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

[_GlennThigpen]

Uhmm.... yeah Glenn. You got me. You hypothesize that Solomon would have to have written in the third person--except where it's a direct quote(!) and you can't find an "instance of Nephi speaking orally in such a manner" and because of something John Stafford was not aware of... I'm supposed to be convinced by that? Really?

A for persistence. F for substance. : )

No, I am analyzing the statements by the witnesses, Solomon's style of writing as applied to the manuscript at Oberlin College and applying that analysis to how the Book of Mormon is written. The joker in the deck is the Book of Lehi.

I was not expecting very much from you, especially not expecting to convince you. You have a much too heavy emotional investment in the Spalding religion.

Another note on Artemas Cunningham. I think that he may have his chronology off by quite a bit. I was wondering how he knew Solomon, as he was from Madison township, and what kind of financial dealings the two might have engaged in for Solomon to be in his debt.

Artemas, with his father and the rest of the family, arrived in the Madison area from Connecticut in early 1811. They were busily engaged in establishing themselves and their homes there well into the fall of that year. Artemas started a sawmill, but that was in 1811 or early 1812, so it does not seem likely that it was lumber or other materials for building the forge.

However, I found out that vast deposits of iron ore were found in the area in 1812, with the largest being on the land of John Cunningham, the father of Artemas.
http://www.madison-library.information/pdf/History%20of%20the%20Dock%20Road.pdf

Although there is no record at all other than the statement of Artemas, the fact that Solomon was working and iron forge, iron deposits found on the Cunningham property, and Solomon owing Artemas for something, it seems plausible if not probable that the debt would have involved iron ore and the forge.

However, if that is found to be the case, it would put the visit from Artemas in 1812, not 1811.

Glenn

[_marg]

Now, imagine how the story would change when you told it to someone 27 years from now, and then that person would wait 60 years to write it down. How confident are you that it would be recorded exactly like it happened? Most likely the newspaper will be dropped from the story and the glass will definitely appear like fluid. Now, imagine that someone would judge your character based on the final version recorded 87 years after the event? It’s asking too much of Emma’s ability to get it right in the first place, to remember it accurately after 27 years in the second place, and for Briggs to accurately record it in the third place.

So what you are telling me is, there may indeed have been a hat trick, but Harris and Emma and perhaps the Whitmers....just didn't notice...because Smith may have used distractions.

The one problem with this trick for me, is that I factor in the possibility of cameras and what I get to observe as being part of the trick..and I'm not even sure any of those 2 people aren't involved as accomplices.

I'll probably have more comments tomorrow. At this point I'm not finding your point compelling. Thanks for letting me know the chapter ..I'll take a look at that tonight. I also received that historical methodology book you used...so I'll have to go to previous posts and take a look at how you apply it. I have recently read the Translation Chapter in your Joseph book, and there is so much I am critical of, from taking Lucy's word even though the previous chapter you acknowledged she lied with regards to Lucy Harris, from your siding with Smith and Harris, and critical comments about Anthon, there's more, from presenting those critical of Smith in a negative light...but the short of it, is I disagree with lots you say.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

So what you are telling me is, there may indeed have been a hat trick, but Harris and Emma and perhaps the Whitmers....just didn't notice...because Smith may have used distractions.

The problem with the trick hat theory is that it would be impossible to pull off. One of the most difficult things with street magic—unlike stage magic—is controlling the positioning of the people and the angels. That’s why Blaine kept saying to the couple to move closer. (hint) You have Emma working and moving around in the same room, and the Whitmers sitting around the room. Undoubtedly, people go out and come in. Michael Morse says he called at the Smiths cabin and was taken into Joseph Smith’s presence while he was apparently in the midst of dictating. He also seems to have placed his elbows on his knees, which implies that he wasn’t using a table as cover. A magician has difficulty controlling the situation for a few moments or minutes, but to do it for hours is impossible.

I’m sure Joseph Smith had stalling tactics while he thought, much like a psychic does, and excuses for making corrections.

The one problem with this trick for me, is that I factor in the possibility of cameras and what I get to observe as being part of the trick..and I'm not even sure any of those 2 people aren't involved as accomplices.

There’s no trick photography, and the two people aren’t accomplices. They see what you see.

I'll probably have more comments tomorrow. At this point I'm not finding your point compelling. [/quote]

I’ll be happy if you just get the principle in broad terms. Perhaps we’ll have time to expand the discussion into psychological manipulation. This is visual and easier to explain.

Thanks for letting me know the chapter ..I'll take a look at that tonight. I also received that historical methodology book you used...so I'll have to go to previous posts and take a look at how you apply it.

So much to discuss and so little time. On the methodology book, my plan was to discuss the section of McCullagh’s book subtitled “The nature of arguments to the best explanation,” pp. 17-33, particularly his discussion of ad hocs in historical reconstruction. You should pay attention to what an ad hoc is and his example of competing interpretation.

I have recently read the Translation Chapter in your Joseph book, and there is so much I am critical of, from taking Lucy's word even though the previous chapter you acknowledged she lied with regards to Lucy Harris, from your siding with Smith and Harris, and critical comments about Anthon, there's more, from presenting those critical of Smith in a negative light...but the short of it, is I disagree with lots you say.

Well, you can get in line behind about 10 million Mormons. I can take it. Moderates get it from both sides. I’m used to that. For those interested in this topic, it’s extremely controversial no matter what one says. It’s also vastly complex and requires knowledge in many subjects. That’s what keeps me interested.

In history it’s not an all or nothing proposition. I use both Joseph’s and Lucy’s accounts as major sources. My approach was an ongoing dialogue with them, where I both agreed and disagreed with them. I used both reason and outside sources to critique their accounts. I didn’t call Lucy a liar, but I believe her dislike for Lucy Harris biased her account. I can’t say it was intentional, because it is the kind of thing people do all the time unintentionally. Now, I don’t have a problem saying Joseph Smith lied about the first vision or not being a treasure seer. That’s clear enough, but Lucy’s versions of the truth are ambiguous.

I sided with Anthon’s description of the characters he had seen, and questioned Smith’s 1838 claim that Anthon had said the translation was correct. However, I believed Anthon had given a positive assessment of the characters as real and reversed his opinion when he learned the origin of the characters. The main thing is that I rejected Smith’s version. And I did it in a way that drew on analysis and outside sources and didn’t use an ad hoc, which made it difficult for other historians to reject my reconstruction.

[_Roger]

I sided with Anthon’s description of the characters he had seen, and questioned Smith’s 1838 claim that Anthon had said the translation was correct.

That's good since Smith's two versions contradict each other! I don't see how you could even entertain the notion that Anthon was provided with a translation?

However, I believed Anthon had given a positive assessment of the characters as real and reversed his opinion when he learned the origin of the characters.

I disagree. Anthon had no reason to give a positive assessment. You can only base this on Joseph Smith's 1838 account (unless I'm missing something) and that account is obviously not correct. There is no positive assessment in the 1832 account other than Anthon's alleged claim that if they would bring him the plates he would translate it--which is obviously something Anthon would have never stated. The emphasis there is on the fact that the learned could not decipher the characters since it served the purpose of linking the episode to Isaiah 29.

The main thing is that I rejected Smith’s version. And I did it in a way that drew on analysis and outside sources and didn’t use an ad hoc, which made it difficult for other historians to reject my reconstruction.

Which version? It doesn't sound like you're rejecting Smith's version when you're concluding Anthon initially gave a positive assessment.

[_GlennThigpen]

I sided with Anthon’s description of the characters he had seen, and questioned Smith’s 1838 claim that Anthon had said the translation was correct. However, I believed Anthon had given a positive assessment of the characters as real and reversed his opinion when he learned the origin of the characters. The main thing is that I rejected Smith’s version. And I did it in a way that drew on analysis and outside sources and didn’t use an ad hoc, which made it difficult for other historians to reject my reconstruction.

The only thing I have taken from the Anthon episode is that Martin Harris came back convinced enough to agree to mortgage his farm to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Well for us dupes, it's a pretty good trick. And I think it's a reasonable analogy but only up to a certain point and certainly not to the point you want to use it for. Marg & I witnessed the same thing, yet in attempting to describe what we saw, there will be differences, but that does not mean we saw something different or that we're lying about what we saw. I agree with that much.

But the fact remains that our little experiment here is simply NOT analogous to what you want to apply it to. You want to assume that Emma and Oliver and David were just innocent bystanders and objective reporters who are merely reporting what they saw to the best of their ability. You're assuming what you want to prove. That is absolutely not the case. That's why I said you'd have to add an extremely positive testimony from someone who is invested in Blaine's magic who tells us he really can put his hand through a window before you get close to an appropriate analogy. As it is, it simply assumes your honest dupes, when that is simply not the case.

As I said, I wasn’t using the analogy as proof—just for illustration. In such case, it doesn’t have to be exact. The principle that I was hoping to demonstrate is that honest dupes can "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means."

So from what you stated--and not knowing the secret of the trick--I assume the newspaper was crucial to pulling the trick off. That is a key element then--even in a flawed analogy.

Yes, it’s important—but there’s more. You have an advantage in that you wrote your account right away. To make the analogy closer, we would need you to tell what you saw to someone who has no idea what you are talking about, maybe a week later, then have that person wait a week before writing their account. What do you think would happen then? Note what I told Marg:

Now, imagine how the story would change when you told it to someone 27 years from now, and then that person would wait 60 years to write it down. How confident are you that it would be recorded exactly like it happened? Most likely the newspaper will be dropped from the story and the glass will definitely appear like fluid. Now, imagine that someone would judge your character based on the final version recorded 87 years after the event? It’s asking too much of Emma’s ability to get it right in the first place, to remember it accurately after 27 years in the second place, and for Briggs to accurately record it in the third place.

Regardless, the core story of Joseph Smith dictating with head in hat remains reliable, as does the scribe reading back what was written. We don’t get thrown of track because there’s an element that can’t be explained by natural means.

Let's consider this.... let's say we ask Blaine's wife--who gives every impression of being a true believer in Blaine's ability to put his hand through a window--for her own account of what she observes when she watches the same video marg & I watched. In order to make it analogous, we'd have to imagine her saying something very similar to what marg and I wrote, although very likely leaving out any key details that might give the trick away--like you say, Blaine takes advantage of whatever he can to reinforce the trick. Blaine's wife would also do this in our little hypothetical. Why? Well because 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." But the fact is, because she is heavily invested she's likely not an honest dupe.

You said you thought I pushed the analogy too far, so I don’t think you should either. The point I’m making is modest. I’m not actually explaining what happened to Emma. I’m only arguing principle here.

We don’t need another analogy, because we have you and Marg. Marg is Emma and you are David Whitmer. In this situation, we don’t have true believers, because we all know it’s not real. For that aspect, we might turn to psychics or faith healers, where (except for the use of plants and accomplices) the illusion occurs in the mind of the dupe. It’s psychological manipulation. Blaine’s trick is done the same way every time, but a psychic’s performance is different every time, because it plays off the dupe and the situation. Meanwhile, I hope you see that accusing Emma of lying isn’t the only option.

Regardless, whether Blaine's wife actually believes he can put his hand through a window or not is not the important question. Common sense would probably say, look, she knows the guy better than anyone else so she probably knows he can't really put his hand through a window! But the fact is, we can't read her mind. But, when she states something that in fact emphasizes a supernatural element in what she's describing in order to "make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means" we can then conclude that she is either:

A. likely intentionally stating things in such a way as to make Blaine's power seem all the more real. And the fact that she has a vested interest in doing so merely adds weight to our conclusion; or

B. just really, really gullible

The key point is that in either scenario her testimony is not going to be reliable except perhaps in the elements that line up with what the regular skeptics say--but even then it's questionable because even the skeptics could not figure out how the trick was actually pulled off! They just saw the same show that Blaine's wife testifies to! But they reject the notion that Blaine can really put his hand through a window while she goes out of her way to emphasize that he really can.

She might exaggerate, but her account is reliable in the main. We question the parts where she stands alone. The anomalous parts of any testimony deserve caution. Fortunately, we have other independent accounts. Whitmer’s and Harris’s statements, although also secondhand, are at least reported closer to the time they said them. Emma’s 1879 statement to her son should be preferred. This is what historians do.

To illustrate, let's imagine she says:

“and I've been to that Jewelry store many times and I know for a fact that's a solid window. And anyone can see my husband's hand going through it. It's the same thing I see him doing all the time. In fact, when we're at home, he often reaches through the china cabinet to get plates for dinner and he doesn't need to use a newspaper.”

Now we're getting closer to a proper analogy. In this scenario, Dan says, okay, Mrs. Blaine, you seem like an honest woman and I don't want to call you a liar, so I'll just accept that your husband puts his hand through windows all the time at home without using a newspaper.

The skeptic, on the other hand, says, wait a minute! It's just too convenient that a newspaper was just sitting in the right place. That newspaper must conceal something!

Basing his conclusion on Mrs. Blaine's testimony, Dan says, no it wasn't because Mrs Blaine tells us he does it all the time at home with no newspaper.

Skeptic: Then what was the purpose of the newspaper?

Dan: To protect the watch from the gawking eyes of the public.

Obviously you have constructed an analogy that makes your point. I think you’ve tried too hard. My example is real and yours is fantasy--it’s easier to win that way.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

That's good since Smith's two versions contradict each other! I don't see how you could even entertain the notion that Anthon was provided with a translation?

Whether or not he was shown a translation is less important than the claim that Anthon had declared Joseph Smith’s translation the most correct he had seen. That did not happen. The earliest accounts of Harris trip say Harris was convinced of Joseph Smith’s gift because the learned couldn’t read them. Nephi’s expansion on Isaiah 29 makes it clear that Anthon had not translated them. However, when Joseph Smith changed the story in 1838, he could no longer have Isaiah 29 fulfilled by the learned being unable to read the words of the book--so he clumsily put the words “I can’t read a sealed book” in Anthon’s mouth.

I disagree. Anthon had no reason to give a positive assessment. You can only base this on Joseph Smith's 1838 account (unless I'm missing something) and that account is obviously not correct. There is no positive assessment in the 1832 account other than Anthon's alleged claim that if they would bring him the plates he would translate it--which is obviously something Anthon would have never stated. The emphasis there is on the fact that the learned could not decipher the characters since it served the purpose of linking the episode to Isaiah 29.

The positive assessment was that he probably recognized some of the characters as resembling Egyptian, and possibly other ancient languages, but couldn’t recognize most others. Of course, he couldn’t translate the characters. When he learned of the origin of the sample, he changed his assessment—which is quite legitimate since provenance is important to assessing a document.

Which version? It doesn't sound like you're rejecting Smith's version when you're concluding Anthon initially gave a positive assessment.

The second version. The part about Anthon saying the translation was correct, as well as the claim that he said he couldn’t read a sealed book. All he could do is say he recognized some of the characters—in fact, some of the characters do resemble Egyptian. But they also resemble deformed English. That is what gave Harris encouragement, and on that count I agree with Glenn.

[_Roger]

You said you thought I pushed the analogy too far, so I don’t think you should either.

I think you don't like my analogy because it hits too close to reality. ; ) The wife analogy is spot on when it comes to Emma's testimony. You want us to believe the best about a witness who's not only heavily invested in the cause, she's even married to the magician.

If your point was to show that dupes do what the quote says, then we have no disagreement. I was in agreement with the quote on that from the beginning. Your objection was that I was allegedly taking the quote too far and using it in a non-applicable way, but I'm not. I agree with the quote and the quote supports my point that the uncorroborated testimony of dupes is probably not going to be very reliable. But it's an even more unreliable situation when you have religious dupes or even accomplices who do all that the quote says and sometimes do so intentionally.

Despite the vociferous disputing, when it comes right down to it, the difference between your position and mine is not that large. You are arguing that your Book of Mormon witnesses do not intentionally consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means. I disagree. I am saying that those elements are intentional. BUT I am also saying even if you're right and they were not giving unreliable reports intentionally, it doesn't make much difference because they still give unreliable reports and it's pretty difficult trying to read minds and figure out how much of an unreliable report can be trusted.

Moreover, you are assuming what you're trying to prove. You're pointing out illustrations of what honest dupes do and then using that as an illustration of what you think the Book of Mormon witnesses were doing because you assume they were honest dupes. But honest dupes are not the only ones who consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means. Accomplices do that too. And if they're good, they will be even more convincing than honest dupes. That's exactly what the accomplice for the faith healer I mentioned was doing when he put on his dramatic show. I can't read his mind and speak to his intent other than to say it seems reasonable to think he likely knows he's putting on an act so he must be intentionally adding drama in order to make it appear impossible for any observer to account for what happened by normal means.

That's what I am convinced the Book of Mormon witnesses were doing. They were intentionally adding supernatural elements to their accounts in order to bolster the miraculous element--whether they actually believed the claims or not we'll probably never know. That is analogous to Blaine's wife telling us she sees him putting his hand through windows all the time without a newspaper. That is exactly the situation we have with the Book of Mormon witnesses. It's extremely difficult to try to separate the miraculous element out of that kind of testimony in the hopes of finding truth, when the miraculous element was intentionally put there in order to bolster the claim--and the crazy thing is you have to admit that it was, because we have David and Emma testifying to the same miraculous thing.

An observant skeptic looks at the newspaper and says, look, Mrs Blaine, if he puts his hand through windows all the time without newspapers, why did he use one for this trick? And when she comes back with what appears to be a lame answer, we know we're on to something. We may not have figured out the trick, but we're on the right track. The newspaper was used on purpose to conceal something.

In exactly the same way, the blanket (Whitmer) curtain (Anthon) was used to conceal something. The blanket/curtain is used on purpose and is an essential element to pulling off the trick. Therefore the testimony of anyone who claims to be able to walk behind the blanket and observe only what was claimed to have happened out in the open is suspect. The fact is Whitmer flat out admits the purpose of the blanket was block the view of the public. That's as close to a confession as we're probably ever going to get.

[_Roger]

Whether or not he was shown a translation is less important than the claim that Anthon had declared Joseph Smith’s translation the most correct he had seen. That did not happen.

Glad we're on the same page for a change. Apparently it just takes overwhelming evidence before you allow your inner skeptic to come out and play. : )

The earliest accounts of Harris trip say Harris was convinced of Joseph Smith’s gift because the learned couldn’t read them. Nephi’s expansion on Isaiah 29 makes it clear that Anthon had not translated them.

Correct. I think Joseph knew he couldn't lose either way. I think he had Isaiah 29 in the back of his mind before Harris even left. But the intent was for Harris to see Dr. Mitchill, not Dr. Anthon. Mitchill had already seen similar characters when he was presented with the Detroit manuscript a few years earlier. I think Joseph Smith knew this and that is why Mitchill was the intended target. He may have been thinking if Mitchill remembers some of those characters there is a chance he will pronounce them authentic characters.

However, when Joseph Smith changed the story in 1838, he could no longer have Isaiah 29 fulfilled by the learned being unable to read the words of the book--so he clumsily put the words “I can’t read a sealed book” in Anthon’s mouth.

Agreed. See... you can be a reasonable skeptic when there is no alternative. ; )

I disagree. Anthon had no reason to give a positive assessment. You can only base this on Joseph Smith's 1838 account (unless I'm missing something) and that account is obviously not correct. There is no positive assessment in the 1832 account other than Anthon's alleged claim that if they would bring him the plates he would translate it--which is obviously something Anthon would have never stated. The emphasis there is on the fact that the learned could not decipher the characters since it served the purpose of linking the episode to Isaiah 29.

The positive assessment was that he probably recognized some of the characters as resembling Egyptian, and possibly other ancient languages, but couldn’t recognize most others.

As you know, the current Anthon transcript does not match Anthon's description. So either this page was only a part of what Anthon saw or it was not what Anthon saw. In any event, Anthon flatly tells us that some of the characters resembled true characters but with corruptions mixed in. (by the way... remind you of anything?) And he also tells us point blank that he saw through the trick instantly. There is no reason for Anthon to say anything positive to "encourage" Harris. He's suspicious from the start. The most I could see him saying is something like: "Interesting. Where did you get these?" all the while knowing it was a hoax. That is exactly how his description reads.

Of course, he couldn’t translate the characters. When he learned of the origin of the sample, he changed his assessment—which is quite legitimate since provenance is important to assessing a document.

He never changed his opinion on the characters. It was consistently skeptical. He only changed his opinion on who the hoax was intended for.

Which version? It doesn't sound like you're rejecting Smith's version when you're concluding Anthon initially gave a positive assessment.

The second version. The part about Anthon saying the translation was correct, as well as the claim that he said he couldn’t read a sealed book. All he could do is say he recognized some of the characters—in fact, some of the characters do resemble Egyptian. But they also resemble deformed English. That is what gave Harris encouragement, and on that count I agree with Glenn.

Well not surprisingly we disagree on that and you and Glenn are disagreeing with what Anthon says for himself.

[_GlennThigpen]

Well not surprisingly we disagree on that and you and Glenn are disagreeing with what Anthon says for himself.

Roger, I said was that Martin Harris went to New York as a skeptic. He wanted some assurance that he was not being bamboozled. After all, he was being asked to put up something like three thousand dollars to finance the printing of the Book of Mormon, and would have to mortgage his farm in order to do so.
Anthon, in his first letter, said that he declined to give any type of written statement, but in the second one stated that he agreed to do so without hesitation. In both statements, he said that he tried to dissuade Harris from financing the printing of the Book of Mormon.
Yet, strangely, Harris comes back to Joseph enthused about the project, pronounces himself ready to provide the financial backing to print the Book of Mormon, and even serves as a scribe for Joseph.
So you tell me why Harris went from skeptic to enthusiastic supporter after that trip? Remember that Anthon also stated that Mitchell had not been able to translate the characters (in the first letter) of declined to do so (in the second letter).

Glenn