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

[_Roger]

Glenn:

I do not know just what you are proposing then.

And I can't help but think the reason for that is that you (and Dan and Mikwut) are not paying attention to what I have been saying, but instead have been superimposing your own concept of what you think I ought to be saying. It's not like what I am saying is new. I've been saying it for many pages now.

All of the witnesses participated in some kind of coverup of the actual provenance of the Book of Mormon and the method that it was translated, knowing that what they were saying was not true.

No. I did not say that. Which then makes this completely erroneous:

Yet they did not believe or realize they were participating in a fraud? Conspiracy, fraud, scam, it would all amount to the same thing, no matter what label you try to give it.

Yes, in your mind--your box--that all equates and makes complete sense. In the box you want to squeeze us into, that's how simple it is.

So Glenn, if we were to interview the devoted followers of Warren Jeffs (who sits in prison for participating in and encouraging underage relationships)--those at the highest levels in his organization--are you going to believe everything they say? Are you going to conclude that they are telling us everything they know and not withholding any facts that might do damage to the cause they are highly devoted to? In short, do you think we'd get the full story about Warren's involvement with underage girls from his loyal followers? And especially from those at the highest levels?

If a person were a devoted follower of Warren Jeffs, they would probably tell the world that Jeffs was a prophet of God and that God had commanded him to do what he did.

If any of that group stated that they had witnessed Jeffs dictating a book using some unusual artifact which Jeffs kept hidden from their view but said that it was an oracle from God, I could believe them, if they produced the book. I would not necessarily believe that Jeffs indeed translated anything with such an oracle, but I couls believe that they saw and heard Jeffs dictate using his unusual method.

Alright we're making slow progress. Why would you "not necessarily believe that Jeffs indeed translated anything with such an oracle"? For all you know, these are honest people. They seem nice and polite. You are already choosing to believe them when they produce a book and tell you how it was produced. Why would you draw the line then and not believe the rest of what they tell you?

If any became disgruntled, or disillusioned, I would some of them to lash out at Jeffs, and if they had observed Jeffs participating in a fraud, they would tell the tale, pointing all of the blame on Jeffs.

Really? Even if doing so would also expose their own participation in the fraud and cover-up? Even if doing so would mean their own testimony is untrustworthy? It's sort of like Anthony Weiner saying, well I lied before but I'm telling the truth now. How do we know what to believe? So there is a lot to lose by admitting your previous guilt in a fraud. BUT you need to realize that I am using this "fraud" terminology for your benefit, because you are thinking of it in terms of "fraud." THEY would not have thought of it as fraud. So they would not even have had to come to the point where they consciously think to themselves: I can't ever admit I participated in a fraud. It would never come to that since in their mind, there never was any fraud, hence, no need to come clean and/or expose Jeffs/Joseph Smith.

Coincidentally there were several of the witnesses who did become disgruntled and never returned to the church, yet affirmed even on their deathbeds that the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon that they had told all their lives was true.
Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, John Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon (although not a witness) all were excommunicated.
Any of those people could have become famous, maybe even rich by producing an exposition of that process. There are some who have benefited financially by writing such sensational books and pamphlets.

Of that group, the only ones who were in a position to know more than they admitted, were Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Ridgon. Possibly Whitmer, but I think he was probably a dupe.

Rigdon, of course is a unique situation in that while, as you say, he was not a Book of Mormon witness, he made wild claims like pretending to know what was in the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon and in fact even producing a revelation exposing what was in it. The fact that Rigdon did these kinds of things gives us "conspiracy theorists" plenty of ammo.

For Cowdery it is obvious he knew more than he admits. Like Emma, he never publicly acknowledges polygamy. Dan speculates that he copied the Bible for Smith inserting the changes Joseph had made. But he never acknowledges doing so. Instead he implies that he was there to record it all as it fell from the prophet's lips. No mention of a Bible--to the point where you, a loyal LDS, even wonder whether a Bible was actually used or not.

It was certainly not in the interest of these men to acknowledge what they knew (but had not previously mentioned) about the Book of Mormon production. Joseph Smith even publicly reinforced that by refusing to give details even when asked by Hyrum to do so. In the first place, after excommunication their lives could be in danger. In the second place it ruins their credibility, just like Anthony Weiner now has zero credibility even though he might now be telling the truth. And in the third place it ruins any chance of capitalizing on this in any way in the future--which Rigdon clearly attempted to do. In the fourth place, I am convinced they never thought of it as fraud to begin with. Like Dan says, if Joseph asks Cowdery to copy the Bible with the changes he's made to the text by revelation, then in Cowdery's mind there is no fraud to cover-up. It's just not pertinent information that the public needs to know, because it might confuse the public who do not understand that this truly is a work of God. In exactly the same way, the public has no need to know about manuscript pages coming from Rigdon or any other source, since it would only serve to confuse the public about the genuine work of God in the Book of Mormon.

Now please provide your evidence that any of the witnesses lied about the method of translation.

We've just been over Emma Smith as a classic example. What she described could not have happened unless God was actively participating. That works for you, but not for me or Dan. So Dan concludes she was embellishing. He stops short of actually saying she was lying, but what difference is there? She was lying, plain and simple. Here is what Dan's source--that he cited in support of his position on Emma--says... that they:

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.

This is exactly what Emma was doing. Dan just seems to think she did this unwittingly or unconsciously(!) Nonsense. She was lying, plain and simple.

The case of Oliver is more subtle. He lies more by omission. A Bible was used and yet he never mentions it and implies otherwise. He makes up stories about seeing angels to support the cause.

But again, in terms of method of translation that was to be given out to the public, I do not think they are lying when they say Joseph put his head in a hat and rattled off a few sentences. The lie is more subtlely located in the implication that the whole thing was produced that way.

[_GlennThigpen]

Now please provide your evidence that any of the witnesses lied about the method of translation.

We've just been over Emma Smith as a classic example. What she described could not have happened unless God was actively participating. That works for you, but not for me or Dan. So Dan concludes she was embellishing. He stops short of actually saying she was lying, but what difference is there? She was lying, plain and simple. Here is what Dan's source--that he cited in support of his position on Emma--says... that they:

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.

This is exactly what Emma was doing. Dan just seems to think she did this unwittingly or unconsciously(!) Nonsense. She was lying, plain and simple.

The case of Oliver is more subtle. He lies more by omission. A Bible was used and yet he never mentions it and implies otherwise. He makes up stories about seeing angels to support the cause.

But again, in terms of method of translation that was to be given out to the public, I do not think they are lying when they say Joseph put his head in a hat and rattled off a few sentences. The lie is more subtlely located in the implication that the whole thing was produced that way.

Roger, you have explained nothing nor produced any evidence that Emma was lying. Her statements are consistent with the statements of the other witnesses. You have produced no evidence that Davis Whitmer was different as a witness than Emma but are asserting that he was a dupe while Emma was lying. You have not shown where Emma added any details, omitted, or changed any details.

You have no evidence that Oliver lied about a Bible. There are those who believe a Bible was used, but that has not been established as a fact. You have no evidence that Oliver was lying about seeing an angel. You may not believe that he saw one, but he and several other witnesses really believed that they had seen one. They all could have been lying, or they all could have been having a hallucination, or they could have actually seen an angel.

However, the observed method of translation has none of the supernatural. That is, Joseph put his head in a hat and dictated the contents of the Book of Mormon to the scribes. That scene has been repeated by several witnesses, some unfriendly. David Whitmer, whom you think was a dupe, testified to the same type of translation process that Emma and the other witnesses, testified to.

Now, please produce some evidence, not beliefs, that Emma was lying or that any of the other witnesses were lying. Please present some evidence that Joseph had some type of manuscript from which he dictated the Book of Mormon. You have to get to first base first. But I have to admit, you are good at hitting fouls.
(Do I need a smiley there?)

Glenn

[_marg]

You insisted that Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes despite its explicit denial with the following irrational arguments:

a. Passages in Book of Mormon stating ten tribes in a northern region were added by Smith or Rigdon.

b. Lehi’s belonging to the tribe of Joseph is good enough to identify the American Indian with the ten tribes.

I insisted that the Book of Mormon was about the 10 tribes? That thought never occurred to me Dan. I'd have to know what the 10 tribes story was about to think the Book of Mormon was about that. I was being told from the beginning I believe by Glenn that the Book of Mormon was not about the 10 tribes. I wasn't going to argue that it was if I didn't know what the 10 tribes story entailed. So I looked into what the 10 tribes was about.

Yes! You did it to make the Spalding witnesses testimony conform to the Book of Mormon and not appear to be a mistake.

NO I DID NOT!!!!!!

As I said the thought that the Book of Mormon was about the 10 lost tribes NEVER occurred to me. So no I DID NOT SAY what you erroneously insist I said.


With regards (a) to again I did not say what you claim I have said

I NEVER stated "10 tribes in northern region added by smith and Ridgon" ..what I said was that the few mentions of lost tribes living elsewhere (than America) in the Book of Mormon (which Glenn pointed out to me) could have been easily added.

With regards to (b) that is sort of the gist of what I said but I'll give you what I actually said...on March 17..in the early stages when I was learning about this issue

Glenn said: "No one has explained why just about all of the witnesses (except Nahum Howard) said that the Book of Mormon, the 1830 edition which they supposedly read, was in the historical respects, almost identical to the Book of Mormon, but one cannot find the lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon."

And I responded : " You forget the witnesses had discussions with Spalding about what MF was about. In addition although not explicitly stated within an alledged historical account, one can appreciate that the Book of Mormon 's characters Lehi and Nephi are from the "lost tribes" ...Joseph's tribe."

So I'm not saying that the S/R witnesses would have noticed that Lehi was connected by blood line to a lost tribe. What I'm saying is that although Glenn says the Book of Mormon has no lost tribe's story ..there is in fact a link to the lost tribes via Lehi, which is essentially what the S/R witnesses claimed spalding wrote about...he was linking them to the lost tribes by blood line.



And I still think that Lehi is a descendant from the “lost tribes”..Joseph's tribe or Manasseh..and therefore Lehi serves as a bloodline to the lost tribes.

With regards to your comment to me that "You did it to make the Spalding witnesses testimony conform to the Book of Mormon and not appear to be a mistake."

No Dan once again you are wrong. I believe the S/R witnesses truly accurately remembered what they said, that Spalding wrote his story to explain the moundbuilders and Am. inds were ancestors of the "lost tribes". I reject your restricted notion of lost tribes as having to entail the myth and believed literally by everyone back in Spalding's day including Spalding. I reject that the witnesses by mentioning lost tribes ...as per Spalding ..thought they were inferring the myth.

I think Spalding was well aware of the lost tribe myth and used it as a focal point to tie the Am ind and moundbuilders to..in order to give them an ancient time and place from which he could say they originated from. But I do not think he bought into the religiously motivated myth..I think he appreciated "Lost tribes" of 720 B.C. as a historical fact..and lost to history after exile.

Since the Book of Mormon doesn't mention lost tribes except a few times and that they lived elsewhere and since as Glenn points out they said that Spalding's story on the historical parts had been used in the Book of Mormon ..there is no reason for the S/R witnesses to have mentioned lost tribes in connection with the Book of Mormon.

What you are accusing them of is essentially lying...because there is no reason for them to be confused. But you don't want to say they are lying because that would mean you have a conspiracy theory going on..and you don't want that because that's one of your arguments against S/R proponents...that you think a conspiracy of Smith and company unlikely.

Well a conspiracy is quite likely for Smith and co, they were connected to one another and had something to gain, it isn't likely for the S/R witnesses and they were not all connected to one another and they had nothing to gain.

I would appreciate that if I tell you I didn't say something that you don't insist I did ..unless you are willing to back it up.

[_marg]

Now, please produce some evidence, not beliefs, that Emma was lying or that any of the other witnesses were lying.

The explanation is in this post: viewtopic.php?p=465561#p465561

Please present some evidence that Joseph had some type of manuscript from which he dictated the Book of Mormon.

See the discussion in this entire thread in which because there is no objectively verifiable evidence...one has to apply critical thinking to evaluate the claims made ....and the data.

You have to get to first base first. But I have to admit, you are good at hitting fouls.
(Do I need a smiley there?)

Your suggestion of smiley comes across as arrogance and in my opinion is a stupid comment. You think your religious beliefs are well grounded in evidence? Really? No theory has yet met a burden of proof...there are problems with each theory. The S/R explains the evidence the best but it's extremely complicated with so much data that a person inquiring would have a difficult time appreciating it. The Smith alone dismisses a good chunk of data which it shouldn't. It is highly biased and selective in how it evaluates evidence..but this reflects its proponents. They appear to rely on applying a much higher standard of critical evaluation of the S/R witnesses than for the Book of Mormon witnessses and yet that is not justified and should be the reverse.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

You're starting to avoid my questions. We've already adequately demonstrated that Emma was lying unless God was an active participant and, for a host of reasons, we've ruled that out. If you want to have the debate about whether God was involved in the Book of Mormon translation process then we will need to talk about things like non-existent Nephite artifacts, plates, cities, language, anachronisms, etc. I've already concluded (and Dan agrees) that God was not involved and deception was being employed. Therefore Emma cannot have been telling the truth. You want me to go back to square one where God is a possibility in the Book of Mormon translation process and I'm already beyond that. So if God was not involved then Emma was lying.

And by the same logic so was Oliver--although Dan may think he was hallucinating or something, but I see that as an extremely unlikely possibility.

Please present some evidence that Joseph had some type of manuscript from which he dictated the Book of Mormon. You have to get to first base first. But I have to admit, you are good at hitting fouls.

I'll answer this, but I would appreciate an answer to my questions.

There is evidence that the King James Bible was plagiarized. David Wright makes a compelling case that the Book of Mormon text reacts to the italic words in the KJVB. I think his analysis and conclusion is spot on, with the exception that he thinks Joseph Smith was the one doing the reacting and I think it was likely someone else. Regardless, if the KJVB was plagiarized, none of your star witnesses ever acknowledged it. In fact, the strong implication is that every word came from Joseph's lips as he buried his head in his hat with nothing from which to borrow material. You know this is true, because you yourself are skeptical that a Bible was even used. You want to believe that everything came from the head in hat, precisely because that is what the Book of Mormon witnesses want you to believe. They do not want you to think that a Bible might have been used. Because if you start thinking along those lines, then you might figure out that other materials were also used. So, good TBM that you are, you are hesitant to think that anything was used. But the evidence is pretty overwhelming for a Bible. Even Dan admits that.

But no Bible was EVER acknowledged. So either the Bible copying was done in secret or in front of witnesses who agreed not to admit it. If a Bible was copied but never acknowledged anything could have been copied but never acknowledged. Dan's arguments against this logic and his attempt to discredit it is simply not valid.

Further evidence for dependence on a manuscript comes in the form of parallels between the Book of Mormon and Spalding's extant ms. which we've discussed before. Some of the most noteworthy involve the ridiculous battle parallels. Additional evidence can be found in the discovery narrative parallels.

The evidence exists. I can't help it if you refuse to accept it. That is not my responsibility.

Now, please answer my questions....

Let's go back to Dales chart. Have you figured out a way to interpret the data in that chart yet?

And there's this:

Why would you "not necessarily believe that Jeffs indeed translated anything with such an oracle"? For all you know, these are honest people. They seem nice and polite. You are already choosing to believe them when they produce a book and tell you how it was produced. Why would you draw the line then and not believe the rest of what they tell you?

You made the statement that you would be selective in what you choose to believe. I want to know why. What is your criteria?

[_marg]

Post reference: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=469068#p469068


Dan writes: 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
Quote:
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.


Roger responds: Bingo! The quote you site makes our point. In that case the "sitters" were consistently omitting crucial details, adding others, changing the order of events, and otherwise supplying reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means. They were therefore, in effect, acting as PR agents for the alleged supernatural claims. The inescapable conclusion is that their testimony is not reliable precisely because it "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."


You hit the nail on the head Roger. Dan cited a source and that source found that people tricked such as how Dan conjectures Smith did, provided unreliable statements of what happened.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

We've just been over Emma Smith as a classic example. What she described could not have happened unless God was actively participating. That works for you, but not for me or Dan. So Dan concludes she was embellishing. He stops short of actually saying she was lying, but what difference is there? She was lying, plain and simple. Here is what Dan's source--that he cited in support of his position on Emma--says... that they:

“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.”

This is exactly what Emma was doing. Dan just seems to think she did this unwittingly or unconsciously(!) Nonsense. She was lying, plain and simple.

You take the cake! You won’t accept my evidence the way it was intended, but you get to use it in any way you want, even if it’s out of context. Like I’ve been saying all along--you are a disingenuous polemicist. Mr. Slam-Dunk!

[_Roger]

Dan:

I’ve been here the whole time, and you are not making any sense to me either, although I know why. Mikwut might know why too, but he pressing you to pick an interpretation. You tend to stay in the vague area because you are trying to play both sides of the honest dupes and intentional conspirators of the debate.

I love how you have no qualms about simply proclaiming what you think am trying to do and that you "know why" (while, ironically, not making sense to you!) but would certainly cry foul were the tables turned and I was to make such a brash pronouncement about knowing why you do what you do. Shall we try it? It might be fun... I think you do what you do because you are a former Mormon and you still want to think the best about early Mormons. Okay, so my "think" is not as forceful as your claim to knowledge, but I don't yet feel comfortable asserting such god-like qualities for myself. Maybe I'm still progressing toward divinity while you're almost there.

At least you're consistent in that regard since I also remember you claiming to know the extent of my knowledge earlier on this thread. Perhaps you have a testimony of my knowledge and that enables you to "know why" I do what I do. This sort of tactic used to surprise me coming from you. Now I simply see it as par for the course.

At one time you advocated the trick-hat theory, even going into elaborate speculations about how Smith and Cowdery worked upstairs and would only pull the hat out when someone knocked at the door.

And nothing has changed. Although I never "advocated" a "trick-hat theory" I certainly think deception was employed in some as yet unexplained manner which could certainly include the hat. Or have you now figured out how Smith deceived people?

The problem is that you are trying to escape the conspiracy problem while having a conspiracy problem.

Not really. The problem is that I refuse to stay in your pre-defined conspiracy box.

You are trying to avoid all the complexity and self-refuting implications that goes along with that conclusion. Try as you may, you can’t avoid it. Your theory will deconstruct under its own weight.

On the contrary. You're trying to superimpose unnecessary complexity and illegitimate implications when there is no warrant for doing so.

What is not clear is what the above is supposed to be saying. The "secular world followers of Warren Jeff's..." ??? What is that supposed to mean? Warren Jeffs' devoted followers are anything but secular.

I am repeating myself once again for your benefit... pay attention. No one disputes that Joseph put his head in a hat and rattled off sentences--not even me. Clear enough?

This is only true for some, but not others. Only those you can’t explain away except by including them in your conspiracy. That’s why it’s ad hoc. You use it only when defending your cherished theory. And you don’t when you think you can explain it as a dupe who saw the trick-hat routine.

You seem to resent the fact that I defend a certain Book of Mormon production theory. I don't understand why that is. Regardless, I don't see how your response actually responds to what I stated. Only true for some but not others? So? That's the way the real world works. It's messy. Things don't always fall in neat black and white divisions. There is variety in the level of participation and knowledge in the various Book of Mormon witnesses.

His loyal followers are not going to tell us the whole story. Why? Precisely because they believe in the cause and do not want to damage it. Dan and I agree that deception was occurring at some level--although we do not know the exact extent or how it worked. Dan and I part ways when he claims the deception was exclusively employed by Joseph Smith, but his loyal followers were simply gullible, lovable, believable, honest, accurate, thorough, unbiased reporters who would tell us everything they know whether it damages the cause or not.

You are assuming what you are trying to prove.

Sometimes I really wish Shades would allow the rolling eyes icon.

Nonsense. I have observed firsthand--as can anyone--the same type of behavior in religious groups. Beyond that it is simply common sense. To argue against it is simply mindblowing.

You are assuming they have secret information that they’re withholding.

Wrong. I am saying if they were privy to information damaging to the cause we should not expect them to be forthcoming about it. Then I am pointing out that:

A. no one ever mentioned the use of a Bible and

B. acknowledging the use of a Bible would have done damage to the cause

You, on the other hand, attribute their silence to the fact that no one (apparently) ever asked, but, you are forced to conclude that they surely would have admitted it if someone would only have asked. That assumption is faulty because it is based on the premise that biased, devoted followers who are heavily invested in the cause would have revealed information damaging to the cause. They would not.

That’s what’s at dispute here. You have the burden to impeach their testimony. If they were so loyal they have an odd way of showing it. I guess they didn’t get Joseph Smith’s memo that the seer stone in the hat was out and the spectacles were in.

They might not. The specific reluctance to acknowledge the stone apparently came later, whereas Joseph was never very forthcoming about anything specific having to do with the translation.

And their testimony is being impeached. You have even contributed to that yourself both in writing an essay in which you blame reporters for "apparent contradictions" and again when you cited a source that correctly points out that even honest dupes "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."

Given that, what reason is there to believe anything the Book of Mormon witnesses tell us that is not corroborated by outside sources?

This quote doesn’t have anything to do with conspiracy.

Fine! All the more reason not to take the Book of Mormon witnesses at their word! For surely the results would be even worse if they were actively trying to cover something up!

Those tested are trying to be as complete and truthful as possible. But they were drawing on faulty memories due to the distortion in observation. Your attempt to adapt to both sides, evident here, is what is confusing Mikwut and Glenn. You’re not as clever as you think.

Well I never claimed to be clever and that's not what this discussion is about. You cited a source that profoundly makes my argument. I couldn't agree more with the source you yourself cited. It has nothing to do with my level of cleverness.

Thinking that they are giving us the whole truth and objectively reporting what they saw without embellishing or leaving out damaging details is, again, naïve.

Who’s doing that? I used the above source to explain how Emma may have exaggerated the miraculous aspect of her testimony. Regardless, the central theme of head in hat translation is consistent and troublesome for whatever version of conspiracy theory you want to advance. You haven’t disguised your theory well enough that no one can see it.

...so as I was checking this post I noticed you had posted this in the interim:

You take the cake! You won’t accept my evidence the way it was intended, but you get to use it in any way you want, even if it’s out of context. Like I’ve been saying all along--you are a disingenuous polemicist. Mr. Slam-Dunk!

Which makes what I had already written about this all the more poignant:

LOL. You cite a source but then you want to retain authority to decide how far it's implications can be taken! It can only be used to "explain how Emma may have exaggerated the miraculous aspect of her testimony." (!) But let's don't go crazy with the quote!

*roll eyes*

I wrote the above before I saw your latest post. Now, as if to confirm the above, you state that I should just accept your evidence "the way it was intended," (!) And yet I'm the one who takes the cake!

*roll eyes*

The horse is out of the barn and its not coming back, Dan. I could not agree more that even honest dupes consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means.

Therefore, we must approach their testimony cautiously and with a healthy degree of skepticism. But you don't do that. You just take them at their word, no questions asked. You must not have realized that's where the logic of your quote ends up so now you are attempting damage control by somehow asserting that only you have the authority to determine how the quote was intended and that using it in a way you did not intend is somehow unfair. Obviously you did not intend the negative backlash, but that's hardly my fault.

And it gets worse since if they are not simply honest dupes but actually have a vested interest in the cause, then we can expect all of the above to an even higher and probably more sophisticated degree.

The séance leader was using tricks, possibly a confederate (I don’t know), but none of the people who were being tested were in a conspiracy.

Again, all the more reason not to trust the Book of Mormon witnesses.

I don’t know what you see in Jeffs or Hinn, but generally an analogy is supposed to help us understand your theory better—so far, you are not succeeding. Frankly, I think you are playing games with us—trying to minimize your exposure to the problems of conspiracy, which you can’t defend without inventing ad hocs.

Well you can think whatever you want. It's certainly an improvement over alleging that you know.

What I see in Jeffs or Hinn are charismatic leaders who have control over a group of people who are fanatically devoted to a cause involving religious belief. These men are then seen as having authority because they speak for God. And they reinforce, and to a certain extent reshape, the pre-existing religious beliefs. They are analogous to Joseph Smith and the hold he had on his followers although probably to a lesser degree than Joseph did. So we can easily expect the same kind of devotion (and resulting behavior) from Smith's loyal followers as we can simply observe today from the followers of Jeffs or Hinn.

If you have people who know Joseph Smith isn’t really translating but is reading a MS, and later they lie about it, then you have a conspiracy.

Not really. Not any more than we could accuse Jeffs' followers of conspiracy for defending their prophet through lying for the Lord. In that sense, they're part of a "conspiracy" just by joining (or being born into!) the group. If such actions taken in defense of a religious cause constitute a "conspiracy" then so be it, but it's not the kind of back-room conspiracy to commit fraud that you want to use pejoratively against S/R. Rather, it's the kind of "conspiracy" that happens all the time whenever a religious fanatic defends the cause by omitting damaging information. The same dynamic, for example, that allowed certain Catholic leaders to look the other way in the face of sexual misconduct charges a few years ago until pressure became too great to continue to ignore. That's the kind of dynamic I'm talking about here and I think conspiracy is not the proper word to describe it.

[_mikwut]

Hello Roger,

mikwut wrote:
Roger,

Can you be more clear please? If the Book of Mormon witnesses describe events that in fact did not happen (J.S. put his head in a hat etc..) and historians according to you should simply not accept or construct history based on their testimony. Testimony they independently in geography and time related similar mundane descriptive facts regarding. Are you then saying they are not telling us the truth and they are not part of any conspiracy as well? If so please clearly state what you mean, because analogizing them to generationally indoctrinated and isolated from the secular world followers of Warren Jeff's is simply not clear.

And you responded,

It appears you might be popping in an out without actually reading much or taking the time to understand the point. I have made quite a few posts in this conversation and have clearly stated what I believe with regard to the Book of Mormon witnesses on many occasions. My last post to Glenn is just one example.

I have read the entire thread Roger, every last word of your posts. I am all the dumber for having done so. Your idea of clearly presenting your evidence, historical claim and idea regarding the S/R theory is anything but clear, my post was simply asking you to be more clear. I don't know how your ideas save you from a conspiracy - I asked for clarification. I am sorry if my post was not clear, but make no mistake you are not making a concise and meaningful evidential assertion of a historical theory your advocating, your just playing moving the goalposts and OH contrare! to nearly everything Dan says. Which by the way, Dan's position is based on evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened based on the evidence we have.

I said,

Quote:
If the Book of Mormon witnesses describe events that in fact did not happen (J.S. put his head in a hat etc..) and historians according to you should simply not accept or construct history based on their testimony.

You responded,

You do this sort of thing a lot and I can only conclude it's because you are distracted and not really paying attention. The above is not even a complete sentence, so it's hard to know what point you're driving at or what question you have in mind. To make matters worse, you misrepresent my position--whether intentionally or because you are distracted, I don't know, but the effect is the same. I have never said that Joseph did not put his head in a hat and rattle off sentences. Quite the opposite, I have repeatedly said that that is not in dispute. That you would imply otherwise is an indication of something... either you're grossly misunderstanding what I have been saying or you're twisting it.

I am asking for clarity of your previous posts if you accept the witnesses statements for what they are then fair enough. Part of the problem is your not providing a stated claim regarding the S/R theory, your just saying in the most of general ways that it is the best theory. What your really saying is that one out of a many possibilities of the S/R theory is the best theory. But, your still left to move and morph it at your pleasure because your background is only known to you and not actually presented until Dan presents contrary evidence, then you move as you see fit.

I said,

Quote:
Testimony they independently in geography and time related similar mundane descriptive facts regarding. Are you then saying they are not telling us the truth and they are not part of any conspiracy as well? If so please clearly state what you mean, because analogizing them to generationally indoctrinated and isolated from the secular world followers of Warren Jeff's is simply not clear.

You responded,

What is not clear is what the above is supposed to be saying. The "secular world followers of Warren Jeff's..." ??? What is that supposed to mean? Warren Jeffs' devoted followers are anything but secular.

Unlike you I am happy to clarify. It was indeed a run on sentence. The adjective 'secular' was intended to describe what the followers of Warren Jeff's were isolated from - namely the secular world. You seem to be saying that if people are dupes to a false leader or con they will unhesitatingly defend the false or supernatural beliefs without even knowing so or without intentionally lying by leaving out relevant information. Something possibly true enough, but not so easily attributed to the particular benign statements the Book of Mormon witnesses make. Because it doesn't make sense of the independent similarity of the content stated yet unknown to the witnesses when they made it. Something that makes me wonder if you have paid attention to Dan's posts. If I understand you, we would expect the witnesses to do what you propose and not be part of a nasty curling their mustaches conspiracy if they just left out somethings we are unaware of. But, we wouldn't expect them to say the same things independently unaware to themselves. That is one of my confusions about what your exactly saying.

I am repeating myself once again for your benefit... pay attention. No one disputes that Joseph put his head in a hat and rattled off sentences--not even me. Clear enough?

Yes.

His loyal followers are not going to tell us the whole story. Why? Precisely because they believe in the cause and do not want to damage it. Dan and I agree that deception was occurring at some level--although we do not know the exact extent or how it worked. Dan and I part ways when he claims the deception was exclusively employed by Joseph Smith, but his loyal followers were simply gullible, lovable, believable, honest, accurate, thorough, unbiased reporters who would tell us everything they know whether it damages the cause or not.

It's amazing your defending yourself from being misunderstood while I am attempting to properly understand you and at the same time your blatantly mischaracterizing Dan.

What evidential value do you think you gain for the S/R theory, that doesn't include guessing, regarding what the Book of Mormon witnesses did not say?

That premise--of Dan's--is quite faulty, and, using a citation he used because he thought it supported his premise exclusively, I have both

1. agreed with the citation that even sincere dupes consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that would make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means and

2. shown that biased believers at the highest levels of an organization they support are all the more more prone to the same thing

such that either way, taking the Book of Mormon witness testimony at face value is simply naïve--except for what is corroborated by outside witnesses, which, as I have stated, is not in dispute.

So we can take the content of what they say as reliable, it is just not complete? Is that fair?
Do you also believe that outside witnesses don't corroborate what they say or just that it isn't corroborated that what they say is complete and absolute for the conclusions Dan makes?

Thinking that they are giving us the whole truth and objectively reporting what they saw without embellishing or leaving out damaging details is, again, naïve.

Of course no one believes we have the "whole truth" in any historical investigation. When you say "leaving out damaging details" I am left to only assume that what you mean is they don't mention something positively evidential for the S/R theory - such as Joseph using the manuscript or something to that effect. But, that is the same thing as lying and deliberately lying because if they did see such a thing and just didn't state it they were doing so in deliberate concealment against the S/R theory that they were making their statements against in the first place. I just don't see how you avoid that or how mentioning that the witnesses leave things out would exonerate them in the context of the S/R theory from involvement in a conspiracy and deliberate deception. How does it provide you any evidence for what your advocating?

Clear enough?

Not yet.

As far as this:
Quote:
and they are not part of any conspiracy as well?

They are not a part of what you, Dan and Glenn think of when you think of a conspiracy. If the devoted followers of Warren Jeffs or Benny Hinn or Dan's cited séance leader are not involved in a "conspiracy," then neither was Oliver, Emma, David, or Martin. All are analogous.

This is confusing whether you like it or not. I am not sure what others mean by conspiracy, it is a rather benign term. Others knew Joseph was utilizing other means than what he stated. It seems your saying their not reliable, they can't be trusted but their not part of a conspiracy at the same time, so I would say their dupes just like Dan is saying but you seem to quibble with that too.

my regards, mikwut

[_marg]

Roger,

My suggestion to you is to ignore Mikwut. His reason for being in this thread is to support Dan by personally attacking those Dan is in discussion with and to use disingenuous rhetorical games in order to prevent this discussion moving forward...as evidenced by his participation so far. The last time I responded to him in which I specifically requested he refrain from personal attacks, and I was giving him a chance to display some intellectual honesty in discussion and focus on issues instead of personal attacks ..he chose to not address my reasoning and instead went straight into a personal attack again. He's not trying to understand you, you've explained yourself extremely well. Rather he's attempting to wear you down in an attempt to prevent the discussion moving forward.