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

[_Roger]

Well folks, all we have to do is keep arguing for one more page and we break the illusive 100 page barrier! We are there! I can feel it!

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, no one has been able to show that the witnesses were not reliable. That is your paradigm, but is not backed by evidence. But as I have said all along, believe what you wish.

What is not backed by evidence is that the Book of Mormon witnesses are trustworthy, Glenn, for reasons I've been laying out (as has marg and Dale) and see no reason to repeat. Feel free to respond to what we've already posted. Dan's assertions to the contrary are not rational but seem to be steeped in an acceptance of Mormonism. I would expect those types of arguments coming from an LDS, but not a skeptic.

Roger, I don't explain the data in Dale's chart. It is just a bunch of data without any underlying hypothesis to either agree with or to dispute. When you come up with a coherent analysis, we can talk.

Exactly what I thought. You can't explain the actual data because it doesn't fit into your paradigm. But it fits nicely within the S/R paradigm.

But marge, in another thread, has really done in all of the S/R theorists. She has read the unfinished, unsigned letter in Solomon's handwriting that was with the Spalding manuscript and has correctly reasoned that whoever wrote that letter, and presumably it was Solomon, was a skeptic extraordinaire. He would not have believed in a lost tribes story and would never have written about one. He was merely trying to account for the burial mounds, etc. that were in Ohio. So, to take her reasoning to the logical conclusion, he did not write a lost tribes story. He wrote a tale about two warring Indian factions in the Amricas, observed by an observant but unfortunate Roman messenger, Fabius. No lost tibes to worry about. Good old MSSCC now in residence at Oberlin College.

This is silly. No one disputes that Spalding wrote MSCC. The question is whether he wrote anything else. Multiple witnesses say he did and they describe a ms that does not look like MSCC but does bear some resemblance to the Book of Mormon. Marg agrees with all that. Your thrust into the nuances of what your version of a Lost Tribes account must have looked like is simply a red herring that is likely wrong. But even so Spalding could have written such an account which was then later changed by Rigdon or changed due to the 116 page loss or both! Your red herring has no merit.

That is a problem with just about every witness against Joseph. They just did not provide the details for their accusations.

Which of course you are free to interpret that something supernatural was occurring, but then you still come up empty handed when I ask why I can't go to the LDS historical society and see the plates or the reformed Egyptian alphabet or a Nephite map or even Joseph's white stove-top hat.

But it does stand or fall at many other places. It fails because at several key junctures, there is a lack of evidence which the S/R theorists accept as evidence for the theory.

This is simply meaningless rhetoric. Tell me what you think the most glaring lack of evidence at the most key juncture is.

You are stringing together a lot of if's.

Which all of the theories are forced to do.

The evidence for a conspiracy involving Oliver Cowdery is what?

Have you been paying attention for the last 60 or so pages?

The evidence for Joseph Smith having any manuscript with him during the dictation of the Book of Mormon is what?

Reactive KJVB plagiarism.

The evidence that Sidney Rigdon even knew about a manuscript in a printing office is what?

See Rebecca Eichbaum and a mail-waiting notice that backs her up.

The evidence that any Spalding manuscript was in a printing office that Sydney had any access to is what?

You dispute that? Even Matt Roper doesn't dispute that.

What do you really have except a series of if's and speculations?

This is JUST FOR STARTERS Glenn:

1. Static, empirical data in a chart that you can't explain

2. Two discovery narratives written by authors that your theory says had to be totally unrelated that contain striking parallels.

Now, it's only fair to ask, what do you really have to support your Book of Mormon production theory?

[_marg]

Thanks Dale, for the information on the Smith/Cowdery tavern show. I wasn't sure if I'd actually read that or not.

Glenn sorry about the other thread, I'll get to it when I get back in 4 days.

Arad Stowel sworn. Says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill that he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book open upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent; hold the stone to the candle, turn his back to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable, that [Stowell] went off disgusted."

http://richkelsey.org/1826_trial_testimonies.htm

This is interesting. We all know that Smith can't dictate at will contents of books he's unfamiliar with unless there is a trick going on. It would appear in this case that the book was Smith's and he likely prepared himself for this show by memorizing a page in advance..for the sole purpose of such a show. Had Stowel picked his own book and asked Smith to do the same thing, I'm sure the outcome would have been different.

But what is interesting is Smith showing his propensity to perform tricks. He's not simply claiming to translate with God's help, words which appear on a stone, he's performing a trick, trying to show that he can dictate any book without looking at it by using his stone.

So this indicates Smith's propensity and interest in preparing in advance for a trick to perform. Here he is transferring the treasure seeking trickery to books. And why would he be thinking along those lines? Because he's likely already been thinking along those lines with the Book of Mormon.

The majority of the Book of Mormon would have been done by simply reading from a preprepared manuscript with the scribe Cowdery and whoever else as scribe he spent a good deal of time with ..and they'd by in on the process of knowing a manuscript was being used. But for some minor scribes a prepared in advance trick could easily be planned. Memorize a page or 2..and use that for show purposes..those same memorized pages could be used a number of times if necessary for show. And of course he can also always wing it temporarily.

If Smith is only into dictating the Book of Mormon from his creative mind, then why is he into performing tricks of dictating books which have nothing to do with his claims to what is happening with the Book of Mormon and divine involvement?

[_GlennThigpen]

This is JUST FOR STARTERS Glenn:

1. Static, empirical data in a chart that you can't explain

2. Two discovery narratives written by authors that your theory says had to be totally unrelated that contain striking parallels.

Now, it's only fair to ask, what do you really have to support your Book of Mormon production theory?

Static, empirical evidence of what?

Which two discovery narratives? The unfound manuscript found or the the one at Oberlin College? Which one are you trying to say is the foundational document?

Roger, you still have not even placed the document in question in the printing office. You keep talking about letters that were waiting in a post office. A regional post office. You have yet to adduce any evidence that Rigdon saw the manuscript or the actual time frame that it may have been in the office.

Eichbaum's statement has problems, as per Isaac Craig's letter to Robert Patterson Jr. in 1882. I will quote an excerpt.

Mrs. Eichbaum's statement to you is a surprise to me for two reasons.
I. Because I called on her to learn if she could throw any light on the matter and she could give me none. This was a year or two before the date you assign for her statement -- Sept. 18, 1879. II. The intimacy she says existed between Lambdin and Rigdon. In all my investigation I never found any one who knew of this. All impressed me with the belief that it was Silas Engles with whom Rigdon was intimate. That Rigdon had a small tannery on Penn street, near Hand, for the manufacture of book- binders sheep-skins, and supplying these to the office brought him in con- tact with Engles. This impression I obtained from John Sandersen, an old time butcher, who sold sheep pelts to Rigdon.

The lost tribes story that you dismiss so easily was not so easily dismissed by the witnesses. There are at least seven or eight.

The conspiracy that you have been exploring has no evidentiary basis. You have not presented any. Only your speculations, which is not evidence.

The reliability of the witnesses to the translation process has been established pretty well historically. You may not accept their statements, which is your prerogative, but you have not refuted them or shown any evidence that they were unreliable other than the fact that they believed in supernatural events. However, there were some unfriendly witnesses who corroborated the friendly witnesses.

As far as the Conneaut witnesses, eliminate the Book of Mormon words and their remarks describe the manuscript at Oberlin College much better than any Book of Mormon content. I posted those similarities some time back.

Glenn

[_marg]

However, there were some unfriendly witnesses who corroborated the friendly witnesses.

How many unfriendly witnesses were there. I know of Emma's dad, but when one looks at the circumstances it becomes apparent that Smith and Cowdery had opportunity to prepare for his arrival and the time the dad observed were very limited.

Cowdery and Smith were using a cabin on his property..so all it took was to keep an eye at the window to observe his approach, and then all they needed to do was a temporary head in the hat show.

The dad didn't believe their claims,it wasn't even a matter of him trying to find out what they were doing, he didn't care, he simply knew it was a ruse.

So what other unfriendly witnesses were there and what were the circumstances and just how unfriendly were they?

[_GlennThigpen]

However, there were some unfriendly witnesses who corroborated the friendly witnesses.

How many unfriendly witnesses were there. I know of Emma's dad, but when one looks at the circumstances it becomes apparent that Smith and Cowdery had opportunity to prepare for his arrival and the time the dad observed were very limited.

Cowdery and Smith were using a cabin on his property..so all it took was to keep an eye at the window to observe his approach, and then all they needed to do was a temporary head in the hat show.

The dad didn't believe their claims,it wasn't even a matter of him trying to find out what they were doing, he didn't care, he simply knew it was a ruse.

So what other unfriendly witnesses were there and what were the circumstances and just how unfriendly were they?

marge, Dan has laid all that out several times. Just check back through the threads. There were two or three.

I know that you cannot accept the statements of those witnesses because they would be the death knell for your Spalding Religion. But you can take comfort in the fact that you have dispelled that myth by exposing Solomon as a religious skeptic that would never have written a lost tribes story because he did not believe in that myth.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
This is interesting. We all know that Smith can't dictate at will contents of books he's unfamiliar with unless there is a trick going on. It would appear in this case that the book was Smith's and he likely prepared himself for this show by memorizing a page in advance..for the sole purpose of such a show.
...

It didn't take much of "a show" to put a con over on these country rubes.
To quote David Whitmer:

"Oliver told me that Joseph had informed him when I started from
home, where I stopped the first night, how I read the sign at the
tavern, where I stopped the next night, etc., and that I would be
there that day for dinner, and this is why they had come out to meet
me. All of which was exactly as Joseph had told Oliver, at which
I was greatly astonished."

More evidence that Oliver was in on the con -- but a Brodieite would
argue that Smith fooled Oliver as well, by having memorized the
contents of road signs at a distance, etc. etc.

Smith may have also resorted to consulting a good memory in his
pretensions to locate lost objects:

Joseph Smith... seemed to be thoroughly acquainted with the route
from Canandaigua to Buffalo... he pretended to tell the fortunes of
individuals; where lost or stolen property could be found... Judge Clark,
who resided at Buffalo... went to Canandaigua and got money from the
bank.... when he got to my house, found his pocket-book and money
missing... Smith knew well the road from Canandaigua to Buffalo, and as
soon as the cunning scamp looked into his stones, says, "I can see it.
Didn't you ride down into the Honeyough to water your horse?" (a
living spring of running water, a steep bank down to it, and muddy,
between Bloomfield and Genesee river). The Judge thought a moment,
and said, "Yes, I believe I did." Smith says in a moment, "I see it You
stooped over to let your horse's head down, and your pocket-book fell
out of your pocket and fell into the creek, and it floated down the
stream, and I can see it lodged against a limb fallen into the creek."
The Judge went back to the Honeyough and down the creek, but no
pocket-book was to be seen. He returned to the place where he rode
into the creek, which was a muddy place, and upon the bank, he saw
the object of his search. It seemed, as his horse plunged out of the mud,
the pocket-book was thrown out upon the bank. The Judge returned
much elated, and although what Smith said and saw was not true, only
the shrewd thought to ask the Judge about watering his horse in the
Honeyough, knowing, no doubt, it was a steep, muddy place. But it
raised Smith's reputation....
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL ... htm#122077

UD

[_marg]

marge, Dan has laid all that out several times. Just check back through the threads. There were two or three.

I don't believe he laid anything out Glenn, I seem to remember he mentioned 2 hostile witnesses, Emma's dad and a relative of Emma's (but I don't remember who). The circumstances of Emma's dad I've picked up elsewhere, it wasn't Dan saying what occurred.
The two of you keep mentioned these hostile witnesses, but I fail to see hostile witnesses being much good, if the circumstances were such that their exposure was limited and controlled by Smith.

I know that you cannot accept the statements of those witnesses because they would be the death knell for your Spalding Religion. But you can take comfort in the fact that you have dispelled that myth by exposing Solomon as a religious skeptic that would never have written a lost tribes story because he did not believe in that myth.

I will get back to you on that discussion of the lost tribes/ad hoc fallacy, but it recently occurred to me one reason you view this lost tribes business differently than me. It seems to me you think everybody back then bought into the lost tribe myth. I don't think that's the case. For example that Morse's geography which Abner Jackson said influenced Spalding ..that didn't say that the American indians were likely from the lost tribes/middle east, it said they were Asian who came over the Bering Straight. I don't think any biblical skeptic would buy into the lost tribe myth or truly think the American indians were from the Middle East..why should they. I've always taken it for granted in our discussion (that is it never occurred to me otherwise) that Spalding didn't actually think the American Indians were middle eastern descent from the lost tribes. He knew he was writing a fictional account and so he only used the lost tribes ..because the exile of Northern Israelites was historically accepted and he could place the ancestry of American Indians into ancient times, and it would give them a historically accepted particular place, time and event to connect to. I think it's possible that some of the people he discussed the lost tribe concept with relating to the Am. Indians may have thought he truly believed what he was writing...but I doubt very much that he did believe, he was making it up.

Anyhow that's just a thought that occurred to me recently why we have a different perception.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Static, empirical evidence of what?

Come on Glenn. You really don't get it? Why does a particular error pattern--a redundant "that"--have a high frequency of occurrence at the beginning of the Book of Mormon and at the end, but not in the middle? Just look at the chart. It's pretty striking! And why would that pattern follow the same pattern as the wherefore/therefore shift? Just look at the chart! There has to be an explanation for it. If I remember correctly without checking, Dan said something like "writer's preference" or some such thing. In other words--unless I'm totally misunderstanding Dan's extremely limited response on this question--Joseph Smith just started preferring to use wherefore over therefore starting around 3 Nephi. --meaning he can't explain why it occurs other than Joseph Smith must have changed his usage for inexplicable reasons. But it gets worse, because he really can't explain why that pattern is remarkably similar to the double "that" pattern. Given the limitations of his Book of Mormon production theory, I think that chart must simply be inexplicable. I certainly haven't heard any reasonable explanations from an S/A perspective.

But it would appear that you have other options, no? How do you explain it?

Which two discovery narratives? The unfound manuscript found or the the one at Oberlin College? Which one are you trying to say is the foundational document?

It doesn't matter which is foundational. The extant manuscript has parallels to a discovery narrative written by Joseph Smith that did not even exist at the time the Conneaut witnesses made their initial claims. That's the important point. You asked: "What do you really have except a series of if's and speculations?" and I answered your question, Glenn.

But you did not answer mine: "Now, it's only fair to ask, what do you really have to support your Book of Mormon production theory?"

[_Roger]

marg:

I've always taken it for granted in our discussion (that is it never occurred to me otherwise) that Spalding didn't actually think the American Indians were middle eastern descent from the lost tribes. He knew he was writing a fictional account and so he only used the lost tribes ..because the exile of Northern Israelites was historically accepted and he could place the ancestry of American Indians into ancient times, and it would give them a historically accepted particular place, time and event to connect to. I think it's possible that some of the people he discussed the lost tribe concept with relating to the Am. Indians may have thought he truly believed what he was writing...but I doubt very much that he did believe, he was making it up.

Despite Glenn (and probably Dan) seeing this as a perfect opportunity to pounce, there is evidence to support your speculation in the form of the letter Spalding wrote. Until I saw that letter, I was under the impression that Spalding believed his own fiction. But that letter changes everything. It pretty much spells out why he doesn't believe but is content to let others believe because such faith, in his opinion, generally leads to people living good and happy lives. (I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that's the sentiment I get from that letter.) In that case, his fiction makes sense. He wanted to make money from it, pure and simple. And I certainly don't fault him for that. The guy tried to make a living at land speculation but the war of 1812 messed things up and put him into debt. Then he tried to recoup his losses with a forge and for whatever reason that failed. In the meantime his health is deteriorating, so he turns to writing in the hopes of making some money. If a lot of people believe the Indians are Hebrews, so what? Use it as the background to a fictional account, if that will generate interest and sales. He'd been taught by John Smith at Dartmouth about the Indian-Hebrew connection idea, but although John Smith taught the course, he himself (John Smith) rejected the idea. In the next year or two, the same professor would also teach the course to Ethan Smith, who apparently bought into it, although his professor did not. But Spalding certainly would have been exposed to the idea.

Unfortunately, Spalding's writing simply left a lot to be desired. His narrative is rather wooden and stiff. He relates only cold hard facts and rarely gives us a peek into the emotions and personalities behind his characters. As a result they are generally two dimensional. They are names who do things. A lot like what we see in some portions of the Book of Mormon! The exception to that comes in his detailed and somewhat impassioned accounts of the wars. Here, Spalding seems not to struggle so hard at describing passion and emotion--which makes sense given his experience as a soldier in the Continental Army during the revolutionary war. But overall his writing is rather dry and bland.

That Glenn would use that as an opportunity to claim you've disproven S/R just shows how simple he'd like to make the dimensions of this discussion. But reality is often not as simple as theory. The fact is, even if the Roman story is all he wrote (which it isn't, but even if it were) the letter still applies and still supports you! Despite Brodie's false reporting, MSCC has quite a lot of religion in it. Even a complete chapter on the subject! (Oops! How did she miss that?!) In it, Spalding extols the virtues of religion. So we know that what he wrote fictionally for the public did not necessarily match his personal beliefs. If Glenn thinks he can use that to his advantage in this discussion, he's simply wrong.