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

[_Uncle Dale]

Also, for the less academic amongst us (like me) can you explain what conclusions might be drawn from the 'come to pass' charts? Thanks

The first conclusion must be, that the phrase is so commonly
used as to be non-attributable to a single author. At least
the loyal Mormon would agree with that conclusion. Perhaps he
would also guess that the precise English wording came from
Joseph Smith, as he "translated" some unknown "Nephite"
character whose meaning corresponded to the biblical Hebrew
rendered "come/came to pass" in the KJV Bible.

The second conclusion, then, would be that we cannot expect
to locate chapters authored by Spalding, simply by looking for
occurrences of that phrase. If he introduced its use into the
Nephite record, then other writers continued that application,
and even expanded upon it -- rendering most of the book
ridiculous in its over-use of the repetitive phrase.

Rather than looking for that phrase as a "Spalding marker,"
I recommend doing just the opposite --- Look at those parts
of the book where the phrase is not found, and you're
probably looking at text NOT contributed by Spalding.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Dan this story about Harris indicates 2 possibilities, one it isn't true, never happened, it is propaganda, the other possibility illustrates how gullible Harris was. For reasons below I'm leaning towards the first possibility. If you can think of other likely probabilities let me know.

The first proposition would involve a massive improbable conspiracy, so I’m leaning towards gullible. Harris’s neighbors and acquaintances describe him has honest but credulous when it came to religious issues.

Does Smith routinely leave the stone lying around in the hat? Let's say they go down to the river for a break, Smith doesn't go back to the room right away and has left the stone in the hat giving Harris an opportunity to switch..so then Smith goes to the room and picks up the hat with the switched stone in it, and pretends he can't read from the switched stone and complains and then Harris confesses and gives him back the stone.

So either Harris is so gullible that he doesn't appreciate the above scenario was a set up by Smith in advance, or it never happened because Smith was unlikely to ever leave the hat with the stone in it simply lying on a table while he left the house. He was much more likely to always carry the stone with him or have it hidden when not on him. If tjat particular stone was lost or stolen and he replaced it then that would indicate the stone had no special significance..so he wouldn't want that to happen.

We already discussed this at length. It shows Harris is gullible in believing his substitute stone could fool Joseph Smith. IT didn’t. Your suggestion that Joseph Smith could have so much foresight in knowing Harris would switch the stone and he could play out some ruse is illogical and improbable. The more likely explanation is that Harris falsely believed his stone was similar enough to Joseph Smith’s very unique-looking stone—chocolate-colored with lighter stripes and shaped like a baby’s foot or like a kidney. Your assumption that Joseph Smith wouldn’t leave the stone laying around would be similar to arguing that the story of the lost 116-pages is a lie because Joseph Smith would never let Harris take the only copy home with him. People don’t always behave, especially those from a different time and place, in the manner you expect them to. I’ve pointed out this fallacy to your before. It is a variation of the idealist fallacy, which attempts to reconstruct the past with the assumption that humans always act rationally.

A slightly different form of the idealist fallacy consists in a presumption of rationality in human behavior. One historian of ideas, C. B. Macpherson, has elevated this assumption into an explicit method. … Surely many thinkers have been inconsistent within their own limits. A presumption of logical consistency is as unjustified as a presumption of the opposite. –David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies, 199-200.

Why would he worry about the stone? It doesn’t really work. It’s replaceable. Besides, he has another white stone he can use. Who’s going to steal it from his house? Where by the way, also lays the MS in Harris’s handwriting and, sometimes, the fake plates. I wouldn’t assume he always left it laying around, especially when Mrs. Harris visited and tore his house apart looking for the plates. But on this occasion, he obviously felt comfortable leaving it in the upstairs room for a few minutes while he and Harris walked to the river behind his house, likely with Emma home. Regardless, your assumptions are about how things should happen is ad hoc in reverse. You are using the same speculative and unfounded technique you employed in defending the Spalding theory to attack the rival theory.

Again as with Emma there is that same similar claim that Smith would stop dictating if Harris had made mistakes, despite the fact that Smith was looking into the hat and not reading what Harris was writing. Again this calls into question the reliability that he's being truthful.

Harris’s description as told by Stevenson eleven and sixteen years later is similar to Emma’s story told by Blair sixty-years later, only Blair’s account is more miraculous. Of course we know Joseph Smith was seeing anything, but he needed to convince his followers that he could. Accusing eyewitnesses of lying isn’t our only option. That would negate all accounts of miracles as lies. Everyone who claims to have seen a vision of Mary at Lourdes isn’t lying. There is no methodology that requires concluding reports of miracles are all lies. There are other options. A conman deceives—that’s his job. And when he’s successful, you don’t accuse the victim of lying. If I say I saw a magician saw a lady in half, would you say that’s not possible you must be lying? Joseph Smith would have been very successful if he couldn’t do things others couldn’t explain. That’s what makes it a confidence scheme.

So I don't think this evidence supports that Harris was seeking proof before investing, I think it calls into question his credibility and indicates he could very well have been lying..since there is no way Smith could know with his head in a hat whether Harris was writing anything incorrectly. And when one adds that to Harris's other claims to the extraordinary "Martin harris Who Bore testimony of the angle [angel]"..the indications are he's not reliably truthful.

That’s your unsophisticated approach to the data, Marg. Nothing indicates that he was lying, especially when he is supported by other witnesses. We know Joseph Smith is a conman, yet you seem unprepared to examine Joseph Smith in that context. Perhaps you don’t know enough about the psychology of deception to analyze these testimonies. Your only methodology seems to be Harris describes impossible things so he must be lying. Yet those who knew him, both friend and foe, describe him as honest and trustworthy. Marg, you are going to have to get more tools in your toolbox, especially if you are going to deal with religious testimony. There’s more to skepticism than calling everyone liars.

I’m keeping a tab on your conspiracy theory—so far, we have Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Emma Smith as coconspirators with Joseph Smith, right?

[_jon]

UD,

Thanks for explaining.

[_Roger]

Dan:

Sorry, but I’m going to make you work. Apparently, all you have is Dale’s chart. You can’t even give examples of the redundant “that”. If you don’t have Signature Book’s CD, which has an 1830 Book of Mormon searchable text that I created myself, try the following (I’m sure there are others):

The search option that you linked to returns results from the 2think website and apparently not from the Book of Mormon text.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

The meeting of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith was fortuitous and unplanned. Oliver Cowdery took his brother Lyman’s place as school teacher in Manchester (NY), and found boarding with the Smith family. He eventually heard about the plates from neighbors and pressed the Smiths from more information. After having a dream/vision of Jesus and the plates, he concluded to accompany Samuel Smith to Harmony and meet Joseph. Two days after arriving, he became Joseph Smith’s scribe. The only statement he left about the translation came in 1848 as he prepared to rejoin the church in Council Bluffs (IA).

Dan whose words are these, yours? And what is your source? Cowdery said he had a dream/vision of Jesus and plates? He's quite a risk taker, isn't he? Drops his job to take on being a scribe in a matter of a few days. And who was going to support him financially or did he do this because of a dream and he's so charitable?

Of course they are my words; they are intended as introductions to the sources. Joseph Smith’s 1832 history mentions OC’s vision:

[the] Lord appeared unto a Young man by the name of Oliver Cowdery and shewed unto him the plates in a vision and also the truth of the work and what the Lord was about to do through me his unworthy servant therefore he was desirous to come and write for me (EMD 1:31).

Lucy Smith said OC became obsessed about the plates, but he finished out the school term, and then went to Harmony. Although there were obvious psychological forces operating on OC, he fulfilled his obligations before leaving. He and Samuel arrived on 5 April 1829, and on the 7th he began working as Joseph Smith’s scribe. He was vulnerable to Joseph Smith’s claims because he used a divining rod himself to get yes/no answers to questions. So OC was fertile ground for Joseph Smith—as was Harris and the Whitmers. It is this prior history you need to consider before you so rashly cast judgment on these people. Their lives prepared them for Joseph Smith’s manipulations, not to become conspirators. Sacrificing for religion is standard practice. OC lived with Joseph Smith, who got supplies from Harris and Joseph Knight to continue the translation, and possibly helped Joseph Smith work his small farm for the two months he was there. Thereafter, he was supported by the Whitmers briefly. Then returned to Manchester to prepare the printer’s copy and oversee the printing. In October 1830, he left on a mission to Missouri, and on the way helped convert Sidney Rigdon. You’re trying to imply something sinister in OC’s behavior without knowing enough to do so.

And Emma also said that Smith read with his head in a hat off the stone and couldn't even read words so he would spell them and she also said that despite him not looking at what she was writing if she made any spelling mistakes, he'd correct her. So emma is not a very believable reliable person.

You can’t judge Emma’s character by Blair’s sixty-year-old memory; he may have been responsible for the exaggeration that is not repeated in other testimonies. Even if Emma exaggerated, it doesn’t necessarily mean she did it intentionally since misperception is typical in such situations. Context is imperative—you have taken Joseph Smith out of the equation. The statement she gave her son in 1879 is undoubtedly more reliable and accurate. It is there that she describes seeing OC and Joseph Smith at work. Emma is credible since she is supported by the other witnesses, and the speculation that they were all in conspiracy together is highly improbable.

Now we have Cowdery who says nothing about the process until 1848, almost 20 years afterwards..and he doesn't mention that famous hat nor the seer stone but now it's the Urim and Thummim...yet he's supposed to have been the main scribe.

What you are writing Dan, says less about the evidence than it does on your poor critical thinking non-objective evaluation of the evidence. I realize complete objectivity for a historian is impossible but blatant non critical evaluation and acceptance at face value of individuals making extraordinary claims who have a vested interest in a fraud..is NOT acceptable.

Are you trying to create an argument from silence—from what OC didn’t say?

How can you say I’m uncritical? So far, you haven’t displayed any awareness of source-criticism; nor have you shown any sophistication in your analysis of a conman and those he manipulates. I could have said more, but I was being brief. I did mention OC’s vagueness.

It’s quite obvious OC was tailoring his account so as not to conflict with Joseph Smith’s official 1838 account. That doesn’t make him dishonest and untrustworthy. One of the reasons the stone in hat story faded from view, and even now many Mormons are unaware of it, is because there was an effort by Joseph Smith and other leaders to downplay the folk magic aspects of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the plates as well as his early involvement in treasure dinning. So OC is being careful with his words as he is seeking to rejoin the Church. The important point is that he denies Joseph Smith’s use of the Spalding MS—and the other witnesses tell us why he could be so confident about that.

I’m not saying these witnesses aren’t unbiased; they can’t help being believers—and they are believers because of what they witnessed. In fact, they are taking pains to prove that their belief isn’t unfounded. In their way, they are giving justification for their faith in Joseph Smith’s gift. They are still in the grip of the con that was done to them, not by them. They have become unwitting agents of the conman just as the patent medicine salesman has testimonials. Every con-scheme has these testimonials that can’t be explained away easily—mostly by perfectly sincere people.

I don't know what your reasons and motivators are Dan, but you are not objectively and fairly critically evaluating this evidence, in any reasonable manner whatsoever.

I think the same about you. You are out of your depth—and have been this entire thread.

I can't believe that you are actually using Emma to back up Cowdery.

I’m not using Emma to “back up Cowdery”, but to supplement what OC left out. That is standard practice in historiography. This is no different than multiple witnesses to any event.

And I suppose you are going to argue that Cowdery used the words Urim and Thummim (spectacles) in replacement for the seer stone with head in the hat, because they served to perform the same job.

I quoted Lancaster on this. The terms “Urim and Thummim” were introduced about 1833 to give a biblical sound to a magical instrument. As part of the shift away from magic origins to a more mainstream Christian story, Joseph Smith’s 1838 history used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the spectacles and the seer stone, although the presence of the seer stone was obscured by the term. Readers assume that all references to U&T are to the spectacles. Early revelations are frequently introduced as coming through the U&T, when they actually came through the seer stone. The reason you associate U&T with the spectacles is because Joseph Smith’s history does.

Dan the evidence above is extremely poor evidence in support of the process of head in the hat with seer stone. Cowdery had a vested interest, he also didn't describe the process as others had and the information he gave was very minimal and unconvincing.

I didn’t quote OC for the head in the hat; I quoted him for no MS being used. That is also the title of this collection of quotes. Emma and the Whitmers saw Joseph Smith dictating with head in hat while OC acted as scribe. Cowdery had no promise of reward when he gave his speech; in fact, he said he wasn’t seeking office or privilege—he only wanted to rebaptism. And that’s what happened. Bias doesn’t mean lying, it means slanting a story a particular way for a particular audience. Fortunately, we have multiple witnesses giving statements in various circumstances so that we can get a fairly reliable and accurate description of Joseph Smith’s method of translation. The other alternative is to postulate a massive conspiracy.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Try this

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom1830/bom_main.shtml

[_MCB]

I usually use the hundred sheep one.
Urim and Thummin came from VotH by Ethan Smith.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I see Dan. So the fact that he's claiming to know something ..as if he has first hand knowledge..something that could not have possibly occurred....no words appeared in "Brite roman Letters on a stone...and yet....you conclude from his statement, 'well since he had the opportunity therefore what he says is evidence in support of the head in the hat schtick for the entire Book of Mormon.

I can't believe this.

What are you objecting to? Joseph Knight is likely drawing on personal observation, although a limited one. I know he was present when Joseph Smith received revelations, probably with the stone in hat. He made several trips from Colesville about ten miles south along the Susquehanna River to Harmony with supplies, including giving money to buy some paper. One time he took his wife on a visit and “Joseph talked with us about his translating and some revelations he had Received and from that time my wife Began to Bel[i]eve” (EMD 4:19). Another time he visited Harmony, but “Joseph and oliver were gone …they returned home and found me there with provisions … then they went to work and had provisions enough to Last till the translation was Done” (EMD 4:20). It’s likely that he observed Joseph Smith using the stone in the hat, and the part about bright roman letters he obviously learned from Joseph Smith. This is not different from Whitmer’s “luminous” writing. Who cares if it was for the entire Book of Mormon or not? He’s a minor note in the chorus of voices singing the same song.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Have researchers other than those okayed and essentially working for the Church examined the handwritings of these 2 unidentified scribes?

Who has been ruled out as possible scribes and who made that decision? Who are considered the possible scribes and on what grounds?

No concerted effort has been made by non-Mormons. Dean Jessee identified one scribe as possibly John Whitmer. But Brent Metcalfe and I compared his handwriting and were unconvinced, and Brent decided not to use it as an argument for his priority of Mosiah essay. If you recall, Davis-Scales-Cowdrey in 1977 claimed one of the unknown scribes was Solomon Spalding, and the Mormons pulled out a sample of the same handwriting in an original draft of D&C 56, received 15 June 1831. No positive identification has been made. Royal Skousen tried, but failed. David Whitmer said his brother Christian acted as a scribe. As far as I know there are no samples of his handwriting. That’s generally the problem with most of the Whitmer family, who are the best candidates.

As far as S/R theorists accounting for those writings ..from the sounds of it the writings are part of the 116 lost pages replacement. It's consistent with the S/R theory because the S/R theory suggests there are a number of contributors.

It would have to be someone in the Whitmer household, or someone visiting the Whitmers.

The question is why aren't those handwritings identified? Perhaps whoever wrote those pages purposefully disguised their handwriting..Rigdon?

\

The problem is samples. It’s not Rigdon. There would be no need to disguise handwriting. As I said, OC’s handwriting interrupts Scribe 1 for a few verses. According to your theory, SR supplied the source document that was read to the scribes.

As far as what occurred at the Whitmer home, didn't you write that they wrote in the room upstairs and other times downstairs but with a blanket for privacy?

You have the quotes. The one about downstairs with a blanket dividing the room is near the end of David Whitmer’s section.

I like Mark Twain's sarcastic comments as to their credibility.

Twain made his living by being funny—I make mine by being serious. Sure, the claims of the three and eight witnesses deserve skepticism. It is one thing to dismiss them, quite another to explain them. Skeptics aren’t interested in explaining how these testimonies were obtained. That takes hard work.

[_Roger]

MCB:

I usually use the hundred sheep one.

You can search the online text? How do you do that? The only search engine I see is the Google search that you can select to search the 2think site, but (apparently?) not the Book of Mormon text.