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

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Resuming my response to your comments of 8 June on the witnesses.

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.

We are dealing with a conman, and if you don’t know how the con works in the present, you have no hope of understanding it in the past. This is not just any con either; it’s one that involves supernatural beliefs. Joseph Smith was trying to convince Emma and the others that he had supernatural powers, just as he had as a treasure seer. He’s carrying over his ability to convince people that he can locate buried treasure--without ever unearthing one—to an ability to translate a book that’s not even in the room. He has methods of doing that. Emma and the others aren’t just describing what happened, they are giving their interpretation of what happened as if it’s part of what happened. So if what she describes is impossible, that’s what Joseph Smith wanted her to believe—that was his job. It has to do with the psychology of deception. I quoted the following book in my biography of Joseph Smith—it might help explain what I’m talking about. As early as 1887, S. J. Davey conducted well-rehearsed séances for several groups, with the usual trickery and misdirection, and

Immediately after each séance, Davey had the sitters write out in detail all that they could remember having happened during his séance. The findings were striking and very disturbing to believers. No one realized that Davey was employing tricks. Sitters consistently omitted crucial details, added others, changed the order of events, and otherwise supplied reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means.

--Ray Hyman, “A Critical Historical Overview of Parapsychology,” in Paul Kurtz, ed., A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1985), 27.

So, although Emma’s statement wasn’t reported for sixty-years, even if she was accurately quoted, her statement isn’t surprising and doesn’t prove she was lying. Your handling of this source is unsophisticated for several reasons.

[_mikwut]

marg,

Explain to me your understanding of what ad hoc fallacy entails ..as to how lawyers, detectives, historians, and philosophers use it.

As a lawyer I have to often provide reasons for why my client's historical construction of events is the more likely. There is always more than one side of a story or historical events. Those two sides of the story often conflict in central areas of concern for each version of the story. When faced with this conflicting data or facts, one side is likely to purport how the disruption or the problem faced disappears if a new idea, assumption, or hypothesis is taken into account. However, the only reason this new idea, assumption, or hypothesis is offered is to rescue the story from the very conflict that was based on actual evidence. Without actual evidence for the new idea itself the attempt to rescue the story or belief is ad hoc (fallacious ad hoc, ad hoc rescue, faulty ad hoc).

For example I have a current client, a little backwards for sure, for seventeen years he has used a social security number that is not his because his Mother told him it his is one less than his brothers. He recently finally got caught. I am defending him against the charge of forgery. The prosecutor is rather zealous that deep criminal machinations and curling of mustaches must have been in order, but we have provided the prosecutor with every historical document we could provide regarding the use of the social security number and the accurate social security number. There is no gain my client ever achieved by either obtaining credit and not paying it, or avoiding some possible tax or criminal violation, he in fact harmed himself because seventeen years of manual labor have not been applied to his social security. The prosecutors response is there must be other social security numbers where he is gaining or avoiding detriment from. That is an example of the ad hoc rescue, the prosecutors belief of evil intent is not based on any actual evidence. It is arbitrary in order to fix his original belief of malevolent intent so that his story still can appear valid.

Bottom line, ad hoc rescue is just making crap up so you don't have to say this story isn't evidentially as strong as other possibilities. Or just saying here is what happened but not not justifying it from the actual evidence, independently not auxiliary to the evidence you believe is supportive of your general theory (in your case the Spalding witnesses). All kinds of things are possible, but justifying the particular possibilities means avoiding to the greatest extent possible assumptions not based on the evidence we have to utilize. For example, the Spalding witnesses are indeed evidential support for the S/R theory, but they are not support for auxiliary needs for the S/R theory like Rigdon and Smith meeting, Rigdon getting the manuscript, etc.. those auxiliary needs and hypothesis require their own independent evidence in order to justify them.

In science, planetary orbits were long thought to be circular but observations of particular planets conflicted with the theory. "Epicycles" were fallaciously hypothesized to rescue the theory, that is ad hoc rescue. The theory should have been rejected.

The simplest way to understand the wrong use of an ad hoc is that by employing it it doesn't offer us more understanding of a particular historical issue. If we accept the statements of the Spaulding witnesses as historical truth we have much more that we don't understand, who is in the conspiracy, how did it come about, why did it happen, what were the motivations, how did the manuscript get to Joseph, why does Joseph become the main architect of the church, why does Rigdon acquiesce etc... where does the further clearly not Spalding scriptures and theology come from, we simply have to add more conjecture for all of those attempts in order to understand more. If Joseph was a confidence man and he fooled people that whole landscape becomes more understandable. The mistaken connection between the Book of Mormon and the Spalding manuscript is understandable, backed by scientific understanding, independent witnesses and our common understanding people need to believe. This is why your lack of more macro Mormon history causes you problems because you don't see all the ripples that don't make sense when you speculate about possibilities regarding Spalding that don't manifest with Smith Alone.

When I got my history degree every student had to read Dead Certainties from Simon Schama, this is undergraduate work pretty basic and prior to any research courses post-graduate. The historical lessons were many but one of the main ones was the difference between telling a story from the historical evidence and just telling stories, often that can get blurred but being careful to hold a belief in regards to your theory that just isn't speculation is the first and most fundamental lesson to take.

And give me an example in which Dan has used it correctly.

Your simply assuming your version of the ten tribes which isn't justified by historical evidence even if it sounds plausible to you, Dan rightly calls that an ad hoc. Your trick hat idea has no even shallow witness justification, it is simply guessing and rightly called ad hoc by Dan. The bald assertion you make that the Book of Mormon translation witnesses conspired with each other - it isn't based on any independent historical need or evidence - it is just necessary because you can't accept the statements by the Spalding witnesses could be in error. The missing manuscript is an ad hoc by the Spalding witness and a failure to recognize it as one by the present reader.

All of that is OK if your approaching this from the perspective that you do think there is more to the Spalding witnesses than historians that believe and justify the faulty memory give credence to and so your going to gather more justifying evidence - then your ad hoc's are your research vehicles to determine where you should look, the best avenues to pursue to obtain that hopeful evidence - that is what Dale has been telling me when I pressed him a couple years ago regarding how unnecessarily speculative the whole idea is. But you constantly state that the actual evidence supports and is stronger for the Spalding theory than Smith alone and that creates the fallacious use of the ad hocs you employ because the necessity for them is out-weighed and measured up against the need for them given the greater explanatory scope of the Smith alone theory.

Sometimes your use of ad hoc blurs into other fallacies like bald assertions (the Book of Mormon witnesses are liars), or red herrings (the ten tribes) as well as ad hoc rescues.

Dan has beat this to death in clear and succinct ways over and over.

Maybe if you stated the weaknesses you believe the Spalding theory has it would spell out some ad hocs that are attaching to your historical hypothesis.

Where we agree marg is we both want to show that critical thinking shows Joseph Smith to not be what he claimed to be. It is certainly curious why you think those that no longer believe, apostates if your will or critics like Dan have any radically non-objective agenda. Doesn't the fact that non-believing professional historians don't accept the Spalding theory even give you pause?

my regards, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...1) Do you recognize the independent nature of the Book of Mormon translation witnesses
...

I would like to cross-examine those witnesses, before I "recognize"
any particular aspect of their testimony. Since none are today living,
the best I can hope for is to examine any preserved historical sources
which can help me understand who they were and what they did'

If "independent" is taken to mean something like "stand alone" testimony,
I cannot support that idea. I see early Mormonism as a phenomenon
closely approaching that of a cult, in which members' testimony was
influenced (sometimes regimented) by the "counsel" of the topmost
leaders, and sustained by the great majority of Mormons.

I mentioned William Smith and Lucy Mack Smith as two examples --
focusing upon their descriptions of the magic spectacles and the
Nephite breastplate. I do not see their testimony as independent,
one from another, nor as independent from the direction of Joseph
Smith, Jr. Were their testimony truly "independent," then we might
begin to postulate some facts concerning the origin, powers. purpose,
construction, etc. of the spectacles provided by God (?) for the
translation of Nephite reformed Egyptian into English prose.

My provisional conclusion is that there were no such spectacles,
and that William and his mother were liars.

2) Do I understand that you utilize future possibilities (post the witnessing of the translation of the Book of Mormon) of one or others of the Book of Mormon witnesses possible making of extraordinary claims as tainting the ordinary claims they made about the Book of Mormon translation process (past) and that is the historical view you utilize to demand "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" of their witnessing the translation
process?

That is a rather lengthy interrogative. I'll try answer in terms that make
sense to me.

Suppose William Smith said that he arrived in St. Louis on the steamboat
"Memphis Rose," on October 2, 1845. I would consider that an "ordinary"
sort of assertion. It might be truthful or it might be a lie -- but I would
be inclined to look for less confirmatory evidence in that case, than in
a case where William denied his own polygamous career -- or, more to the
point, in a case in which William provided historical assertions related to
the "extraordinary" coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

I am not sure that extraordinary claims always require concomitant
extraordinary confirming evidence -- but I personally do view them
with considerable skepticism. I try and search out additional sources,
to assist me in weighing such testimony in my mind.

Getting back to William, he testified that he possessed firsthand knowledge
of an ostensible miracle wrought under the priesthood administration of the
Prophet James J. Strang. The claims relating that Divine manifestation
were truly extraordinary -- a sort of second Pentecost, mirroring the
biblical 2nd Chapter of Acts. Just because I've come to suspect William
of telling lies, does not immediately incline me to disbelieve William's
testimony in that case. And just because the event was an extraordinary
one, I do not immediately conclude that it did not occur.

But how might I learn better whether William's telling or the story is more
credible than Strang's own explanation?

Since an extraordinary event and extraordinary claims are involved in
this early Mormon event (advent?) -- I try to treat it with greater caution
than I would some mundane recorded occurrence.

I am not inclined to believe either William or Strang -- I consider them both
to have been purposeful deceivers and liars. But they may have now and
then related the truth. I suppose I should make some attempt to discern
the actual facts in such cases.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Resuming my response to your comments of 8 June on the witnesses.

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.

Marg, I want you to be a skeptic, but a good one. How much skeptical literature have you read? I don’t think very much. As you can see from my last post, I quote from a major skeptical publication showing how those who are fooled distort events and make them more miraculous than they actually were. This was the same that I experienced with my friends. You can’t expect the fooled to be accurate in their reporting. Yes, I’m every bit the skeptic that you are, just more sophisticated with more tools in my box.

I also want you to learn historical methodology, so that you know the difference between a firsthand account and a secondhand account written sixty years later. As I pointed out, Whitmer claimed a similar a thing, only his version was less miraculous—nothing that couldn’t be pulled off by natural means. In most accounts, the spelling of words is to proper names. This predictably gets exaggerated in the telling.

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.

A massive conspiracy isn’t the simplest explanation. If they were told what to say, why weren’t they told to tell the spectacles story? Why did they wait so many years to tell the story? Your explanation doesn’t make sense, Marg. It’s an ad hoc conspiracy theory that has no evidence.

Their testimonies are reliable, but not every detail—especially in account written sixty years after the fact. Remember, as I have quoted Gottschalk several times, the historian parses out each detail of a statement. Looking at the spelling issue in all sources, giving preference to firsthand accounts and not being distracted by sixty-year-old reports that are anomalous to the others, the likely explanation is that Joseph Smith corrected the spelling of proper names. A situation may have arisen where Joseph Smith changed something and passed it off as the scribe’s error. Conmen are opportunists. Joseph Smith could have said that the words were not disappearing from the stone while he contemplated a change and the scribe checked and found he had misspelled a word. There were many opportunities for this to have occurred. In other words, there are naturalistic explanations for what appears to be supernatural. Certainly, nothing compels us to rashly conclude Emma was lying as part of a massive conspiracy. None of what I said is an ad hoc theory. First, I’m employing standard historical procedure by give preference to firsthand accounts and viewing an account written sixty years after Emma was interviewed with skepticism. Second, I have drawn on a theory that explains exaggeration in accounts of faked supernaturalism that exists independent of my use of it.

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.

You are reading a sixty-year-old memory of an interview with Emma like it’s a firsthand account. That’s why I give preference to Whitmer’s statements, which are reported closer to when he said them. His firsthand account only mentions the correction of proper names. Regardless, the principle of enhancing the miraculous applies, so there is no justification for accusing Emma of lying as part of a conspiracy.

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 b***s*** 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.

I realize you don’t have the background necessary for assessing these statements. You think it’s a simple matter of knowing how to read. It’s more than that. In a previous post you will find a breakdown of all the statements of Whitmer dealing with the spelling issue. You will see that none of them requires supernatural power to pull off. Yet in his firsthand account, he only mentions the correction of proper names. So if Joseph Smith dictated a sentence and the scribe read back what he had written, Joseph Smith could add, delete, or change a word and pass it off as the scribe’s error. At the same time, he could change the spelling of proper names. Only Briggs’s sixty-year-old account makes this process explicitly miraculous.

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.

I was using Stowell as an example of someone describing Joseph Smith doing something impossible, which you claim is evidence for lying. Now you’re combining it with invested interest. Yet, Stowell was an interested witness, a believer in Smith’s gift and later in his church. At any rate, your criterion for determining Emma was lying is off, as I have already explained many times.

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 have not argued that Emma believed Joseph Smith had supernatural powers therefore she told the truth. That would be circular. My statement was that I have not used ad hoc arguments to defend her against your unfounded accusations that she was a liar. I have argued that her interview with Briggs was reported sixty years after the fact, and that David Whitmer’s more moderate version is probably closer to the truth. That is not ad hoc; it’s standard historical methodology. I have also referred to the principle of exaggeration in cases involving claims of the supernatural. That principle has an independent existence and is not ad hoc.

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.

If you haven’t noticed, I’ve rejected the extraordinary part of Emma’s testimony as either inaccurately reported by Briggs (not Blair; my mistake), or a result of unconscious exaggeration common in reporting such events. That’s skeptical—just not in the way you are used to. Now, you can continue to view the Briggs source polemically, or you can learn how historians and real skeptics view it.

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.

Historians frown on conspiracy theories, especially ones that use conspiracy to explain away multiple independent eyewitness testimony.

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.

No, it’s not apologetic. As you can now see, I have quoted from a major skeptic work to show how people who are fooled exaggerate in such a way as to make it impossible to explain in naturalistic terms. I can’t say how Joseph Smith achieved the illusion, but I can offer naturalistic explanations using the best interpretation of the data, which relegates Briggs’s sixty-year-old memory to a minor position and uses Whitmer’s less miraculous statements.

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.

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?

I misspoke. It was Briggs who interviewed Emma in 1856, but didn’t report it until 1816. Briggs’s account establishes Emma was talking about the head in hat method as early as 1856, but the possibility that some of the details are inaccurate exists.

More tomorrow …

[_marg]

Ok mikwut let's start with the first (pleased refrain from ad homs or as you know I likely won't continue)

You say: "Your simply assuming your version of the ten tribes which isn't justified by historical evidence even if it sounds plausible to you, Dan rightly calls that an ad hoc."

-------------

Evidence/Data:


- Many of the S/R witnesses claimed Spalding’s story was to explain where the Am. Indians came from ..that they descended from the lost tribes and Spalding had them leaving Jerusalem.

- Spalding was a biblical skeptic..as per the note with MSCC..did not believe a God had anything to do with events in Bible, believed Bible was man created.

- Spalding discussed his story with listeners

========================
Counter claim re “lost tribes:

Dan (I believe correct me if I'm wrong Mikwut) says lost tribes story does not entail tribes leaving jerusalem ..per myth it has them leave from North Israel ..head north, travel enmasse to far corners of the world. S/R witnesses likely confused, thought Book of Mormon was a lost tribes story, they would have understood lost tribes story popularized by Ethan Smith in 1823 and onward into 1830’s. Therefore the S/R witnesses are confused at best, lying at worst in order to have their recall jive with their misunderstanding of what the Book of Mormon was about.

My response: Spalding was a biblical skeptic (factually backed up with evidence) who would likely have accepted as historically true being as he studied theology..that Israelite tribes in 720 B.C. were exiled by Assyrians. He would not likely have accepted mythical stories of lost tribes as as historically true.

The S/R witnesses were relating what Spalding wrote, they didn’t get into an explanation of what their understanding was of lost tribes but even so there is no reason to assume they would not appreciate Spalding’s understanding (being as they described that he discussed his story with them) , nor is there evidence to suggest any of them would have bought into the mythical understanding popularized by Ethan Smith. While Ethan Smith's speculation may have been popular with theologians it was not the accepted theory by all in that day.

An understanding of lost tribes does not need to entail anything more than the historical acceptance of North Israelite tribes exiled in 720 B.C. by Assyrians.

And confusion for so many S/R witnesses is not likely nor do they all have reason to lie.
================================

This is not ad hoc fallacy Mikwut is for 2 reasons

#1- Dan’s counter that the S/R witnesses must have all been confused based on his restricted allowable understanding of lost tribes and what he claims everyone must have understood lost tribes to be... is simply not factually warranted..it is his speculation. He can assert all he wants, but he’s speculating on what he thinks the S/R witnesses must have understood and his speculation is for the sole purpose of attempting to dismiss their entire statements as being faulty due to confusion or lying. His argument is weak at best. It’s not likely they are all completely confused nor lying.

I’m not trying to rescue against an argument by Dan which has been well warranted with evidence, I’m countering his speculation adding more reasoning in response to Dan’s poor ...not well warranted argument against the S/R witnesses.

#2 And my response is not irrational

[_marg]

Ok Mikwut I'll address # 2.

You wrote: "Your trick hat idea has no even shallow witness justification, it is simply guessing and rightly called ad hoc by Dan."

Ad hoc fallacy Mikwut is changing the explanation one speculates for a set of facts against counter evidence..in order to rescue the hypothesis.

There is no counter here Mikwut, the say so of Emma who has a vested interest is not reliable evidence nor is the say so of every other individual who had a vested interest ...in support of establishing this new religion/enterprise.

There are 2 hostile witnesses. One was Emma's dad in which Cowdery and Smith carried on their work at a cabin on his property. Emma's dad simply appreciated it was a con...he didn't even bother to try to investigate. On a few occasion he observed the head in the hat ..but there is no reason to assume Cowdery and Smith weren't prepared, that they couldn't see him approaching the cabin as they worked. Hence they could easily put on a show. Why did they leave his property to work at the Whitmers. It's not like they were hounded by anyone..and so what if outsiders were to come and observe.

The other witness Emma's brother in law as well didn't have much exposure and a temporary show could easily have been orchestrated by Cowdery and Smith.

Those 2 hostile witnesses are not good evidence for the translation process.

So what the situation for ad hoc fallacy entails is a shift in burden of proof due to adverse evidence. But no burden of proof with a high degree of probability has been met to establish the claims by Book of Mormon witnesses..none are reliable and provide sufficient reliable evidence to establish their claims.

The ONLY reason I suggested a hat trick was as speculation (and I pointed it out it was speculative) for possible occasions such as with Emma who I thought maybe Smith might not have wanted her too involved and knowing too much and that she herself may not have wanted to know too much.

But I'm not trying to rescue any hypothesis here, I'm simply making a possible suggestion because there is NO explanation that has strong evidence to support it as to how the translation process was carried on.

Cowdery, Smith, Emma, Whitmers, Harris ...none of them are reliable witnesses able to meet a burden of proof to establish with high probablity the claim that Smith put his head in a hat and dictated the Book of Mormon. Claims such as Smith would continue where he stopped off the previous day without review, claims that he didn't review as he dictated..are not highly probable. We know none of the witnesses bothered to mention a Bible, even though one was used. The witnesses are not noted trustworthy witnesses who appeared to objectively evaluate with any significant degree. hey are all quite content to accept the improbable with little to no skepticism/investigation. There is speculation that Smith had an amazing memory, but there is no evidence for that either.

This is using ad hoc fallacy gone wild when there is a mystery involved and one is accused of faulty reasoning(ad hoc fallay) for offering some speculation to solve that mystery. You may not like the idea ..that others don't find the Book of Mormon witnesses credible or reliable. But there are reasons and they are well justified for expecting much better evidence than reliance on the say so ..of those involved in a fraud ...with a vested interest in that fraud.

Under your and Dan's reasoning....detectives of unsolved murder crimes when they try to reason to solve the crime would be doing so fallaciously, commiting ad hoc fallacy and that they should simply accept the say so of all those potentially involved in the crime?

[_Roger]

Wow... so I get busy and the conversation just moves on. Oh well.... I see mikwut is back in the fray....

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

The analogy only goes so far. There's no illusion to someone putting their head in a hat. The illusion would be if that person then rattles off sentences for hours on end, eventually producing 500+ pages of meaningful (but rather dry) content. That's the key question. Was all (or most) of the Book of Mormon content actually produced in this manner? That's the heart of my dispute with Dan on this thread.

But what both you and Dan are failing to account for in analogies to David Copperfield is audience participation. While Copperfield may ask for a volunteer or two, the dynamic is entirely different in cult-leader/devoted followers situation.

In the Copperfield dynamic, you have people who are simply being deceived. They just simply can't figure out what the trick is, but they generally realize there surely must be a trick. The cult-leader dynamic is more involved. More on that in a moment.

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?

Your logic here is simply flawed. It is NOT 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." In fact, the claim is quite extraordinary. People generally don't survive being sawed in half. That is what makes the trick interesting. It is a trick that apparently defies the ordinary. What you're saying, is that those witnesses are simply reporting what they saw--or what they think they saw. I myself am still mystified by a similar trick where a woman goes into a box standing up, you see her face and hands and feet and then her midsection slides completely to one side, hands still waving to the crowd. Then, to solidify the effect, the illusionist runs his hand or a wand or something through the midsection where her body should be. That's a pretty good trick!

But the point is, the claim is extraordinary. It's not at all an ordinary claim. Same thing with the Book of Mormon witnesses. No one disputes that Joseph Smith put his head in a hat and dictated some sentences. But that's not the extraordinary part of the claim. The extraordinary part is that the whole Book of Mormon was allegedly produced that way because God made words show up in a rock. There's nothing ordinary about such a claim. In fact it's so extraordinary that Dan (and I think you) rejects it. He agrees that no words ever appeared in a stone. Therefore, the head in hat routine was simply part of a trick to deceive people. But if deception was indeed going on, what reason is there to take the witnesses at face value?

In the first place, we all agree (except for Glenn) that they were deceived (unless they were part of the deception, in which case we can't believe them!) How accurate is the testimony of deceived people?

Exhibit A:

Deceived Witness: Well... a woman gets sawed into pieces and walks away without a scratch.
Investigator: How did it happen?
Deceived Witness: Well, she gets in a box and the guy saws her up, but she's smiling the whole time.
Investigator: Why wasn't she hurt?
Deceived Witness: The power of God protected her.

And here is where we get back to the key difference here... Joseph Smith's witnesses were not simply innocent, run-of-the-mill witnesses. In that sense they were not merely objective onlookers. They were people who were already open to the idea of miracles. They believed Joseph Smith was a prophet. And they were devoted to the cause he was promoting. They behaved exactly like the devoted followers of Warren Jeffs or Benny Hinn do today. We cannot expect to get the whole truth from such devoted followers. They are, in effect, part of the deception, either wittingly or unwittingly. So if they are

A. legitimately deceived, they can't tell us what was really happening. Or if they were
B. aware of certain information that might prove damaging to the cause, they would not be inclined to share it with the public.

Either way, we are not going to get the whole story.

The glaring flaw in your logic and Dan's is that it assumes people like Cowdery or Whitmer or Harris were merely honest dupes who surely would have honestly reported anything "out of the ordinary."

But that is simply unrealistic. They were highly devoted followers who came in at the beginning and had a deep interest in the cause. You're never going to get the full story from such people unless they become disgruntled--and even then they fall into the Hurlbut or John C. Bennett category where their testimony is rejected because of the fact that they have become disgruntled.

If I want to know the truth about whether Benny Hinn really heals people, I am not going to get to the bottom of it by interviewing only his 2nd in command devoted followers. I am especially not going to hear the truth from those underneath him who want to be like him, or are on his payroll. Either they will be genuinely deceived or they are probably willing to withhold damaging information.

The analogy then, to an audience member, is flawed. A better analogy would be to the woman who actually gets sawed in two. Is she going to tell us what really happened?

So to get back to your question:

So what is the extraordinary claim regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon and from what witness?

The short answer: that words appeared in a stone.

The non-believing witnesses only corroborate the head in hat trick and that Joseph could rattle off a few sentences. In fact the wording of the Badger's tavern testimony makes it sound extremely slow, as though Joseph is speaking one slow word at a time. No one disputes that Joseph employed such a trick. But even Dan acknowledges that not all of the Book of Mormon was produced in this manner.

[_mikwut]

marg,

Your simply repeating yourself, I have read the thread, Dan has clearly answered everyone of your charges. I would just be repeating him, and he is probably clearer than me. Your charge regarding the witnesses is mere opinion because you want to save the Spalding witnesses it is clearly based on a bias you have that isn't necessary and doesn't impugn anyone of being apologetic of Mormonism. It isn't an actual critical evaluation of their statements and the evidence we have, it is hand waving at anything that contradicts the S/R theory. It ignores extensive evidence Dan has posted showing the time periods of the statements, context and independent nature of the statements. It doesn't get much historically better than that, the amount of things in history, not just the Book of Mormon production that would thrown out using your reasoning would be mind boggling - all one has to say is there not objective, their not critical objective thinkers to anyone.

Under your and Dan's reasoning....detectives of unsolved murder crimes when they try to reason to solve the crime would be doing so fallaciously, commiting ad hoc fallacy and that they should simply accept the say so of all those potentially involved in the crime?

I clearly laid out for you why that is simply not true. The Detective would be researching possibilities for who committed the crime. What you having a hard time with is rejecting theories once detective work has already been done.

my regards, mikwut

[_mikwut]

Hi Roger,

Quote:
So what is the extraordinary claim regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon and from what witness?

The short answer: that words appeared in a stone.

Which witness makes the claim that they witnessed the words appear in a stone rather than simply taking J.S. word for it?

mikwut

[_GlennThigpen]

The analogy only goes so far. There's no illusion to someone putting their head in a hat. The illusion would be if that person then rattles off sentences for hours on end, eventually producing 500+ pages of meaningful (but rather dry) content. That's the key question. Was all (or most) of the Book of Mormon content actually produced in this manner? That's the heart of my dispute with Dan on this thread.

But what both you and Dan are failing to account for in analogies to David Copperfield is audience participation. While Copperfield may ask for a volunteer or two, the dynamic is entirely different in cult-leader/devoted followers situation.

In the Copperfield dynamic, you have people who are simply being deceived. They just simply can't figure out what the trick is, but they generally realize there surely must be a trick. The cult-leader dynamic is more involved. More on that in a moment.

Roger, that is the point. The Copperfield witnesses are being deceived by an illusion. However, they are reporting what they and ever how many others in the audience saw. Their report is accurate about what they saw. The only difference from Dan's and mikwut's point of view (not mine) is that the witnesses were being duped by an expert conman and did not know they were being deceived. The witnesses reports are accurate about what they actually saw. None of them actually reported that they saw the words appear in the stone. That would have been inconsistent and impossible if Joseph had it concealed from their sight. The reports about the words appearing in the stone had to come from Joseph, or something that they inferred. Either way, that is not direct, eyewitness knowledge. The report of Joseph with his head in a hat dictating the words is direct eyewitness reporting made by several different witnesses independently, at several points in their lives.

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?

Your logic here is simply flawed. It is NOT 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." In fact, the claim is quite extraordinary. People generally don't survive being sawed in half. That is what makes the trick interesting. It is a trick that apparently defies the ordinary. What you're saying, is that those witnesses are simply reporting what they saw--or what they think they saw. I myself am still mystified by a similar trick where a woman goes into a box standing up, you see her face and hands and feet and then her midsection slides completely to one side, hands still waving to the crowd. Then, to solidify the effect, the illusionist runs his hand or a wand or something through the midsection where her body should be. That's a pretty good trick!

But the point is, the claim is extraordinary. It's not at all an ordinary claim. Same thing with the Book of Mormon witnesses. No one disputes that Joseph Smith put his head in a hat and dictated some sentences. But that's not the extraordinary part of the claim. The extraordinary part is that the whole Book of Mormon was allegedly produced that way because God made words show up in a rock. There's nothing ordinary about such a claim. In fact it's so extraordinary that Dan (and I think you) rejects it. He agrees that no words ever appeared in a stone. Therefore, the head in hat routine was simply part of a trick to deceive people. But if deception was indeed going on, what reason is there to take the witnesses at face value?

Do you take it at face value that several people, maybe a hundred say they witnessed David Copperfield saw a woman in half, then later put her back together, or do you question that what they reported is reality? Does the fact that a person who saw David C do such a feat lessen their reliability as a witness? Even if any one of those witnesses actually believed it happened?

In the first place, we all agree (except for Glenn) that they were deceived (unless they were part of the deception, in which case we can't believe them!) How accurate is the testimony of deceived people?

Exhibit A:

Deceived Witness: Well... a woman gets sawed into pieces and walks away without a scratch.
Investigator: How did it happen?
Deceived Witness: Well, she gets in a box and the guy saws her up, but she's smiling the whole time.
Investigator: Why wasn't she hurt?
Deceived Witness: The power of God protected her.

And here is where we get back to the key difference here... Joseph Smith's witnesses were not simply innocent, run-of-the-mill witnesses. In that sense they were not merely objective onlookers. They were people who were already open to the idea of miracles. They believed Joseph Smith was a prophet. And they were devoted to the cause he was promoting. They behaved exactly like the devoted followers of Warren Jeffs or Benny Hinn do today. We cannot expect to get the whole truth from such devoted followers. They are, in effect, part of the deception, either wittingly or unwittingly. So if they are

A. legitimately deceived, they can't tell us what was really happening. Or if they were
B. aware of certain information that might prove damaging to the cause, they would not be inclined to share it with the public.

Either way, we are not going to get the whole story.

Even if you feel that you are not getting all of the story. If you feel that there was no miracle, it does not mean that there was a conspiracy. It only means that the witnesses were reporting what they saw and were told. Is the person conned unreliable because he or she was conned? I have yet to see any evidence produced that those witnesses were part of a conspiracy.

The glaring flaw in your logic and Dan's is that it assumes people like Cowdery or Whitmer or Harris were merely honest dupes who surely would have honestly reported anything "out of the ordinary."

But that is simply unrealistic. They were highly devoted followers who came in at the beginning and had a deep interest in the cause. You're never going to get the full story from such people unless they become disgruntled--and even then they fall into the Hurlbut or John C. Bennett category where their testimony is rejected because of the fact that they have become disgruntled.

Why is it unrealistic? Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris all became disgruntled. They all were excommunicated. Oliver and Harris came back into the church after years of separation. They were all known and respected as honest, reputable men in their respective secular communities.
Hurlbut nor John C. Bennett enjoyed such a reputation.
Now, if you could produce some evidence for a conspiracy other than your beliefs. The S/R theory is beginning to sound more like a religion all of the time. <grin>

Glenn