppose that Glenn will at least agree that Joe had a Bible
(or access to the family Bible) -- for he says as a youngster
he could learn more from his Bible than from Christendom.

A Bible was most certainly used in the production of the JST.
So we might ask ourselves WHY that was needed? The early
Mormons thought that Smith's "translations" came as visible
writing on/in/through a magical stone -- so why was a KJV
Bible used in producing the JST text? Do any of the early
witnesses testify to its use in 1830-33? Did any of them even
see Smith and Rigdon consulting that Bible during that time?

It would be very helpful if we could assemble all the references
to the fact of Joe Smith's remarkable memory. I'd enjoy seeing
the Brodieites formulate arguments, asserting that Smith must
have possessed an average (or even poor) memory. Such a
conclusion would be helpful to their authorship theory, no doubt.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

First, let me tell you what I’m about. Of course, I’m concerned about giving vigorous defense of my position, but I’m also concerned with giving you serious feedback on your arguments and evidence so that you can refine your position and find the best positions—that helps everyone move forward.

Joseph Smith’s use of a Bible isn’t adverse evidence for Smith-alone theory.

It is to your version of the S/A theory. I agree that under the Tanner's version, the use of a Bible isn't adverse since they are willing to see Cowdery (and probably Whitmer) as accomplices of Joseph Smith (at least I think Sandra would agree to that). You seem not to be so willing--although near the beginning of this thread you hypothesized that Cowdery might have done the KJV copying while Smith was gone. How you reconcile that speculation with an honest dupe is still not clear to me.

I’m not sure what Sandra believes, but I don’t think the only alternative is to invent conspiracy to avoid some imagined problem with Joseph Smith using a Bible. It all comes down to what explanation he gave for its use and Cowdery’s (and possible others’) willingness to accept it. At this stage of the game, I see no need for Joseph Smith to risk everything by bringing in accomplices he doesn’t need. By the time he gets to the Whitmer home, most of the translation has been done, and according to your theory (if I understand it correctly), Joseph Smith has already replaced one accomplice (Harris) with another (Cowdery), alienating him and risking exposure. At some point, he brings David Whitmer into the conspiracy as a Book of Mormon witness, and possibly others as well. My position is that Joseph Smith could do what he did without accomplices. Besides, there is no direct evidence or even strong circumstantial evidence for postulating conspiracy. There is no need to multiply entities—nothing is gained and your theory is weakened.

In regard to the possibility of Cowdery copying in Joseph Smith’s absence, you are projecting onto Cowdery a mindset that he probably didn’t possess. What seems like a problem to you may not have been for him. Hence, there is no clear problem to reconcile here. So I’m not responding to adverse evidence that challenges my Smith-alone theory, if I speculate about what Joseph Smith might have explained to Cowdery. We are confident that Joseph Smith must have used a Bible, and most likely Cowdery was the scribe. We don’t know what Joseph Smith’s explanation was, but it was evidently acceptable to Cowdery. To be clear, what follows is an ad hoc interpretation, not an ad hoc argument to escape adverse evidence. It’s not even the kind of ad hoc interpretation that would be counted against my theory since it’s not even essential to explain it—even within my paradigm. It’s just a historian’s effort to complete the story. The following reconstruction seems possible to me; it may not have even happened this way--JS made changes in the Isaiah chapters the same way he did for the Inspired Version of the Bible—that is, he wrote corrections in the margins of a Bible. He explained to Cowdery that he had compared the Isaiah chapters in the Bible with the Nephite record through the seer stone, and instructed him to copy them while he and the Whitmers were on their trip to Palmyra to make arrangements with the printer.

Smith/alone advocates might wonder what Joseph Smith might have said to the others to explain his use of a Bible, but this would be interpretive and discussed within his/her paradigm, and not part of any argument in paradigm-to-paradigm debates. To be sure, it’s not even necessary to answer this question in such debates.

I disagree. The evidence demands an explanation. A Bible was used but never acknowledged, while at the same time another explanation that does not include a Bible was offered as the answer to the question: how was the Book of Mormon produced?

Well, it’s up to you to show that copying from the Bible was a problem—you haven’t done that. You are implying that there was something sinister in using a Bible and had to be covered up. I disagree. One of the points Shermer makes about conspiracy theories is:

7. The more the conspiracy assigns portentous and sinister meanings and interpretations to what are most likely innocuous or insignificant events, the less likely it is to be true.

--Michael Shermer, The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies, How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (New York, NY: Times Books, 2011).

I maintain that any knowledge by Cowdery or Whitmer (much less active participation!) of KJVB usage throws serious doubt on your hypothesis of honest dupes, precisely because the text itself claims to have already done the Bible quoting. If Joseph suddenly begins to use a Bible after he'd been doing everything via the hat and stone routine, it's going to raise red flags for honest dupes! Wait a minute Joseph! I thought you were getting every word from God in the stone and that God himself was correcting you and not allowing the translation to proceed until it was correct lest any man should boast.... why are you now using a Bible? No big deal, Oliver! The strain hurts my eyes and besides, Nephi is quoting the Bible anyway!

You, as a skeptic of the supernatural, might bring this up. Remember, hindsight bias. It seems clear in retrospect. But these “dupes” have been “duped” and have bought into the idea of translating ancient records (which are not even in the room) being translated through a stone in a hat. Who are they to question what Joseph Smith says needs or can be done in such a situation? They have already invested a lot of time and energy, so it’s not likely that they are going to through it all out the window because Joseph Smith opens a Bible. What you are describing is what would happen if you were there. Try to put yourself in their shoes and avoid the fallacy of presentism, or indifference for historical context.

Something of that nature HAD to have taken place if you are to maintain the "honest" part of your dupe theory and some plausible explanation should be a part of your theory. For those honest dupes to have then gone on to avoid mentioning the reason a Bible was used--when they did, in fact, explain in some detail how the Book of Mormon was produced--Cowdery even going so far as to say every word as they fell from the lips of the prophet--amounts to the dishonest withholding of key information in order to protect the cause--especially when Joseph HAD to have given them an explanation that made sense to them while still keeping them duped.

I image Joseph Smith probably said something of that nature to Cowdery (possibly others), but I don’t think Cowdery would have questioned it in the manner you described. Cowdery’s statement given when he rejoined the church in 1848 was obvious hyperbole. The quote is as follows:

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by means of the Urim and Thummim … Sidney Rigdon did not write it; Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it myself, as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.
--Rueben Miller report in Deseret News 9 (13 April 1859); see EMD 2:495)

Of course, he didn’t write “every word”, as you state--there were other minor scribes. And it wasn’t a few pages either. We don’t have most of the original MS, but Mosiah chapters 1-3, which includes King Benjamin’s speech, were possibly left from Harris’s or Emma’s scribal efforts before Cowdery’s arrival. Of the extant MS, there are two other unidentified scribes besides Cowdery (Scribe 1) who wrote the following sections of the Book of Mormon:

Scribe 2 = 1 Ne. 3:7-4:14 = MS pp. 3-6 = 3 MS pp.
Scribe 3 = 1 Ne. 4:20-12:8 = MS pp. 7-18 = 11 MS pp.
Scribe 2 = 1 Ne. 12:9-16:1 = MS pp. 19-30 = 11 MS pp.

Total of about 25 MS pp.

This is not a “few pages”. Obviously, Cowdery (or Miller if the parenthetical is his) is exaggerating for effect. The part about “as it fell from the lips of the prophet” is equally hyperbolic. This exaggeration hardly amounts to protecting the cause. He wanted to return to the church and was bearing his testimony, and emphasizing his role in founding it. You are mishandling this source in two ways. First, you are assuming he is hiding something sinister, when you haven’t established something sinister happened. Second, you are not considering the rhetorical context—the exaggerated language used to emphasize his importance in Mormon history and hopefully in its future. This isn’t one of those situations where details and qualifications fit well with the dramatic effect he was attempting to make with his audience. There’s nothing sinister about that, and no intentional withholding of information.

So in my view, Bible use is indeed quite adverse to your version of S/A. You apparently are attempting to stave off the adversity by suggesting that I haven't shown they ever saw the Bible in action! That is ridiculous! Cowdery said he sat there for every word as it came from Smith's lips. Smith either had to be dictating from an open Bible or had to have memorized large chunks of Isaiah while simultaneously reacting to the KJV italics on the fly! A remarkable feat! But your version of S/A leaves you with no alternative.

Now, you are exaggerating what Cowdery is reported to have said. Joseph Smith may have read from the Bible as you say, and my reconstruction could be wrong. But I wouldn’t make that argument based on what Cowdery said in 1848 because of his exaggeration for effect.

Beyond that, it's not up to me to prove when they had their eyes open so you can apply it to your theory. My theory is perfectly in line with the data! My theory says that either they would have known about the Bible and not mentioned it because they were accomplices--much like the apprentice faith-healer I mentioned--or that another accomplice, probably Sidney Rigdon, did the Bible copying offsite so that Cowdery and Whitmer wouldn't have specifically witnessed that part of the process and therefore had no reason to mention it. You've already agreed that a Bible was used! And your theory demands that the whole thing was produced by Smith, not by someone else offsite--with the possible exception of your Cowdery speculation--which is a very interesting speculation coming from your point of view! So it's up to you to prove they were not in the room when it was used--which runs counter to Cowdery's "every word" testimony--or that Oliver had his eyes closed when Smith was dictating from the Bible.

It’s up to you to show that there is a problem with Joseph Smith using a Bible—that this would be embarrassing if revealed--and that there was an intentional suppression of that information. I don’t think you have made either case let alone that it proves that Cowdery was an accomplice.

The inescapable fact is that

1. a Bible was used
2. none of your honest witnesses ever acknowledged it

The raw data... Bible used, no one admits it.... falls perfectly in line with what we would expect from an S/R perspective but must be rationalized from an S/A and S/D point of view--which is exactly what you are attempting to do... explain why a Bible was used but never mentioned. That data fits with what S/R would expect but must be rationalized under your honest dupe version of S/A.

There is nothing in S/R theory that predicts the use of a Bible by Joseph Smith in the midst of translation, and nothing predicting the scribe must be an accomplice—actually three scribes at least. If Joseph Smith didn’t use a Bible and the scribe was a dupe, that would also be in line with your theory. However, if Joseph Smith could do the hat trick with the Spalding MS, he could do it with the Bible—then what happens to your argument that the use of a Bible proves Cowdery an accomplice? Your counter-evidence is seriously flawed because it is artificially concocted for debate purposes and has nothing to do with serious historical analysis.

Interestingly enough, The Tanner version of S/A (which I am theorizing at this point but I'm pretty sure Sandra would have no problem thinking Oliver was in on the deception at some level) comes out on top because it concedes that Oliver and David could easily have been accomplices at that point, which, interestingly enough, is then closer to S/R than the Vogel version. I think you are reluctant to give any ground on this point because you know such a concession inevitably moves you closer to S/R than you want be.

No, I don’t give up ground that I don’t have to give up. So far, you haven’t any legitimate claim on that ground.

Now... here's the question:

How do you explain the data on the chart Dale posted back on page 11 of this thread?

[/quote]

Playing games with numbers that may or may not have the significance the interpreters give them. Human’s are pattern junkies—seeing patterns that aren’t objectively present and infuse them with meaning to ward off the discomfort of chaos. So caution is always advised in these situations.

How is one to assess a chart that has no explanation of significance? I tried to find the chart on Dale’s website hoping to get more information, but found nothing. A standalone graph isn’t going to do it for me. What is the working hypothesis? How was the information gathered? Why was that/wherefore chosen? What is it supposed to demonstrate? What kind of controls has he used and has he attempted a differential interpretation? It seems like a half-backed idea that I have no inclination to complete.

When I checked Dale’s word-string evidence on the previous Spalding thread, I found that what at first seemed impressive as a chart was actually built on some rather weak, unimpressive, and faulty data. I did a control test with another book that was similar in content to Spalding’s and the Book of Mormon’s and produced comparable results.

Preliminarily, I would point out that the graph shows fewer of the tested items in narrative books, and more of them in the religiously rhetorical books. I would expect rhetoric to contain more that/wherefore than narrative. Similarly, I would expect “and it came to pass” to appear with more frequency in narrative books than in rhetorical books. Until someone makes a claim from this data, there is little to say.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

It doesn't matter whether its ungainly or not. For the purposes of this discussion it doesn't even matter whether it is "a Hebrew or semitic construct" (which of course both I and Dan would disagree with you on that). What matters is that it is distinguishable and the frequency of usage and the resulting pattern that emerges can be charted across the entire text.

It doesn't even matter if Mosiah came first or Nephi. Not important. In fact, if Nephi came first (as you seem to want to believe) then it's even more difficult to explain from either an S/A or an S/D point of view, because then you really have a pattern at the beginning of the translation that tapers off radically and then for no apparent reason, starts back up again at the end. If this all came from God, how do you explain it? God repeatedly produced a translation from a "Hebrew or semitic construct" only at the beginning and ending of the Book of Mormon but not in the middle? Why did he stop in the middle and then pick back up again at the end? And why would he do the same thing with his wherefore/therefore usage? And, as I pointed out, several other grammatical oddities that follow the same pattern?

Did the Nephites at the beginning of the book all sound like each other, but then a major change happened around Mosiah, which again comes into existence around 3 Nephi and really gets going at Ether? --such that the prophets at the end of the book produce the same grammatical oddities as the ones at the beginning? --but not the guys in the middle? But even that would not be the actual picture, of course, because Ether was supposed to have lived long before even 1st Nephi.

You do understand Metcalfe’s argument, don’t you? It was Joseph Smith’s change in preference that made the change for therefore/wherefore, which is also found in the D&C. It’s not an alternating preference when you put Mosiah first. In fact, it’s one of Metcalfe’s arguments for putting Mosiah first. I found rarely used phrases in certain chapters in the Book of Mormon that also showed up once or rarely in revelations that Joseph Smith dictated about the same time. Putting Mosiah first is essential to reconstructing the Book of Mormon’s dictation, and anyone trying to change that sequence is wrong.