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

[_mikwut]

marg,

Dan can defend himself, Roger can defend himself, you can defend yourself and I can defend myself.

Requesting clarity is what moves discussions forward, the fog you and Roger constantly roam in isn't missed by readers nor your denial of that. Nor your blatant attempt to have ignored salient issues that I have raised since my first post. You can continue to respond or not at your pleasure the content of your posts are what will be judged not your misguided attempts at mind reading of others and defining intellectually dishonest as those that disagree with you.

Good day to you,

mikwut

[_marg]

marg,

Dan can defend himself,

Then why do you constantly pop in to defend him?

Just look in your previous post to Roger as an example

You say, "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.

It should be anyone involved in this thread or reading it who decides whether 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.”

Roger can defend himself, you can defend yourself and I can defend myself.

And people can read and decide for themselves whether or not 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”.

No ones needs your apologetic assertions intended to defend Dan.

Requesting clarity is what moves discussions forward,

Well you have a history in this thread Mikwut of deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve said..and you apparently do that with Roger as in the post you are addressing and quoting him he says

“To make matters worse, you misrepresent my position--whether intentionally or because you are distracted,”

Please see this post of mine (post reference : link which summarizes some of your rhetorical gameplaying, one of which was to accuse me of calling Dan a liar (which I never did). And when Roger wouldn’t agree with you because your intent was to obviously discredit me, you badgered him in one post with a litany of insults. Anyone getting badgered to the extent you did for not agreeing with you might be intimated the next time they didn’t agree with you.

Let’s see in one post ..yes one post alone you wrote

Your terribly wrongheaded and I am showing why.

I am now convinced this is your way of avoiding the substance that you can't answer and burdens you don't face.

Toughen up and fight for your supposed "best fit theory"

if it is such it should be easy without attempting to diverge your burden into personal nonsense or trying to claim your a victim to that

your a victim to your own faulty reasoning and that is all.

if you were sincere in this nonsense your now spouting

and not just using it as a red herring to avoid your burden

then you would have defended Dan like I suggested from marg's ridiculous personal insults that have no basis in reality.

For crying out loud Roger marg straight out has called him dishonest, a liar!

that is a real credibility issue

Even when I confronted you on marg you still attempted to defend it and worm out of it

So I don't believe you, empirically you have shown otherwise and we have 92 pages of a thread and about 3 other long threads where your behavior has been completely opposite of what you now suggest.

you have utilized unnecessary polemics, speculation, non-evidential inferences and the like as if they were evidential and validated.

You have argued with others that know much more than you in an insistent and incorrigible manner.

Rarely if ever do you provide proof in your dialogue that above is what you desire.

We don't see discourse from you such as,… I recognize the weaknesses in my theory"

Third, if someones ego and stubbornness becomes so radical and profound there is nothing to say except that is absurd, that is silly, that is ridiculous and it has to be said Roger, it simply has to be said.

Marg has nuttily shifted

Your taking things personal that aren't there they are simply the outcome of a ridiculous acceptance and a stubborn non-rational argumentation that repeat ad naus. combined with your and marg's egos.

Humility is your prescription sir.

Pointing out and specifically describing ridiculous reasoning is not merely "insulting" just because you or marg's egos are insulted because of how far a field of logic you have allowed yourselves.

No sir! I will not treat you as a child by changing anything I have said to you.

But we can't even have the real discussion you long for and I sure this is Dan't frustration as well. Because your egos.

for the fog you and Roger constantly roam

Another ad hom rhetoric. Let the readers or participants in the thread decide Mikwut, let them think for themselves.

isn't missed by readers nor your denial of that.

Let the readers do their own thinking Mikwut

Nor your blatant attempt to have ignored salient issues that I have raised since my first post.

Let the readers do their thinking Mikwut. And by the way, as if anyone is going to know what the "@#$%^" you said in your first post or my response..sheesh.

You can continue to respond or not at your pleasure the content of your posts are what will be judged not your misguided attempts at mind reading of others and defining intellectually dishonest as those that disagree with you.

I’m suggesting it’s time we ignore you and appreciate you for the type of particpant you are. You are not interesting in moving this discussion forward with intellectual honesty..you are interested in misrepresenting what Roger and I say, in badgering, in discrediting, is wearing Roger down (because I no longer put up with you) ..in short you are one huge disingenuous participant in this discussion with an agenda to use rhetorical means to discredit Dan’s opponents and prevent discussion proceeding with intellectual honesty.

[_GlennThigpen]

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.

Roger, you have not read all of the information on the KJV quotes in the Book of Mormon. I noted in a previous post, there has been a lot more research since Wright's article. That would entail a thread on its own. But the research has shown that Joseph did not change just the italicized words. There are many other instances of changes. Wright just focuses on the italics. I think that if you will check, you will find that only about a third of the quotes were verbatim while there are changes, some major and some minor, in the rest of the quotes.

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.

You have provided a possible answer, that the copying was done in secret, or maybe it was by divine inspiration.

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.

But the MSSC is not the manuscript that the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been plagiarized from. You are trying to straddle a fence.

The evidence exists.

Only in your mind.

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

It is not my problem if you fail to make a case based only on speculation.

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?

I have told you several times, I have not even tried to. Dale has produced a chart of data that has no meaning and for which no one has provided anything except questions. Provide us with something using accepted literary, historical, and/or linguistic tools. then we might have something to talk about.

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?

I have already given you my criteria. I would have to know more about the individuals in question as to how much credence I would give any one of them.
The scenario I gave, of Jeffs dictating a scripture or prophecy using an oracle that he kept hidden from the view of the on lookers, but told them that words appeared in that oracle.
I coulod believe that they saw and heard Jeffs do that dictation. I would not buy into their beliefs that the the words appeared in the oracle. His followers would buy into it as long as they felt or feel Jeffs was or is a prophet.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, you have not read all of the information on the KJV quotes in the Book of Mormon. I noted in a previous post, there has been a lot more research since Wright's article. That would entail a thread on its own. But the research has shown that Joseph did not change just the italicized words. There are many other instances of changes. Wright just focuses on the italics. I think that if you will check, you will find that only about a third of the quotes were verbatim while there are changes, some major and some minor, in the rest of the quotes.

Wright doesn't think the italics were the only things changed. He simply uses the italics as a clear indicator that someone was reacting to the text. It is also true that not every italic word or context was altered but certainly a sufficient amount to conclude that someone was indeed reacting to the italic words--that in itself rules out Nephites. The other changes don't change the fact that someone was reacting specifically to the KJV text. This "someone" seems to have been under the impression that the King James text was a corruption of the original and that the italic words in particular represented obvious textual defects. Such a view was naïve but is apparently the assumption whoever altered the text was operating under.

You have provided a possible answer, that the copying was done in secret, or maybe it was by divine inspiration.

I have ruled out divine inspiration.

But the MSSC is not the manuscript that the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been plagiarized from.

Correct, but that doesn't matter. MSCC was written by the same author and contains a similar subject. That's relevant. One may have been a precursor to the other and some of the ideas in one could have been carried over to the other.

It is not my problem if you fail to make a case based only on speculation.

It's your problem if S/R offers the best explanation of the data but your predisposition to S/D prevents you from acknowledging it. : )

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

I have told you several times, I have not even tried to.

Because you can't. Let's face it, the data in that chart can't be explained by S/A and would need to have some pretty creative apologetics behind it to be explained by S/D. You might want to give the FARMS boys a head's up.

Dale has produced a chart of data that has no meaning and for which no one has provided anything except questions. Provide us with something using accepted literary, historical, and/or linguistic tools. then we might have something to talk about.

Translation: Dale has produced a chart with data that neither I (Glenn) nor Dan can explain, but since it's only one chart (at this point) we can simply claim there's nothing there worth examining and go back to attacking S/R's alleged massive conspiracy.

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?

I have already given you my criteria. I would have to know more about the individuals in question as to how much credence I would give any one of them.
The scenario I gave, of Jeffs dictating a scripture or prophecy using an oracle that he kept hidden from the view of the on lookers, but told them that words appeared in that oracle.
I coulod believe that they saw and heard Jeffs do that dictation. I would not buy into their beliefs that the the words appeared in the oracle. His followers would buy into it as long as they felt or feel Jeffs was or is a prophet.

But your selection appears to be arbitrary based on your bias rather than theirs. You're willing to take them at their word about how the work came to be, but not the miraculous element (presumably because you have your own exclusive miraculous account that would probably not allow for another especially from a competing group that you probably consider a cult). If they are lying about the miraculous, on what basis do you conclude you can trust them on the mundane? Were you there? Did you witness their leader producing the work?

And let's say you can successfully separate the mundane from the miraculous in their accounts, do you think they would go along with such a corruption of their testimonies? Would they agree with your conclusions? No, of course not. So the miraculous elements were put there intentionally--even though you refuse to accept that portion of their accounts--in order to bolster the cause... unless they are actually telling the truth, but you and I agree they are not telling the truth with regard to the miraculous.

You are on very weak ground then, arbitrarily accepting a portion of their account while rejecting other elements. Since you know at least a portion of their accounts are unreliable, you have to justify why you think the rest of it is reliable. The only reason I can think of is that outside (skeptical) observers reported similar observations. But the key is that those outside observers only had limited access and only corroborate the mundane portion of the testimonies.

That is where we are at with the Book of Mormon witness accounts.

[_Roger]

marg wrote:

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.

Exactly. There is no way around that, but, give him credit... Dan is trying to find one.

[_mikwut]

Hello marg,

Then why do you constantly pop in to defend him?

Now your just being silly. I don't "defend" him he does just fine without me. I agree with a great deal of what he writes on this topic. I happen to agree with logically sound analysis, evidence based research and conclusions over speculations and guesses. The opposite reasons for why you "defend" Roger and Dale.

Just look in your previous post to Roger as an example

You say, "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.

It should be anyone involved in this thread or reading it who decides whether 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.”

Right, I said the same thing remember. Roger was, and still is, attempting to hide from my questions and feign clarity by saying I wasn't paying attention, I was pointing out I'm not fooled, as you say others reading can make their own conclusions.

Let the readers do their own thinking Mikwut

OK, I will quit my magical rhetorical skills that force the innocent reader to agree with my chicanery and not see the clarity, the evidence and the skill of your and Roger's logic. You caught me redhanded.

Let the readers do their thinking Mikwut. And by the way, as if anyone is going to know what the "@#$%^" you said in your first post or my response..sheesh.

I'm not sure what your really talking about.

I’m suggesting it’s time we ignore you and appreciate you for the type of particpant you are. You are not interesting in moving this discussion forward with intellectual honesty..you are interested in misrepresenting what Roger and I say, in badgering, in discrediting, is wearing Roger down (because I no longer put up with you) ..in short you are one huge disingenuous participant in this discussion with an agenda to use rhetorical means to discredit Dan’s opponents and prevent discussion proceeding with intellectual honesty.

Usually censor and ignoring of issues are the more prevalent culprits for not furthering proper discussion and for intellectual dishonesty. But, I don't want to force the readers to not make up their own minds here because of my intellectual dishonesty, I am quite regretful for that serious ability and crime.

My regards, mikwut

[_mikwut]

Roger,

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

Glenn: I have told you several times, I have not even tried to.

Because you can't. Let's face it, the data in that chart can't be explained by S/A and would need to have some pretty creative apologetics behind it to be explained by S/D. You might want to give the FARMS boys a head's up.

Quote:
Dale has produced a chart of data that has no meaning and for which no one has provided anything except questions. Provide us with something using accepted literary, historical, and/or linguistic tools. then we might have something to talk about.

Translation: Dale has produced a chart with data that neither I (Glenn) nor Dan can explain, but since it's only one chart (at this point) we can simply claim there's nothing there worth examining and go back to attacking S/R's alleged massive conspiracy.

Your really now utilizing Dales wordstrings and charts as actual evidence? Ben has beat this up at every challenge you gave. He has literally shown better data corresponding to other literature, your aware of this because you were in the threads. Dale says they correspond to the Jocker's study in important areas - the very study this thread was based on that has been dismantled by Schaalje in the way Criddle and the S/R advocates were utilizing the data, why would corresponding data of a less ameteur nature be acceted after Ben has falsified it and Schaalje has shown none of the authors are close. Why doesn't actual empirical data mean anything to you unless you can misappropriate it for your own means? Uncle Dales charts would be welcomed by historians if it had any value, that isn't rhetorical that is factual.

Regarding your supposed slam dunk of the Book of Mormon witnesses - maybe you could be so kind as to explain what positive evidence it provides for your theory?

my regards, mikwut

[_Roger]

marg:

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.

I agree that he gives every impression of doing exactly that. Your advice is appreciated.

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.

Correct again. He uses intimidation, apparently because he thinks it will accomplish what he wants it to. He's a lawyer, so maybe it works for him in the courtroom. As I pointed out earlier on this thread, it doesn't work with me. What does work is sound argumentation. Mikwut's resort to ad hom shows he doesn't have much in the way of sound argumentation in defense of Smith-alone or Smith-divine (whichever he's defending these days), so he does what comes naturally to him: intimidate while attacking the opposition.

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.

You may be correct about that as well. I have at least attempted to explain my position. When they make demands for clarity, however, apparently complaining that I (or I should say we) can't summarize S/R to their liking in a few web posts, it is patently obvious that they are not nearly as interested in understanding my take on S/R (or yours or Dale's) as opposed to simply looking for weak spots they can then attack. That's how the game is played and I am fully aware of that.

I have a weakness, though. I feel compelled to respond to substance (because I want to determine who wrote the Book of Mormon and if S/R has legitimate weaknesses in comparison to the other theories I want to know what they are), and some of what he's posted recently appears to include that. So I'm going to respond, at least at this point, when I think he's doing more than just employing intimidation.

I agree that he was very insulting to you and you are correct to point out that readers can judge that for themselves. I am far less concerned about what anonymous "readers" think (as if many will ever filter through this thread or care very much about our disputes) as opposed to simply dealing with the question of who produced the content for the Book of Mormon.... and, consequently, which Book of Mormon production theory best answers that question. At this point I have no doubt the theory that best does that is S/R, but if Dan or mikwut reveal some incredible evidential support for S/A, I'm open to change. Unfortunately for Glenn, I know too much about Joseph Smith to say the same thing for S/D

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Marg recommends that I ignore you, and she's probably right. But against my better judgment I will address your posts so long as you address substance and avoid the personal games.

I have read the entire thread Roger, every last word of your posts. I am all the dumber for having done so.

Then with all due respect I don't know how much I can help you.

Your idea of clearly presenting your evidence, historical claim and idea regarding the S/R theory is anything but clear,

So here, right from the start, you're mixing references. Keeping up with your errors should not be my responsibility. Your specific challenge, difficult though it was to decipher, read as follows:

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.

Do you see ANY reference in there to S/R? Because if you do, please point it out. I don't see any. And yet NOW you state:

Your idea of clearly presenting your evidence, historical claim and idea regarding the S/R theory is anything but clear,

So is this one of those fancy lawyer tactics or is it simply sloppiness on your part? You challenge me to clarify my position on the Book of Mormon witnesses and then come back with an assertion about S/R. (I can't possibly summarize S/R in a few web posts). How am I supposed to rationally deal with this sort of thing? And the problem is this sort of thing seems to be a regular occurance with you. This is an example of what leads me to think you might be distracted.

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.

Well then Mikwut, asking honest questions about my position may indeed be the best way for you to eventually come to understand my position. Asking for more clarity in general, when I've already been fairly clear doesn't help either of us very much. What would you specifically like clarity on? What specific thing don't you understand?

I am asking for clarity of your previous posts if you accept the witnesses statements for what they are then fair enough.

?? for what they are? What is that supposed to mean? They are witness statements made by people who had a vested interest in the cause, so, yes, I accept them as such--which means I am going to be very skeptical of what they tell me.

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.

No. I am pointing to specific examples of why I think it best explains the data, while simultaneously pointing to specific reasons why I think the alternatives are unsatisfactory. A web discussion is not the place to try to lay out the entire case for S/R, or S/A. Dan writes books and then appeals to them. He doesn't claim to lay out the whole case for S/A on a website. Why should I be expected to?

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.

The way you've stated it is really not accurate, Mikwut, but regardless, part of the reason I'm here is to discover what the best criticisms of S/R actually are as well as the best defenses of the competing theories. I can come up with some on my own, but it's much better to have to deal with actual criticisms and defenses. So if Dan points to something I have not previously thought about, I indeed reserve the right to respond, and yes, even adapt, as I see fit. There's nothing wrong with that, and, in fact, I think it should be what we all should be doing.

I wrote:
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.

I am happy to clarify, mikwut, when the request to do so is sincere and coherent. So far you've left plenty of room for reasonable doubt about that.

It was indeed a run on sentence.

Well then that certainly explains the difficulty of deciphering it. I can only go on what you actually write.

The adjective 'secular' was intended to describe what the followers of Warren Jeff's were isolated from - namely the secular world.

Which now makes sense.

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.

Okay, so here we have something to work with. Let's break it down....

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.

Yes, but its even more than that. I am saying they can (and do) do both. While some may be put off, realizing they are conned and usually leave, we are talking about the others who don't think they are being conned. Such people will both knowingly and subconsciously defend the beliefs, the false leader and his claims.

The quote Dan cited is speaking for those in this category. Here's what it says they will do:

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.

I agree. So now you not only have it from me, you also have it from a source Dan quoted in apparent agreement as well.

But there is another level here that I am asserting as well. I am also stating that some of these same people will also intentionally lie for the same reason--because they believe in the overall cause. Say, for example, they believe séances are a good way to communicate with the dead but they notice Mr. Davey's assistant moving the table from underneath. They may leave out that information or intentionally lie about it because even though this case was obviously fraudulent, they still believe in the overall cause and do not wish to damage it.

And there is still another level.... that is the level of Mr Davey's assistant (assuming he has one) which is much more analogous to the people we are talking about here... Oliver, Emma, David & Martin. They (Davey's assistant) are in on the trick. Does that mean they can't believe it's possible to communicate with the dead during séances? Not necessarily. It might, but we simply don't know that. What are we to conclude, however, if his assistant comes out and specifically promotes Mr Davey's séances as the real deal? Might we not be a bit skeptical given the fact that they obviously have a vested interest in so testifying?

In Dan's view, even the assistants at the highest level were duped by Smith. In the case of Oliver especially, that is unlikely.

Something possibly true enough, but not so easily attributed to the particular benign statements the Book of Mormon witnesses make.

Well, again, this is where you simply go wrong. The Book of Mormon witness statements are not benign, nor were they intended to be. You (and Dan) are corrupting the intention in your attempts to filter out the miraculous elements in the hopes of reconstructing what actually happened, but you can't do that very well because the miraculous elements were intentionally put there for a specific reason. The witnesses themselves don't want you tampering with their statements.

It is therefore much more reasonable to be skeptical of any elements in their statements that are NOT corroborated by outside observers. That leaves us with Joseph inserting head in hat and rattling off a few words or possibly sentences. Hardly enough evidence to suggest that the entire Book of Mormon was produced in this manner. And supporting that we know that the not insignificant KJV sections were not. Therefore the weight of the evidence, with regard to the witness statements, is in favor of only some of the Book of Mormon being produced through head in hat dictation.

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.

Of course it makes sense. I can accept the Badger's Tavern account. Can you? S/R has no problem with Joseph Smith putting his head in a hat and rattling off some words.

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.

Like what? So far as I know, all they say independently is that Joseph put his head in a hat and rattled off some words. Internally they all corroborate words appearing in a stone. Do you accept that?

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.

Really?! Exactly how so? You don't think he sees Oliver, David and Emma as lovable? You tell me--better yet, let's have Dan tell us both what adjectives he wants removed (and why) and what he would choose to replace them with.

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?

??? Huh. Is this another one uh them there dang lawyer tricks?

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?

No! Sheesh. It is neither reliable nor likely complete. The only possibly reliable elements are those that are corroborated by outside witnesses. Everything else is questionable at best. Why? Well because they most likely are:

...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.

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?

marg, if you're reading this.... am I going insane, or is this next to impossible to understand? Maybe I am just getting old or something.

At least attempting to formulate a succinct answer somewhat relevant to whatever your question is..... Dan takes the witnesses at their word and he shouldn't for the very reasons cited by his own source. The only thing possibly reliable is what outside witnesses corroborate... that is head in hat + a few words or sentences.

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.

Well your assumption would not be correct because even Dan agrees that a Bible was used.

But, that is the same thing as lying and deliberately lying

YES!

because if they did see such a thing and just didn't state it they were doing so in deliberate concealment

I'm stopping you there, because, YES, you are correct so far... so let's be clear about what you just (inadvertently) stated.... you were only thinking in terms of how you can formulate an attack on S/R without realizing that a Bible was used in exactly the way you are attempting to challenge S/R's hypothesized ms. THEREFORE, we can appropriately take your logic as follows....

...since a Bible was used "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"

CORRECT. --although Dan will passionately object on some obscure charge of argument from silence.

But you continue on the S/R attack:

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?

I've spelled it out several times. One of the last times went like this:

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

One thing you seem to be overlooking is that Oliver--for example--could have been privy to information none of the others, besides Smith, were. Yet you make blanket statements like:

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.

It's only deliberate deception for those who know enough to be deceptive. Oliver may have been one such example, I doubt if David Whitmer knew they had been supplied with manuscript pages from a fellow in Ohio. So for him to deny a Spalding manuscript is no great surprise. It's all the better for Smith if not very many people know about supplied ms pages.

But again, even if Oliver knew more than he revealed, that does not mean he would have thought of his omissions as a cover-up for fraud.

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.

Interesting comment. Please elaborate on what you have in mind.

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.

Yes I do, partly because quibbling is so much fun. It's really not that difficult to understand, Mikwut. I'm really not sure what you're not getting. They are not a part of a back-room, sit-down, sinister conspiracy like what we might think of if the Kennedy assassination was done by someone other than Oswald. It was not that kind of conspiracy. It was a religious "conspiracy" carried out by people who wanted to be part of a group and very likely all believed in its claims. Since they believe in the claims, they can overlook things that might seem like simple fraud to you and me, but they interpret differently--exactly like when I look at the videotape of the faith-healer I taped several months back and I can slow the tape and see him put pressure on a woman's head so that she stumbles backward. I say, the guy pushed her! But devoted followers would say, no! she felt the power of the spirit! --believing their own propaganda and accepting their own statement as evidence of their faith.

[_Dan Vogel]

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.

Why would he try to prevent the discussion from moving forward? Are we all afraid of what Marg and Roger might do? The truth is Roger hasn’t explained his position very well. Maybe you are trying to do for Roger what you claim Mikwut is doing for me, which he isn’t.

The truth of the matter is that you are the one who insults people intelligence on a regular basis. You don’t just present your case; you always have to add—“and that’s why I don’t think you are a critical thinker, Dan.” Here’s what you recently said to Mikwut:

Your suggestion of smiley comes across as arrogance and in my opinion is a stupid comment.

So it sounds to me like you can dish it out but can’t take it. Rather, I think it’s a rhetorical game you play. Mikwut takes my side and you go all to pieces, but here’s what you recently said to Roger:

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.

And then you have the nerve to say to Mikwut:

It should be anyone involved in this thread or reading it who decides whether 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.”

Who are you to tell people what they can say?

Then you try to attack Mikwut’s character by saying he intentionally misrepresents your arguments—which when dealing with you and Roger is very easy to unintentionally do. It’s not like you are the most articulate writers. Even the best writers, can confuse readers from time to time. But you jump to the conclusion it’s intentional. You even accuse me of the same. In this instance, you link to the following statement where you chastise Mikwut for misrepresenting you:

Mikwut, you accused me of calling Dan a liar and that's not true. Tthe way I used the word “dishonesty” was not in the sense of lying. It was in the sense of playing games to avoid the issue. I'll put the quote of that discussion below.

For someone so perturbed that I should suggest Dan might be dishonest by avoiding the issue of Occam’s Razor and instead shifting focus on accusing me of misusing words when I had not.. one would think you’d never accuse anyone of dishonesty yourself.

Mikwut is dishonest for using the wrong word … and so is Dan. No one likes being called dishonest any more than be called a liar. Your quibble is quite meaningless.

Of course I wasn’t being dishonest when pointing out the confusing way you used the terms “conclusion” and “theory”. And I readily admitted that I wasn’t using it in the narrow sense, but in the sense that it is used in the literature that deals with ad hoc fallacies. I also explained that I didn’t need to use the term, because in principle theories with few ad hocs are preferred in historiography. The fact that you wanted to focus on a strict misuse of a term, rather than dealing with your use of ad hocs, as well as your continued invention of quibbles that don’t exist, shows that it is you, not Mikwut or me, who can’t deal with the evidence honestly.

Let the readers do their own thinking Mikwut

So, why don’t you let them decide what they want to think about Mikwut? Why do you have to try and take control of the thread like you are some moderator? It’s not your place.

I’m suggesting it’s time we ignore you and appreciate you for the type of particpant you are. You are not interesting in moving this discussion forward with intellectual honesty..you are interested in misrepresenting what Roger and I say, in badgering, in discrediting, is wearing Roger down (because I no longer put up with you) ..in short you are one huge disingenuous participant in this discussion with an agenda to use rhetorical means to discredit Dan’s opponents and prevent discussion proceeding with intellectual honesty.

[/quote]

Marg, it’s you who prevents the discussion from going forward with intellectual honesty with your senseless quibbles and ad hoc inventions.