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

[_marg]

Hi Mikwut,

In general if I've concluded based upon history of discussions that someone is not intellectually honest.. I find it unproductive to carry on further with them. Given the history of your participation in this thread which I have noted has been to often focus on personal attack in lieu of issues, I'm not going to respond to you today. If I see you participating and your focus changing and it indicating to me you are truly interested in productive discussion... then I'll respond to you.

[_GlennThigpen]

Perhaps some would also call me a closet Mormon, with my rejection of atheism and my call to LDS to return to the best of Christianity and the Book of Mormon, NightLion-style.
Yes, Glenn. LDS is sola fides. There is no logic to those beliefs, no factual foundation, but, by gum, you are going to stick to your beliefs. Don't get me wrong, I sort of admire that.

I am not sure what you mean by returning to the best of Christianity, but I do believe that the LDS faith is very logical. I do not know what you would consider a factual foundation, but it is built upon a spiritual foundation. This might not be the best thread to discuss this aspect or Mromondom though, but I would be glad to expound upon this in another thread.

Glenn

[_mikwut]

Marg,

What is the "extraordinary claim" the Book of Mormon witnesses are making?

mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...
What is the "extraordinary claim" the Book of Mormon witnesses are making?
...

I have never seen Nephite characters being translated into English words
upon a magic stone -- and disappearing as each one is correctly written
down by a scribe. Perhaps you have seen it and think it ordinary.

I have never seen an angel descend from the heavens and lay upon a
table a liahona and a sword belonging to an ancient Israelite. But
perhaps you have seen it and think it ordinary.

I have never witnessed an angel turn golden pages before my eyes,
while at the same time proclaiming that the quantity of inscribed
writing thus displayed corresponded to the amount of English words
so far translated. But perhaps you have seen it and think it ordinary.

I have never seen Peter, James and John appear in celestialized bodies,
announcing the restoration of a biblical priesthood long absent from
the earth. But perhaps you have seen it and think it ordinary.

I have never examined magical spectacles attached to an ancient
Nephite breastplate, the lenses of which were far too large to fit upon
the modern human face. Perhaps you have seen it and think it ordinary.

I have never heard a voice from the heavens announce to a group
people that a certain thing (such as a book) is true. I read of something
like this occurring at the baptism of Jesus; but I know of no living
person who has ever seen such a Divine announcement to a group of
people. But perhaps you have seen it and think it ordinary.

Whether or not the above events actually occurred and were witnessed
by one or more human observers, is not the point.

The point is -- whether such events are ordinary or extraordinary.

UD

[Guest]

It does not make your arguments any stronger to try to label Dan as a "closet Mormon" (my words). It does not help your arguments to assert that just because the witnesses believed in angels, divine visitations, etc. that they were unreliable. You have to use historical sources about those witnesses to determine reliability. You might start by reading Richard Lloyd Anderson's research on the witnesses. To be sure, you can find negative research also. Just check it out and compare.

I've already been put off from reading Richard Lloyd Anderson because I believe Dan told me he's worse than he is with regards to psychoanalyzing J. Smith.

Are you taking Dan's word for that? After your disagreements with him. Why not find out for yourself?

Let me address this underlined part, because you are misrepresenting my position.

From Alec Fisher "Critical Thinking..An Introduction Cambridge University Press 2001

p. 103

7.4 Questions about the nature of the claim which influence its credibility

7.4.1 Is it very unlikely, given other things we know; or 9s it very plausible and easy to believe?

If a friend tells you that she had coffee with some mutual friends [in the normal circumstances in which people say things] this will be easy to believe. But, if she says that she has just had coffee with the Queen of England, this will be hard to believe, because very few people do this. Of course it may still be true, but, in the absence of a much fuller story and some evidence, this is not a very credible claim.

Suppose now that the friend says she is just seeing a miracle–she has seen her lover, who has been dead for two days raised up like Lazarus by a priest who prayed over him. How credible with this claim be? David Hume [1711–76] the famous British philosopher have much to say about this kind of claim in his Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (first published 1748, section X). Here is part of his argument:

"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not until then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

In short, the more unlikely it is that some claim is true, given what else we know, the less its credibility and the more we shall need persuading before we believe it.

So Glenn when I look at the 3 witnesses in the Book of Mormon... Cowdery, Whitmer & Harris, as an example it's not simply a matter of whether or not they believe in angels or a God it's a matter of critically evaluating what they say..how credible is their claim given what we know. When they say for example " And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the word is truth." I don't accept at face value their claim. I note they have a vested interest in the start up religion. Their claim is extraordinary. Is it more likely they actually heard God or is some other more natural explanation likely, that they are using the claim they heard God in order to convince others of their claim? When I look at their claims within the context of all else that I know involved with their start up religion, I conclude they are willing to lie in order to promote this religion.

And then this evaluation extends into judging other claims they make with regards to their vested interest..the promotion of this religion.

The same thing with Emma's testimony which I'm not sure if it is a reliably true on or not, but if she in fact did claim that Smith would as he dictated with his head in a hat stop and inform her to correct spelling errors because the stone wouldn't proceed...and given the context of the rest of her testimony and in light of the fact that she too had a vested interest in the enterprise...it is more likely to me that she was lying as opposed to it really happened as claimed. Lying is also a more likely an explanation than Smith was able to successfully fool her time and again, and be consistently correct in guessing when she was actually making mistakes. It's more likely because of the context of everything else said. When one looks at the whole statement it's obvious it is intended propaganda ..to promote the idea that Smith was incapable of writing the Book of Mormon due to lack of knowledge and inability to even read words off the stone..that it MUST have been done by some miraculous supernatural way.

marge, I understand your point. But you seem to be missing Dan's point completely. He is not talking about their supernatural experiences. He is not subscribing to their beliefs, i.e. that the translation process was accomplished by supernatural means. He is only arguing about the physical events that they saw and reported. If Martin Harris said that Joseph Smith put his head in a hat and read off the translation of the Book of Mormon as the words appeared to him, you can infer only one thing and that is that Joseph Smith put his head in a hat and dictated the Book of Mormon to the scribes. That is all that Dan believes about the process and the witnesses.
Since Martin Harris could not see inside the hat, he had to have been taking Joseph's word that the text was actually appearing in the stone. It was not something he, or any of the other witnesses actually saw. So, all they are actually reporting on is the part of the translation process that they saw, and filling in the rest from what they were told.
Having a vested interest in something does not necessarily make anyone unreliable as a witness. Believing in God and supernatural events does not necessarily make anyone unreliable as a witness. Else, a great many, maybe the majority of people that have ever lived would make unreliable witnesses.

You also need to use historical sources if you wish to counter Dan's arguments. There are counters to some aspects of his arguments if you search out the sources. On other aspects, it really comes down to beliefs.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. However the S/R witnesses is counter evidence but then Dan argues and an extremely poor argument I might add... that he uses the Book of Mormon witnesses e and accepts their claim to a head in the hat with no manuscript present translation process as credible and on that basis dismisses the S/R witnesses.

The S/R witnesses do not counter the witnesses to the translation process in any shape form or fashion. The Book of Mormon was produced, there were witnesses to the process. They are consistent. Not all of them are friendly. There is no evidence of a conspiracy. You have to remember that Martin Harris was initially a skeptic at first, but something convinced him. The Whitmers were skeptical at first. Something convinced them. There was no LDS church at the time. Whether those people were inspired or dupes is of no consequence to the the witness they produced of the translation process. At least what they actually saw of the translation process.

His use of the Book of Mormon witnesses to back each other up is circular reasoning. People in on a con are likely to back each other up. When extraordinary claims are being made..one needs extraordinary evidence. Using all the Book of Mormon witnesses has evidence for each other, when they themselves are not reliable witnesses, when they are highly motivated to lie, is not using good evidence.

marge, that is the way witnesses work. One witness alone is not worthless, but added testimony, if it is consistent, and independent, makes for added credibility. All of those witnesses were asked about the translation of the Book of Mormon repeatedly over the course of their lives by different individuals. Their statements are consistent over time and are consistent with each other as to the translation process.
That is not true with the S/R witnesses. Their statements changed over time and were not all consistent with each other.

Glenn

[_mikwut]

Dale,

Regarding the Book of Mormon witnesses to the translation process. What is the extraordinary claim that the individual witness he or she makes?

Dan has utilized the proper analogy of a witness watching David Copperfield saw someone in half and yet they live - certainly an extraordinary thing that is proposed by the magician but nothing extraordinary for onlooker to have witnessed. It would be incorrect to say the onlooker of the illusion is claiming something extraordinary about being a witness and testifying that they saw a human body in a box with a head and feet exposed on each end sawed in two and yet the person lived and was reattached. I am curious why this distinction that Dan has made so clear is ignored. Joseph made extraordinary claims. Those that watched and reiterated what they saw made no such extraordinary claims. So what is the extraordinary claim regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon and from what witness?

regards, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...
What is the extraordinary claim that the individual witness he or she makes?
...

I take William Smith's profession of the magic spectacles to be an
extraordinary one - all in all.

I also take his mother's profession of the same object(s) to be
extraordinary.

However, I concede that some investigators would find those claims to
be perfectly ordinary ones. And, of course, those investigators who
have concluded that the Smiths' claims were lies, might also conclude
that their lies were rather ordinary ones.

UD

[_mikwut]

Dale,

OK, so it seems Dan's point is proper, logical and seemingly validated by you, is that correct?

regards, mikwut

[Guest]

Marg,

Dan I haven't responded to your recent posts for a number of reasons. Until about a week ago ( I now take Celebrex and it's made a huge difference) since January, the hip arthritis I have became painful especially sitting and getting up right after. So rather than sit at a computer, I spend 3 hrs most days at the local YMCA/gym/pool. Also the weather is nice now and those days are few and far between most of the year so one has to take advantage of them when they are here.

So this issue currently for me is a low priority. I'm still interested but I don't feel time is of the essence and quick responses necessary.

Enjoy. Do what you need to do. I still haven’t caught up with your posts … and Roger’s.

Let me give a general response to your recent posts. Quoting the book on historical methodology I mentioned to you...

As I mentioned before the book I read on historical methodology I'm not thrilled with. For example above they mentioned "Here historians are interested not so much in the lie as in a more subtle form of falsehood,"..well I'm sure historians are very interested in what are lies just as much as subtle falsehoods.

I think you are misunderstanding the quote you provided.

People–and thus sources–lie, of course, sometimes consciously but sometimes unconsciously. Here historians are interested not so much in the lie as in a more subtle form of falsehood, the suppression or shading of knowledge to conform to orthodox opinion. The personality of the observer is key here. Hence, the scholar must, to the extent possible, study the life of the individual; she must compare this observer with others treating the same or related events; she must be attentive to inconsistencies, lapses, suppressions in the story the document tells.

The title of this section is misleading—“The Trustworthiness of the Observer.” It should be—“The Reliability of the Observer.” Their discussion is less about honesty and more about bias—less about fabrication and more about distortion. The reason historians are more concerned with the latter is because what isn’t the former most likely is the latter. Historians have to deal with imperfect sources recorded by imperfect humans. Bias and interest are always at play, even in the Spalding sources. Historians have to work through this constantly. However, I think this book is less helpful than the methodology books we have already discussed.

Be that as it may, looking at this particular section addressing "trustworthiness of observers" ...I think the gist of what they are saying applies to the Book of Mormon witnesses. There is an acknowledgement that people lie for self interest, for personal benefit but as well another motivating factor for lying is out of fear.

Again, the authors you cite are talking about bias and distortion, not lying in the sense of complete fabrication. These are concerns for both sides of the issue we are discussing, not just Mormon witnesses. It means you have to be skeptical when the Mormon witnesses claim Joseph Smith corrected their spelling as well as William Miller’s claim that the Book of Mormon, according to his twenty-year-old memory, contains “verbatim” passages from Spalding’s MS. History isn’t a simple matter of separating liars from truth-tellers. As your source says—“People … lie … sometimes unconsciously.” It’s the historian’s job to sift through the sources and find the most probable reconstruction. Multiple independent witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, establish Joseph Smith’s method of translation was the stone in hat. In testifying to this method, the witnesses went against the common belief held by believers in the Book of Mormon in both major groups. At the same time, they gave support to anti-Mormon claims that the Book of Mormon was translated with the same stone Joseph Smith used to fraudulently locate buried treasure.

Bottom line here is that you need to distinguish between fabrication and distortion. You can’t just brush them aside as interested witnesses and throw their testimonies out as coming from liars. Spalding witnesses are interested too; they were eager to participate in the demise of Mormonism. It’s difficult to find disinterested witnesses in this situation.

When people have a vested interest in something which all the Book of Mormon witnesses did other than the 2 hostile ones, or when they have reason to fear negative repercussions..(which is what likely happened years later after leaving the church)..what they say must be evaluated in that light.

What vested interest? None were making money as far as I know. They were interested witnesses in that they remained believers in the Book of Mormon throughout life. And they obviously didn’t fear repercussions since Emma, David, and Harris gave these statements near the end of their lives, and what they said wasn’t pleasing to most believers. In fact, Whitmer attacked the largest body in Utah for their polygamy. Emma affiliated with the RLDS Church since1860, but the earliest statement dates to 1856. Harris major statements were given as he was traveling to Utah to live with his son, but nevertheless insisted on telling inconvenient truths.

Does “in that light” mean distortion or lying? How do we decide which? Do we simply say they are interested, so they must have lied? On what grounds do we dismiss the entire group and ignore their testimonies? Is being interested (i.e. believers) grounds for dismissal? Hardly. It’s not that simple, Marg. I would allow distortion, but no lying or fabricating. First, there are multiple independent witnesses that span decades. Second, there are two hostile witnesses that had multiple casual accesses to the translation. Third, their testimony of seeing Joseph Smith dictating with his head in the hat contradicted the expectations of both churches. It went against Joseph Smith’s apologetic program. If they feared negative repercussions, they would have gone along with the spectacle story. Instead, they all came up with the stone in hat story independently.

Your only options are the trick-hat theory or add them to your expanding conspiracy theory.

You've said (I believe) a number of times, that standard historical methodology doesn't allow you to write off the Book of Mormon witnesses as unreliable. This despite the fact that what all those people are reporting or commenting on is a fraud. No matter how you want to explain it, it still involves fraud. Someone or someones are lying. This is not a typical historical situation in which a fraud is not assumed or even speculated.

We know Joseph Smith was lying, but were the witnesses? Were they sincere or liars? Were they coconspirators or dupes? I think the best evaluation of the sources shows that the witnesses were sincere dupes; they were the targets of the fraud.

Your explanation of when and how the seer stone and urim & thummin were first said to be used..and your use of Emma to back Cowdery's claims..... to me it is a waste of time to consider.

You are welcome to your opinion, but you are wrong. My reconstruction of Joseph Smith’s and OC’s efforts to sanitized early Mormon history of folk-magic elements explains why OC’s statement is anomalous and why Emma’s and Whitmer’s statements should be used to correct his mention of the spectacles.

I really don't care at what point Smith said he used a urim and thummin etc. The statements regarding urim and thummin and seer stone sound like a convoluted mess of making it up as they went along. So frankly B.S. is B.S...and the details of the propaganda are much less important than an acknowledgement it is intentional propaganda.

Understanding history is always more important than casting judgment.

So Dan you can speculate Emma was fooled as opposed to she was lying; and assume that Smith really used a stone in a hat with her and others ...but that's Dan Vogel's speculation not standard historical methodology. Your resistance to acknowledge that the witnesses to the translation process are unreliable (even the hostile ones because what they witnessed was very limited and under Smith's control)..basically tells me your historical interpretation is unreliable.

You’re really not following this discussion, are you? You are the one offering the unfounded ad hoc speculation that Emma was part of a conspiracy, although you had previously placed her in the dupe category, having been fooled by Joseph Smith’s trick hat, an equally unfounded ad hoc speculation. I, on the other hand, have sought to corroborate Emma’s statement through independent testimony, including her own non-believing father. That’s standard historical methodology. Explain your methodology.

Cite me your source text Dan, that you are using to conclude that applying standard historical methodology requires one to accept the Book of Mormon witnesses as reliable.

I already have. Remember this?

The historian, however, is prosecutor, attorney for the defense, judge, and jury in one. But as judge he rules out no evidence whatever if it is relevant. To him any sigle detail of testimony is credible—even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay evidence, or is from an interested witness—provided it can pass four tests:

1. Was the ultimate source of the detail (the primary witness able to tell the truth?
2. Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?
3. Is the primary witness accurately reported with regard to the detail under examination?
4. Is there any independent corroboration of the detail under examination?

Any detail (regardless of what the source or who the author) that passes all four tests is credible historical evidence. … (LouisGottschalk, Understanding History, 150).

When I quoted this to Roger, I went on to explain:

The ability to tell the truth “rests in part upon the witness’s nearness to the event.” Other factors are competence, time lapse, etc.

The willingness to tell the truth can be affected by interest and bias, which “requires the exercise of caution” but doesn’t justify summary dismissal—or there would be little usable sources. Gottschalk says the historian “must continue to bear in mind that even the worst witness may occasionally tell the truth and that it is the historian’s business to extract every iota of relevant truth, if he can” (p. 160). Each element of a statement is weighed, not the whole statement—judiciously, not polemically.

Bias and interest can be mitigated through independent corroboration and the presence of other conditions favorable to credibility. One such condition is that the things testified to “are so well-known, so much matters of common knowledge, that the witness would be unlikely to be mistaken or to lie about them,” as well as “the absence of contradictory evidence in other sources may frequently be taken to be confirmation” (p. 162).

So, since most of your ad hoc speculations fly in the face of more established evidence, you need to tell us why your speculations should be preferred over the testimony of eyewitnesses.

The same question applies to your speculations, Marg, whether it is your trick-hat theory or conspiracy theory. Which is it? Was Emma duped by the trick hat, or was she lying? Was she a coconspirator who allowed Joseph Smith to dupe her father and brother-in-law with the trick hat on multiple occasions? Why should we regard these speculations over corroboration of Emma’s testimony by other witnesses? Especially when the only method you have of dealing with corroboration is to expand the conspiracy. Conspiracy is your ad hoc speculation for dealing with adverse evidence.

[_MCB]

Marg,
All of the testimonies of the witnesses are flawed. You are going around in circles, and always will until you become VERY familiar with the text itself, as boring and badly written as it is.
That is my intention for my book, to familiarize people with the text, and break down the superstitious fear that many have towards reading it. by the way, I have removed some irrelevant comments about my own faith.