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

[_marg]

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.”

Let's see Dan, I quoted you, I didn't misrepresent you or take your words out of context, I then quoted Roger's response and then low and behold and this is important Dan, I addressed with reasoning why Roger hit the nail on the head. What I posted allows any reader to look at the evidence and reasoning and judge for themselves.

Mikwut's statement is cheerleading while in that same post he is attacking Roger... accusing him of not being clear. It's a rhetorical game which he most likely uses in his work as a lawyer. He provides no quotes or reasoning which backs up his claim...that you have provided "evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened" ..so that it can be evaluated...if true or not.


by the way, I'm going to argue with reasoning and evidence that you have not provided evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened.

In a previous post after you told me I should appreciate Emma believed in the supernatural powers of Smith I wrote:

“This was a fraud perpetuated Dan. You don't know what the participants believed when it came to Smith's powers...especially his wife. And her claim that Smith corrected her spelling while not being able to read what she wrote and with his head in the hat ..has nothing to do with her beliefs about his powers. Either smith could actually do what she claimed or he couldn't irrespective of her beliefs.”

I had pointed out that Emma's claim of Smith correcting her spelling errors while he head was in a hat indicated she was lying..since no one can do that.

So to counter that, you used an ad hoc fallacy and said that perhaps the person who took her statement was wrong on some things since they published her statement many years later ,maybe Emma never said that …or maybe what Emma said got exaggerated from the actual event of correction of a few spelling errors to Smith having the supernatural ability to correct her spelling when she gave her statement. Nice ad hoc fallacy move there Dan.

Then you go on to another ad hoc fallacy in case no one is convinced of the first one...and you post

As early as 1887, S. J. Davey conducted well-rehearsed séances for several groups, with the usual trickery and misdirection, and

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

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

And the reason for posting this, was to to protect Emma as a witness from my accusation of her lying with the reasoning I gave. Because you wrote: “So, although Emma’s statement wasn’t reported for sixty-years, even if she was accurately quoted, her statement isn’t surprising and doesn’t prove she was lying. Your handling of this source is unsophisticated for several reasons.”

Right Dan my handling of the source was unsophistated ...rolling eyes.

Well Dan your quote is not suggesting you get to pick and choose what to accept as reliable testimony to suit your purposes. No no no Dan, your quote is saying you don’t get to pick and choose because as it says “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.” So there is no means to determine what the subjects claim is true or not.

So what does this say about your critical evaluation of Emma’s statement and the other Book of Mormon witnesses? It says ...that your acceptance at face value of the Book of Mormon witnesses statements ..is wrong. You should not accept at face value people who have been involved in situations as you quoted in which trickery has been employed..and they don't appreciate what is going on.

So Dan if you’ve been wrong in your critical evaluation of the Book of Mormon witnesses’ statements ...it means Mikwut was wrong with his claim that you have provided “evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened”, because clearly using your own citation above you have not. Your premises are wrong and hence your conclusion of what happened historically is unreliable.

It’s obvious Dan to any ...even a half-assed...critical thinker ..one who doesn't have a vested interest in Mormonism that the Book of Mormon witnesses with their vested interest and ties to Smith are not reliable witnesses when it comes to their claims of the translation process.

[_Roger]

marg wrote:

In a previous post after you told me I should appreciate Emma believed in the supernatural powers of Smith I wrote:

“This was a fraud perpetuated Dan. You don't know what the participants believed when it came to Smith's powers...especially his wife. And her claim that Smith corrected her spelling while not being able to read what she wrote and with his head in the hat ..has nothing to do with her beliefs about his powers. Either smith could actually do what she claimed or he couldn't irrespective of her beliefs.”

This is a very important point and marg is correct to point this out. In fact, it is this sort of critical thinking with supporting quotes & logic that characterize her posts, as contrasted with Mikwut's cheerleading. Marg is spot on to point out that Dan simply has no idea what Emma believed with regard to her husband's supernatural powers. He can only speculate about that.

I had pointed out that Emma's claim of Smith correcting her spelling errors while he head was in a hat indicated she was lying..since no one can do that.

So here is a good example of "evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened" coming from marg.

So to counter that, you used an ad hoc fallacy and said that perhaps the person who took her statement was wrong on some things since they published her statement many years later ,maybe Emma never said that …or maybe what Emma said got exaggerated from the actual event of correction of a few spelling errors to Smith having the supernatural ability to correct her spelling when she gave her statement. Nice ad hoc fallacy move there Dan.

I am not particularly astute at identifying ad hoc fallacies, so I missed this, but marg is, again, correct to point out that Dan's counter to the negative evidence is indeed a good example of ad hoc fallacy. In response to the inescapable conclusion that Emma was lying (because no one can do what she claimed her husband did) Dan resorts to speculation (without warrant) that a reporter must have mangled what Emma really said or the reporter somehow exaggerated. But Dan also committed this same fallacy in his defense of David Whitmer's contradictory statements earlier on this thread. When I pointed to the contradictions that he himself had written about in his essay in American Apocrypha, Dan chose to label them "apparent contradictions" and argued (again using ad hoc fallacy to explain negative evidence) that the reporter is most likely to blame for the disparity.

So not only do we have two examples of good critical argumentation from marg, we see exactly the opposite in Dan's response.

Then you go on to another ad hoc fallacy in case no one is convinced of the first one...and you post

As early as 1887, S. J. Davey conducted well-rehearsed séances for several groups, with the usual trickery and misdirection, and

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

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

And the reason for posting this, was to to protect Emma as a witness from my accusation of her lying with the reasoning I gave. Because you wrote: “So, although Emma’s statement wasn’t reported for sixty-years, even if she was accurately quoted, her statement isn’t surprising and doesn’t prove she was lying. Your handling of this source is unsophisticated for several reasons.”

Right Dan my handling of the source was unsophistated ...rolling eyes.

Unsophisticated? That is simply nonsense. The unsophisticated approach is the one that naïvely accepts whatever a biased, heavily invested (heck even related!) witness says at face value. On the contrary, marg has correctly identified a critical element of Emma's testimony that cannot possibly be true. In response, Dan resorts to blaming that on the reporter! With no warrant whatsoever! Does this reporter have a reputation for exaggerating? I'll wager Dan has no clue. But it serves his purpose to conclude he must have exaggerated because he wants to believe Emma as much as he possibly can.

Well Dan your quote is not suggesting you get to pick and choose what to accept as reliable testimony to suit your purposes. No no no Dan, your quote is saying you don’t get to pick and choose because as it says “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.” So there is no means to determine what the subjects claim is true or not.

That Dan now wants assert authority to dictate in which "context" the quote can and cannot be used clearly illustrates he had no idea how damaging the quote actually is to his argument. Remarkable, but that seems to be the case.

So what does this say about your critical evaluation of Emma’s statement and the other Book of Mormon witnesses? It says ...that your acceptance at face value of the Book of Mormon witnesses statements ..is wrong. You should not accept at face value people who have been involved in situations as you quoted in which trickery has been employed..and they don't appreciate what is going on.

Correct. He had earlier asserted it was our job to impeach the Book of Mormon witness testimony and he has now inadvertently helped us accomplish that. We should be grateful.

So Dan if you’ve been wrong in your critical evaluation of the Book of Mormon witnesses’ statements ...it means Mikwut was wrong with his claim that you have provided “evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened”, because clearly using your own citation above you have not. Your premises are wrong and hence your conclusion of what happened historically is unreliable.

Correct.

It’s obvious Dan to any ...even a half-assed...critical thinker ..one who doesn't have a vested interest in Mormonism that the Book of Mormon witnesses with their vested interest and ties to Smith are not reliable witnesses when it comes to their claims of the translation process.

It should be common sense.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Let's see Dan, I quoted you, I didn't misrepresent you or take your words out of context, I then quoted Roger's response and then low and behold and this is important Dan, I addressed with reasoning why Roger hit the nail on the head.

Beside the point, Marg. You know I was talking about your cheerleading, and the hypocritically criticizing Mikwut for doing the same thing. Don’t avoid the issue.

Mikwut's statement is cheerleading while in that same post he is attacking Roger... accusing him of not being clear. It's a rhetorical game which he most likely uses in his work as a lawyer. He provides no quotes or reasoning which backs up his claim...that you have provided "evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened" ..so that it can be evaluated...if true or not.

All three of us made the same complaint, Marg.

by the way, I'm going to argue with reasoning and evidence that you have not provided evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened.

In a previous post after you told me I should appreciate Emma believed in the supernatural powers of Smith I wrote:

“This was a fraud perpetuated Dan. You don't know what the participants believed when it came to Smith's powers...especially his wife. And her claim that Smith corrected her spelling while not being able to read what she wrote and with his head in the hat ..has nothing to do with her beliefs about his powers. Either smith could actually do what she claimed or he couldn't irrespective of her beliefs.”

I had pointed out that Emma's claim of Smith correcting her spelling errors while he head was in a hat indicated she was lying..since no one can do that.

So to counter that, you used an ad hoc fallacy and said that perhaps the person who took her statement was wrong on some things since they published her statement many years later ,maybe Emma never said that …or maybe what Emma said got exaggerated from the actual event of correction of a few spelling errors to Smith having the supernatural ability to correct her spelling when she gave her statement. Nice ad hoc fallacy move there Dan.

It’s not ad hoc since it’s standard historical analysis. We both agree Joseph Smith could not have done that, right? The problem was that you asserted there could only be one answer—she lied. My counter was that there is more than one explanation. First, you haven’t taken into account the nature of the document we are trying to use. You were naïvely reading Briggs’s sixty-year-old report as if it were a firsthand account. Second, either Emma or Briggs could have embellished to make the account more miraculous—not intentionally. I have seen how religious stories get embellished in the telling where earlier documentation of the same story is not miraculous at all. I pointed some of these situations out in my biography. Sure enough, when we look at Whitmer’s accounts (although second hand) they are less miraculous. Notice all of what I’m saying has an existence outside my use of them, and your ad hocs don’t. All you diid above is create a false dichotomy for polemical purposes and ignored historical methodology.

And the reason for posting this, was to to protect Emma as a witness from my accusation of her lying with the reasoning I gave. Because you wrote: “So, although Emma’s statement wasn’t reported for sixty-years, even if she was accurately quoted, her statement isn’t surprising and doesn’t prove she was lying. Your handling of this source is unsophisticated for several reasons.”

Right Dan my handling of the source was unsophistated ...rolling eyes.

It was. You expected me to do everything when you should already know how to handle historical sources if you are going to take the stance you do. Your use of it was purely polemical, not historical—which causes me to doubt the sincerity of your complaints about Mikwut.

Well Dan your quote is not suggesting you get to pick and choose what to accept as reliable testimony to suit your purposes. No no no Dan, your quote is saying you don’t get to pick and choose because as it says “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.” So there is no means to determine what the subjects claim is true or not.

My quote when correctly interpreted pertains to the miraculous part of Emma’s account, that is, if it reported accurately. The same principle applies to any miracle story—and there are plenty of them in Mormonism. It would be very unsophisticated to call them all liars. A skeptic such as you should learn this stuff. The sitters are lying. They are describing the impress the leader was making in his performance. The essential story is intact, but slightly distorted because of misdirection and people’s expectations about what should have happened. For example, if they say—the magician threw the coin into the air and it disappeared—we know that’s not what happened. They were deceived by their own expectations. But we don’t conclude that they are liars and their entire account can’t be relied on. That’s why we are fortunate to have more than one account that might help us reconstruct what happened. That’s what historians do.

So what does this say about your critical evaluation of Emma’s statement and the other Book of Mormon witnesses? It says ...that your acceptance at face value of the Book of Mormon witnesses statements ..is wrong. You should not accept at face value people who have been involved in situations as you quoted in which trickery has been employed..and they don't appreciate what is going on.

No, Marg. Your approach is polemical, not historical. I’ve quoted Gottschalk to you saying that we don’t throw out entire accounts; we deal with each element. We are only talking about one element that can be reasonably explained without calling Emma a liar.

So Dan if you’ve been wrong in your critical evaluation of the Book of Mormon witnesses’ statements ...it means Mikwut was wrong with his claim that you have provided “evidential conclusions, logic and a clearly stated historical construction of what most likely happened”, because clearly using your own citation above you have not. Your premises are wrong and hence your conclusion of what happened historically is unreliable.

Mikwut is not wrong. You are.

It’s obvious Dan to any ...even a half-assed...critical thinker ..one who doesn't have a vested interest in Mormonism that the Book of Mormon witnesses with their vested interest and ties to Smith are not reliable witnesses when it comes to their claims of the translation process.

Maybe that’s your problem. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Now, something you keep asserting about ad hocs that needs clarification:

But Dan...I did not use ad hoc fallacy. 2things are crucial for ad hoc fallacy.

# 1 there has to be a burden of proof shift from the counter responder back to the original claimant. Mikwut even mentioned evidence being required. You have not met a burden of proof for example with this lost tribe's issue evidentially which enables you to conclude the S/R witnesses are confused or lying and think the Book of Mormon is a lost tribes story. Your argument is convoluted and it's based on your speculation. #2..my response to you is not irrational. An ad hoc fallacy response has no justified reasoning or evidence in the response. I'm not invoking some really strange irrational notion by saying the S/R witnesses were influenced by Spalding and were reporting what he said.

Can you provide us with sources for these definitions?

[_GlennThigpen]

Roger and Marg, I don't know why you feel it necessary to believe that the witnesses of the Book of Mormon translation process were lying. Their description of the translation process is not inimical to the S/R theory, provided that Sidney Rigdon indeed somehow obtained a copy of a manuscript which read like the Book of Mormon in the historical parts and produced the Book of Mormon from it, and provided that Joseph was equipped with a prodigious memory. Several posters, especially Dale, has intimated that such was the case.

The S/R theory has much more sever problems than the translation witnesses pose. Rigdon obtaining that manuscript in the first place is just one of them.

Glenn

[_mikwut]

Hello Roger:

mikwut:

Marg recommends that I ignore you,

And I don't want to disappoint your dear friend and loyal Spalding Rigdon advocate marg, Roger. I have more respect for you than that. So you should be a good little boy and you should listen to her. And I don't want to have to continually point out, well, how looney it is to portray me the way you are and then turn around and cheerlead the nonsense with marg like you do, I don't mind it like you do, but when you point it out to me while doing it yourselves it's looney and weird.

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.

You say this right in the midst of giving a non-substantive personal game playing post. That's what I mean by weird, its almost mental.

Then, you say throughout your post,

So is this one of those fancy lawyer tactics or is it simply sloppiness on your part?

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.

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

I really don't mind this kind of rhetoric, quibbling and discussion, debate is rough and tumble like this. I am not offended and would be happy to continue with it. But, I use my judgment unlike you, and I don't enjoy it when its in goofy land like with you and marg - where your saying sandbox silliness like, "hey, let's not talk to that guy he uses rhetoric and cheerleads but lets cheerlead each other and use rhetoric K?" as actual posts. Or "hey I'll talk to you even though marg doesn't really want me to but only if you follow my rules and I don't follow them K?", its just kind of well, even creepy I don't think is too strong a word.

So I'll let you and marg be, it's actually entertaining to read. I can't wait until you get to Rigdon and theology, the other scriptures, the other obvious matters that falsify the ridiculous S/R theory. That's where you and marg really shine and come up with some great twists and turns of evidence and well just clear thinking. I don't dare want to be caught cheerleading Dan when simply pointing out the sky is blue gets me told I am playing a fancy dancy lawyer game.

well wishes, mikwut

[_Roger]

Mikwut:

Of course you're free to cheerlead for Dan all you want. We are simply calling a spade a spade. What may have slipped your attention is that when marg points out something about my posts she agrees with, she actually points out something about my post she agrees with and then specifically explains why with logic and reason, which then allows anyone to comment on the specific something she commented on. You'll notice I did the same thing.

You, on the other hand, tend to make favorable, broad, sweeping pronouncements about Dan's wonderful logic as though your pronouncement embodies the truth of the matter, without citing anything specific than can then be analyzed and criticized--like debate is supposed to work. That's why we correctly pointed out that what you are doing amounts to little more than cheerleading for Dan.

And by the way, marg and I have had strenuous disagreements on the abortion issue on this website. And I still say she's wrong on that issue. On this one, however, she's usually right on the money. And if she's unclear about something she's honest and admits it.

She correctly identified a key element in Emma's testimony that I hadn't really paid much attention to previously, that reveals that Emma could not possibly be telling the truth with regard to Joseph correcting her spelling.

When faced with this, Dan intentionally chooses to believe the best about Emma anyway and is forced to come up with an ad hoc defense to do so(!) in which he lays the blame on a reporter who's character and reputation he likely knows little or nothing about.

It is because of marg's critical thinking that this even came up. That is a substantive issue, very relevant to this debate, mikwut. Marg correctly identified it and I make no apologies for agreeing with her conclusion.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger and Marg, I don't know why you feel it necessary to believe that the witnesses of the Book of Mormon translation process were lying.

Feel it necessary?! The fact is we don't have to "feel" anything, Glenn. The facts are clear. The only way Emma could have been telling the truth is if God was actually involved and we've already concluded he was not. There is no other alternative because, unlike Dan, I'm not going to simply blame it on a reporter.

Their description of the translation process is not inimical to the S/R theory, provided that Sidney Rigdon indeed somehow obtained a copy of a manuscript which read like the Book of Mormon in the historical parts and produced the Book of Mormon from it, and provided that Joseph was equipped with a prodigious memory. Several posters, especially Dale, has intimated that such was the case.

Such may indeed have been the case, but that in no way mitigates the fact that biased witnesses who are heavily invested in a cause are not going to provide reliable testimony about it.

The S/R theory has much more sever problems than the translation witnesses pose. Rigdon obtaining that manuscript in the first place is just one of them.

Glenn

Those issues have answers. All Book of Mormon production theories have weak spots. We are currently pointing to a weak spot for Dan's version of S/A.

[_GlennThigpen]

Roger and Marg, I don't know why you feel it necessary to believe that the witnesses of the Book of Mormon translation process were lying.

Glenn:
Feel it necessary?! The fact is we don't have to "feel" anything, Glenn. The facts are clear. The only way Emma could have been telling the truth is if God was actually involved and we've already concluded he was not. There is no other alternative because, unlike Dan, I'm not going to simply blame it on a reporter.

You are making statements without being able to back them up. How do you know that the only way Emma could have been telling the truth is if God was actually involved? Dan has pointed out several ways Emma could have had the wool pulled over her eyes. That is why I say you seem to feel the necessity, for some reason, to assume Emma and the other witnesses were lying.

Their description of the translation process is not inimical to the S/R theory, provided that Sidney Rigdon indeed somehow obtained a copy of a manuscript which read like the Book of Mormon in the historical parts and produced the Book of Mormon from it, and provided that Joseph was equipped with a prodigious memory. Several posters, especially Dale, has intimated that such was the case.

Such may indeed have been the case, but that in no way mitigates the fact that biased witnesses who are heavily invested in a cause are not going to provide reliable testimony about it.

You have not even established that. It is an assumption that you are making.

The S/R theory has much more sever problems than the translation witnesses pose. Rigdon obtaining that manuscript in the first place is just one of them.

Glenn

Those issues have answers. All Book of Mormon production theories have weak spots. We are currently pointing to a weak spot for Dan's version of S/A.

You have not established the witnesses as a weak spot. Dan has pointed out how well they stand up to scrutiny using criteria normally employed by historians. You have not offered any type of contrarian evidence, only your speculations.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

You are making statements without being able to back them up. How do you know that the only way Emma could have been telling the truth is if God was actually involved? Dan has pointed out several ways Emma could have had the wool pulled over her eyes. That is why I say you seem to feel the necessity, for some reason, to assume Emma and the other witnesses were lying.

marg has already explained this. Did you read her post? The specific statement Emma makes about Joseph being able to correct her spelling without seeing what she's writing is impossible. She intents it to be impossible to emphasize the miraculous element. There is no getting around this. This is why Dan quoted the following that indicates that honest dupes at a séance: "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... she was supplying a report that makes it "impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means." In short, she was lying. But Dan of course, wants to think the best of Emma, so he doesn't call it lying, he calls it exaggerating. And to further get Emma off the hook, he speculates that maybe the reporter got her story mixed up. That's an ad hoc response with no warrant. There is no good reason to conclude anything other than Emma was simply lying in order to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means."

Such may indeed have been the case, but that in no way mitigates the fact that biased witnesses who are heavily invested in a cause are not going to provide reliable testimony about it.

You have not even established that. It is an assumption that you are making.

It's established by common sense. Even you admitted you would not trust a certain portion of your hypothetical testimony of the followers of Warren Jeffs. And you have good reason to be skeptical--because you instinctively know that devoted followers are going to be biased in favor of their leader and their cause and will therefore not give reliable testimony, which leaves you no alternative but to reject it. On the contrary, they will: "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."

You have not established the witnesses as a weak spot. Dan has pointed out how well they stand up to scrutiny using criteria normally employed by historians. You have not offered any type of contrarian evidence, only your speculations.

Yes we have. They give contradictory reports that Dan must then write an essay attempting to downplay as "apparent contradictions" and, using the same ad hoc fallacy, speculates that reporters messed up their stories. Emma obviously lied about the translation process. Joseph Smith himself was never forthcoming about the translation, and yet, according to Dan, he could place his head in hat any time he wanted and rattle off coherent sentences for hours on end. Dan concludes this because he uncritically believes the word of highly biased witnesses, but the evidence does not support this since David Whitmer admits to putting up a blanket to shield the the translation process from the public. Dan claimed otherwise, but anyone can see that he's wrong from the quote he cited:

In order to give privacy to the proceedings a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eye of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress.

There is no ambiguity here. The reporter--getting the story straight from David Whitmer--says the blanket was used "In order to give privacy to the proceedings" and "to shelter the translators and the plates from the eye of any who might call at the house."

In other words, what Dan claims Smith could do anytime he wanted and in front of anyone who happened to walk in the room, had to be concealed "from the eye of any who might call at the house." (!)

The case has been made and then some. The Book of Mormon witnesses are not reliable, secrecy was necessary, a Bible was used but never acknowledged, there are no plates to examine, no reformed Egyptian, parallels to Spalding exist when they shouldn't, etc. You can choose to reject all that, but you're doing so against the weight of the evidence.

[_GlennThigpen]

The case has been made and then some. The Book of Mormon witnesses are not reliable, secrecy was necessary, a Bible was used but never acknowledged, there are no plates to examine, no reformed Egyptian, parallels to Spalding exist when they shouldn't, etc. You can choose to reject all that, but you're doing so against the weight of the evidence.

Sorry, but you have made no case. You are ignoring the witnesses that went behind that curtain. You are ignoring the points that Ben made about parallels. You have not established by any measurable metric that parallels exist where they should not.
I do not accept as evidence speculation.

Glenn