Dan Vogel wrote:
I wasn’t just talking about Emma; I was talking about all those who had been deceived by Joseph Smith and convinced that he had supernatural powers. You were the one who assumed Emma was a liar, because you couldn’t imagine it being any other way. My counter was to explain the situation assuming Emma was sincere. This is not the same as proving she was sincere. The proof is in the multiple witnesses of both believers and non-believers.
Dan it doesn't matter if you were talking about other witnesses as well. The post was about Emma and by your comment you were suggesting she was convince that Smith had supernatural powers. You wrote: "Remember, you are reading statements given by those whom Joseph Smith had convinced he had supernatural powers to see whatever he wanted in his stone." Why should I remember that about Emma..I don't even assume it and I don't think you should either, that is if you are acting as a responsible historian.
This was a fraud perpetuated Dan. You don't know what the participants believed when it came to Smith's powers...especially his wife. And her claim that Smith corrected her spelling while not being able to read what she wrote and with his head in the hat ..has nothing to do with her beliefs about his powers. Either smith could actually do what she claimed or he couldn't irrespective of her beliefs.
So your comment about what she or others believed was irrelevant to the point I had made about Smith correcting her spelling errors.
As far as your anecdote it doesn't match the circumstances that occurred with Emma. She was relating her personal experience, not giving second hand information.
Take your time and read more carefully. It was firsthand when one friend told another what they had seen me do. It’s not just an anecdote but a well-known principle. You should read skeptical literature, where you would find that much of it is written by those with training in magic. Why? Because they know how deception works. You said you were a natural-born skeptic, but you are an untrained skeptic.
Dan I'm a skeptic... you aren't. Your anecdote had nothing to do with her claim. She related that tid bit of information as first hand knowledge and as you pointed out, so did others. So they all claimed including her that smith had what amounted to as supernatural ability to know they were making mistakes without his even looking at their writing. This was your anecdote:
When I did magic, the one thing I noticed was when one of my friends was telling another friend the trick I had shown them, it was told in such a way as to make it more miraculous than it was. In fact, they way it was described would have been impossible to do. Like I said it has nothing to do with what Emma claimed as personal experience and there is no reason to doubt her as mistaken ..because as you pointed out others claimed a similar thing.
Let look at what she said:
if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.
Why are you arguing with her claim?
First, it’s her claim via Blair sixty years later. So, trying to read it like a legal brief isn’t going to work. Nevertheless, I believe it is founded on a real experience that has become more miraculous with the telling--a very common phenomenon.
Dan is this testimony reliable or not? I'll assume it's reliable. The problem is that this claim is specific..there is no reason as you suggest to assume it grew with time. You point out others made the same claim..I suspect they were informed on what they should say about the process. This particular tid bit of information...implies the supernatural or a god involved. Their is likely motivation behind making this claim.
Your explanation is ad hoc fallacy. The simplest explanation is that Emma was told what to say as were the others ...and what they said was to make it clear that Smith couldn't have written the material and that a God must have been involved.
But then you write "Nevertheless, David Whitmer made a similar statement to Eri B. Mullin and James H. Hart."
So I guess then she wasn't mistaken huh?
Whitmer’s description focuses on the spelling of names, which Joseph Smith could change and pass it off as a scribal error.
The point Dan was not the particular error but the claim that without Smith looking he'd know while looking at the stone with his head in the hat, that a scribe had made an error and he couldn't continue on because the STONE would not let him. I don't think Emma's stupid, I think she'd notice if this is something Smith correctly identified or not.
Then you write: " It was Joseph Smith’s job to convince people he was translating by a gift from God—it worked!"
Dan you are side-stepping what the description of her experience suggests. If Smith as she said was not looking at what she was writing, if he had his head in the hat as she claimed was the case...he could not have done what she claimed..unless he was able to defy physical laws and what we know about how the world operates.
Of course he couldn’t, so that’s not what happened—only what he made it appear happened. He deceived her into believing he had that ability. That’s the name of the game. Calling Emma a liar because she describes what happened from the point of view of the deceived is ridiculous. You’re missing the whole point of the situation. If you interviewed a member of Kreskin’s audience, what would you expect to get? Would you get a true description of what happened? No. You would get their interpretation. “Kreskin read my mind.” Of course he didn’t do that.
Earth to Dan... she and others stated that Smith knew when they made mistakes without looking at what they wrote and they had to correct those mistakes before the STONE let them continue. The simplest explanation is that it's BS what they claimed, those such as Emma who claimed Smith stopped dictating when she/they made a mistake and couldn't continue are lying. IT DID NOT HAPPEN. He simply could not successfully do it without them noticing if he's correct or not. And given the context of the rest of Emma's statement he was reading off of prewritten material despite her claims otherwise. She was not realistically describing someone dictating, she was describing someone reading material and words they couldn't pronounce. Whether it was hidden from her or full view I don't know, but I do know that the spelling bit was a made up lie..if we assume the testimony reliable.
When Josiah Stowell testified in 1826 that a feather was found five feet below ground, do you accuse Stowell of lying because that’s impossible? Or do you postulate the feather was planted by Joseph Smith? So, if Joseph Smith said something is wrong; read back that last sentence. I see (rather hear), you spelt Maroni, it’s really Moroni. Then you have scribes thinking he can correct their spelling. And this gets exaggerated in the telling, both by Emma and Blair.
Oi vey, you honestly don't see the difference? Dan ..Josiah does not have a vested interest or motivation to lie about the feather, so in that case, I say the likely explanation is Smith planted the feather. But in the situation with Emma and the other scribes such as harris they have a vested interest in the project...so when Emma tells a story that Smith dictated in such a fashion that it sounds as if he reading off something not simply dictating from his creative mind...then I assume either he's either reading off a hidden paper or she's not telling the truth. And then when she claims as do others that Smith knew when they were making spelling errors and writing incorrect sentences (and I know that's impossible for him to do without looking) and I assume Emma isn't stupid, ...I then reach a probable conclusion that she's lying on this claim...in order to promote Smith as being incapable of writing the Book of Mormon on his own and that he must have had divine help. It's a fraud Dan, one in which extraordinary claims are made. Until witnesses with vested interests making claims to the extraordinary establish themselves as reliable and credible their claims are unreliable. There is no reason to assume they are credible.
Your ad hoc explanation that she believed he had supernatural abilities or she'd forgotten and was claiming things which didn't happened is an example of ad hoc fallacy.
No. I can show that my explanation of human behavior works in many situations. It is a principle quite well known to magicians, if not those who study memory generally. Plus, I am not making things up to ward off adverse evidence; I’m defending what should be normal procedure with any testimony.
I disagree, you are presenting the explanation that she truly believed in Smith's supernatural powers without adequate basis to do so, in order to ward off adverse evidence that her claims to his powers of detecting her spelling error could not have happened and is an indication she was lying.
Because fraud is involved ..you should not assume participants at the initial stages with a vested interest in promoting a religious leader with claims to the divine ..actually believe in the divine associated with that leader. There is good reason to doubt them.
I’m considering time lapse, the manner of reporting, and comparing with other witnesses. Your attempt to read Blair’s reporting literally is amateurish,
Okey dokey. Your critical evaluation of the witnesses claims is unprofessional and you have ignored your responsibility to treat their statements with objectivity and proper assessment. You accept at face value claims made by those involved in a fraud, with vested interests and to top it off they make extraordinary claims, and yet you accept their say so with virtually no skepticism..indicating your lack of appreciation of a key critical thinking concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
and labeling standard historical technique ad hoc shows you still don’t know what one is.
Dan you have not been employing standard historical technique. Standard historical technique would requite some critical evaluation of fraud participants as opposed to acceptance at face value of their claims.
To say Emma believed Joseph Smith had supernatural power to translate is not ad hoc; it’s what she said about herself in so many words.
To argue Dan that Emma truly believed Smith had supernatural powers (which you have no idea about) and then use that as justification to dismiss her claim that Smith corrected her spelling without looking at what she was writing and that he simply was able to fool her..is not standard historical technique it's more like standard religious apologetic argumentation.
We both agree that Joseph Smith couldn’t really correct a scribes spelling, but lying isn’t the only explanation.
Well Dan I asked if you could give another explanation, because to me that makes the most sense and explains the data simply and well.
{quote]
I quoted Blair’s account to show that Emma was making claims about the translation as early as 1856, not because I believed Blair’s sixty-year-old memory is highly accurate. [/quote]
What are you telling me now? That Blair is claiming Emma said those things, but that Emma never approved of what Blair said she said, and therefore Blair could be making it all up?
You can’t take this kind of situation and make such bold declarations that Emma was a liar. Sources have to be judiciously handled to get at what probably happened.
I'm going by the information you gave me. Now I'm finding out that Emma may not have even said what Blair claims, the problem is your presentation of the evidence Dan.
Is there any reason to believe Blair? Did Emma actually ever see what Blair claimed she said?
There was no way he was able to do what she claimed irrespective of her belief in God or whether or not smith had supernatural abilities...hence I can think of no other explanation than she simply...was lying. I know that's hard for you to accept Dan. Book of Mormon witnesses just don't lie..huh?
I would have hoped you read those historical methodology books by now, because the way you are handling such easy situations is so amateur. You are trying to read sources like a polemicist, not a historian. It’s quite sad.
Yes well I read one. I didn't think it was all that good. It did talk about how important objectivity was for a historians and it gave what has historically been used for critical evaluation of source evidence but I didn't think it was clearly expressed at least not as well as Alec Fisher. Then it got into relativism and how no historian can be completely objective ..and in essence the moral of the book was to be
very skeptical of what historians write. Well I already know that! The other book is Historians' fallacies and I've haven't gotten into it but it seems to be a book critical of historians using fallacies gone wild...sort of the way you do.
Dan I'm doing a critical evaluation of the evidence you have presented in support of your position that the Book of Mormon witnesses are credible and reliable. If Emma did not say what Blair claimed then you should have made that clear. Did I miss it? Did you point this out in your post previously when you first gave me Emma's statement? I haven't checked back.
No Dan it's not strange logic. And I don't think Emma was a dupe, anyone who believes Emma is telling the truth is the naïve one.
No. You were trying to have it both ways, Marg. You said she was a liar, but provided evidence that Joseph Smith was really reading off a prepared MS. Now she just a liar, I guess. Again, you are talking way too boldly making sweeping judgments about a secondhand statement made sixty-years later. That’s foolish.
Dan, if Emma said what Blair says she said, then yes she's probably lying re the spelling. That's the most likely explanation in my opinion. If Emma didn't say what blair said, then what blair said is useless. The way that Emma is supposed to have claimed the translation process describes dictation not Smith dictating off the cuff. You are being disingenuous to argue otherwise.
She is trying to present Smith in a particular way. Trying to present him as incapable of spelling, of even reading difficult words, but he's able to spell the words he can't pronounce, he's able to talk about things he knows nothing about ie. Jerusalem having walls so the implication is he's getting some sort of out of body help...
This is the way Joseph Smith presented himself to the world. It has nothing to do with Emma. Joseph Smith’s neighbors called him ignorant; it’s partly what fueled the Spalding theory. You are transferring blame and responsibility to Emma that rightly belongs with Joseph Smith. He’s the one who was pretending not to know Jerusalem had walls.
Dan that's a possibility but it doesn't seem likely to me, because other than Emma relating this account who is to know of all this extra work he's doing..in trying to sound ignorant..pretending that he can't spell and that he doesn't know certain facts he's presenting. And it doesn't help Smith because it sounds as if he's reading off of something..as opposed to being directed by a god. So I don't see that as the more likely explanation.
but the clincher and her slip up which reveals what's going on is that she claims Smith was able to correct her spelling while looking into the hat and not able to see what she was writing. That Dan is impossible to do.
All we know it that’s impossible as it is written by Blair sixty-years later. However, it’s not impossible for Joseph Smith to make Emma think he had that ability.
Bair wrote Emma's testimony 60 years after the fact? Look Dan did Emma make those claims or not, did she ever see what Blair wrote or not..if not then whatever Blair wrote is useless. If Emma did experience what she claimed, that Smith would correct her spelling as they went along without him looking at her writing...then I don't think it was a matter of Smith fooling her but rather her lying about the process to make it look like he had supernatural abilities. So at this point it's a matter of determining whether that statement you gave is reliable as to what Emma actually said.
So what is the most likely explanation Dan for all that she claims? What does occam's razor suggest? Yes occam's razor applies in this situation Dan...the simplest explanation to explain all the facts for the phenomenon she describes is that she's lying.
My reference to Occam’s Razor was in conjunction with the fewest ad hoc speculations.
Right and Occam's Razor has nothing to do with that..because your counters against the initial claims did not meet a burden of proof to overturn those initial claims and responses to your counters were not unwarranted..they were legitmate possible explanations. All complex theories are going to have greater explanations and speculations than simpler ones..so your accusation is circular reasoning. Of course Spalding being a complex theory is going to have greater explanations....that doesn't make it fallacious in any way what so ever. Your reasoning is flawed Dan. You don't understand why your ad hoc accusations are not legitimate ad hoc fallacies ..so your premises are flawed and then your argument and conclusion of flawed as a result.
You can not reason reliably from flawed premises.
Since Emma’s testimony is supported in the main by many others and your explanation involves a massive conspiracy, I think you lose.
Dan your attack on the S/R witnesses involves a conspiracy. Is that testimony by Blair reliable or not Dan? Did emma review it or not? As far as that testimony being supported by other witnesses.. yes Dan... but none are credible and reliable. And the 2 hostile ones had minimal exposure under Smith's control..so they don't help.
The best testimony is Emma's in my opinion but now you are telling me it's unreliable because it's written by some person Blair a long time after the event...and I'm not sure if emma even approved of the statement. Assuming it's reliable, my critical evaluation of that statement holds.
And Dan it's more likely that with a complex fraud of starting a religion which includes a book of its own..that it would require a small group of people as opposed to just one..to pull it off. So it's a reasonable assumption that a conspiracy was involved. But it's not reasonable to assume the S/r witnesses conspired, or they all were confused and all had faulty memory or all lied..when they had nothing to gain and only hassles for themselves to give statements.
However, Occam’s Razor really doesn’t apply when your explanation is too simplistic and doesn’t account for all the data in the first place.
Well I was assuming that Emma's testimony was reliable. Why did you present it if it isn't? If it is reliable then ...assuming she's lying is the simplest best explanation for the data.
She's trying to present a scenario of 2 things..#1...that Smith wasn't capable of writing the Book of Mormon himself, didn't have the knowledge couldn't even pronounce names and words he spelled out..so the ideas and words were coming from someone/something other than Smith's conscious mind, # 2...that Smith has such amazing supernatural like abilities..he could know without looking what she was writing, when she was misspelling and she's have to correct before they could continue on. She wants the listener to assume with that little tid bit of information...that a God MUST have been involved.
That’s what Joseph Smith wanted Emma and everyone else to believe. Where is Joseph Smith in your explanation?
I explained above..it doesn't seem likely to me that Smith went to all the effort of trying to
sound ignorant..pretending that he couldn't spell, that he didn't know certain facts he presented..when no one else is around to even notice all that effort. And it doesn't help Smith because it sounds as if he's reading off of something when he can't pronounce words but can spell them..as opposed to his goal of being directed by a god. So I don't see Joseph as orchestrating his ignorance to the scribes as the most likely explanation.
She's a liar Dan there is NO better explanation that I can see, and your counter doesn't overturn that reasonable explanation.
That’s assuming Emma was accurately quoted by Blair after sixty-years. When you make such an unreasonable demand on a historical source, your conclusion can’t be the most “reasonable”.
Well Dan you are the one using that quote which is supposed to support your "head in the hat" for the entire translation process scenario. Should we dismiss Emma's statement as unreliable since as you say Emma may not have been accurately quoted? I thought you had presented it as if it was reliable but if not I'm willing to dismiss it. I'm not going to pick and choose what I wish she had said..so that it can serve my purposes.
