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

[_Roger]

More accurately, the 166 pages were probably primarily in third person until Mormon quoted something, like he did in Mosiah-4 Nephi. However, these instances would be minor, especially references to “I, Nephi.”

Need I say more?

[_GlennThigpen]

Roger, there is more evidence that the 116 pages were in the third person than there is for Sidny Rigdon ever saw any Spalding manuscript, mush less copied it and massaged it into the Book of Mormon.

So where is it? So far all I've seen is conjecture on your part.

Roger, you have the text of the Book of Mormon itself as evidence and the story of the lost 116 pages, with notes that the the the text up to the Words of Mormon is very different from the rest of the book. That is what my reasoning is based upon. It does not require any type of ad hoc rationalization, which would be required to produce a theory that the 116 pages were not written in the third person.

More accurately, the 166 pages were probably primarily in third person until Mormon quoted something, like he did in Mosiah-4 Nephi. However, these instances would be minor, especially references to “I, Nephi.”

Need I say more?

So, now you are agreeing with me that the lost 116 pages were probably written in the third person. That is progress.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Need I say more?

Yes. We know that the lost 116 pages were in third person, and that quotations in first person are only possible based on what happens in Mosiah-4 Nephi. So your position is the conjectured one.

Comments on your response to Glenn:

How do you know that? In fact you don't know that, you are inferring it. And your inferance could be quite wrong. That in itself makes your argument weak,

Roger, who says we can’t know something by inference? Glenn is only stating what is the accepted understanding of the contents of the lost 116-page MS. This understanding comes from the Book of Mormon itself and the 1830 preface. In the latter, Joseph Smith explained:

I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again …

So, instead of beginning, “I Nephi,” the lost MS began “I, Mormon …” It would therefore read in the third person like Mosiah-4 Nephi. There is a possible clue to how Mormon began his abridgement of the Book of Lehi in 3 Nephi 5:

[11] And behold, I do make the record on plates which I have made with mine own hands.

[12] And behold, I am called Mormon, being called after the land of Mormon, the land in which Alma did establish the church among the people, yea, the first church which was established among them after their transgression.

[13] Behold, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have been called of him to declare his word among his people, that they might have everlasting life.

[14] And it hath become expedient that I, according to the will of God, that the prayers of those who have gone hence, who were the holy ones, should be fulfilled according to their faith, should make a record of these things which have been done --

[15] Yea, a small record of that which hath taken place from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem, even down until the present time.

[16] Therefore I do make my record from the accounts which have been given by those who were before me, until the commencement of my day;

[17] And then I do make a record of the things which I have seen with mine own eyes.

[18] And I know the record which I make to be a just and a true record; nevertheless there are many things which, according to our language, we are not able to write.

[19] And now I make an end of my saying, which is of myself, and proceed to give my account of the things which have been before me.

[20] I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi. I have reason to bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (and no one knew it save it were himself and those whom he brought out of that land) and that he hath given me and my people so much knowledge unto the salvation of our souls.

This passage in 3 Nephi hints that the true author knows the beginning has been lost, because this clearly would be Mormon’s second introduction to readers, and unnecessary. Of course, this passage was dictated when Joseph Smith knew what had been dictated, so I don’t think this a verbatim of how the Book of Mormon originally began.

What happens in the new introduction is that Nephi takes the place of Mormon and religious content is added. Instead of Mormon telling us about Lehi’s book, Nephi abridges his father’s record in chapters 1-8. Nephi introduces this abridgement as follows:

[16] And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

[17] But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life. (1 Nephi 1:16-17)

Then Nephi says he will “proceed to give an account upon these plates of my proceedings …” (1 Ne. 10:1), but instead gives more of Lehi’s teachings, particularly the 600 year prophecy of Jesus’ visit to the Nephites—which obviously wasn’t in the 116 pages. Nephi also reinterprets Lehi’s dream of the tree of life and adds his own visions (chaps. 11-15)—also not in the 116 pages. In 1 Nephi 9, Nephi explains the different purposes of the small and large plates, which implies that Mormon had used the large plates containing secular history and didn’t discover the small plates until he had reached the reign of king Benjamin (see Words of Mormon; see also 1 Ne. 19).

While the lost MS would be mostly written in third person, it’s possible that Mormon quoted Lehi and Nephi and that the phrases “I, Lehi” or “I, Nephi” appeared. However, the latter phrase would hardly be the main feature to stand out in memory. Artemas Cunningham’s statement-- “I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, ‘I Nephi,’ …”—is problematic. It seems probable that Mormon’s abridgement of the Book of Lehi means the migration story was originally told from Lehi’s point of view, and that Nephi’s narrative began after the death of Lehi and pertained to his reign and that of his successors up to King Benjamin.

but beyond even that, I don't see why you seem to think that is a problem for S/R? It isn't. Both Rigdon and Smith/Cowdery would have had ample opportunity to adapt the text in any way they saw fit.

This is an ad hoc theory that has no evidence designed solely to accommodate adverse evidence.

It is a strawman to argue that the text would have had to remain in the same form Spalding had left it.

This is your attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You are basing that on a rigid (and faulty) interpretation of the "verbatim" elements in the witness testimony, but "verbatim" does not--indeed cannot-mean every word verbatim, but likely only means certain phrases were "verbatim" or nearly so within certain key books.

This is you arguing with your own witness and trying to introduce a spurious definition of a word.

That, in fact, is what Dale and Vernal Holley have discovered, with Jockers apparently agreeing.

They discovered that the testimony of their witness didn’t support another faulty theory about the text.

There are some areas in the Book of Mormon, particularly in the book of Alma where some phrases appear to be very similar to Spalding's extant writings.

Similar phrases can lead to fallacious post hoc assumptions, which do not prove dependence. Beware of parallelomania.

We can extrapolate from that that the witnesses recognized some other areas where even more similarity exists between the Book of Mormon and the Spalding ms they had been exposed to (but we have not.)

This is the fallacy of possible proof. It’s no different than Mormon apologists who appeal to what was probably recorded on the plates.

So your third person conjecture may be wrong in the first place, and in the second place, even if it isn't it's still not a problem for S/R because both Rigdon and Smith/Cowcery had opportunity to change the text, and finally, we know for a fact that the portion of the text you are referring to was indeed reworked.

Glenn’s inference that the 116 pages were written in Mormon’s third person abridgement is not speculation or conjecture, but a very probable inference based on evidence. The minor appearance of “I, Nephi” further in the narrative—following Lehi’s record--is possible but still problematic for Artemas Cunningham’s supposed memory.

[_Dan Vogel]

I think the Casey Anthony acquittal has some lessons for our previous discussion in this thread. Anthony’s defense is a good example of what Mikwut called ad hoc escapism, which had not a shred of evidentiary support. It was pure fiction, made up to provide an alternate explanation of the facts. Instead of focusing on what was known, the jurors evidently got confused by ad hoc speculation and the fact that the body was decomposed, which prevented a definitive cause of death. In other words, the jurors placed a burden on the prosecution to disprove Anthony’s ad hoc theory, which of course can’t be done. This was convoluted and inappropriate. Punishment for her lies is a small price to pay for the benefit she got by delaying the discovery of the body.

Casey Anthony’s acquittal is a good example of how the average person is a sucker for ad hoc conspiracy theories. The jurors were confused by unreasonable doubt and an ad hoc theory that had no evidential basis. The most credible testimony came from Casey’s father, who although an interested witness, testified against his own interest. It’s simply not reasonable to believe he would continue to lie about his involvement in a cover-up that could end up convicting his daughter of murder. Unlike his wife, who probably committed perjury in claiming she made searches for chloroform, the father could have easily lied and admitted to a cover-up (something the defense might have wanted) to save his daughter—but he didn’t. In fact, if that story was true, he would have confessed to it long before the trial even started to save his daughter from imprisonment and possible conviction. If you believe the father, then you don’t believe the ad hoc theory and Anthony should have been found guilty.

[_Roger]

I am still on vacation so not much time (or interest!) to respond, but I will make a couple comments....

In other words, the jurors placed a burden on the prosecution to disprove Anthony’s ad hoc theory, which of course can’t be done.

Unfortunately the burden of proof was on the prosecution to show that a murder had occurred beyond a reasonable doubt and that the murderer was the mother and they simply did not accomplish that. I think if they had gone for a lesser manslaughter conviction, the result would have been different.

For you to apparently attempt to relate the prosection's failure to present sufficient evidence to remove reasonable doubt to the S/R, S/A, S/D discussion here... well let's just say I fail to see any rational correlation.

With regard to your previous post, there is too much to comment on for the time being but arguing that one can know something from inferance is simply illogical on it's face. One does not know something from inferance, one may suspect something from inferance. Knowing something from inferance is akin to knowing the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, you have the text of the Book of Mormon itself as evidence and the story of the lost 116 pages, with notes that the the the text up to the Words of Mormon is very different from the rest of the book. That is what my reasoning is based upon. It does not require any type of ad hoc rationalization, which would be required to produce a theory that the 116 pages were not written in the third person.

This is just silly. The fact is we simply do not know whether the 116 pages were written in thrid or first person or (more likely) a combination thereof. To argue that I am somehow bound to accept that Mormon was a real redactor is absurd. I don't even believe Mormon is a real person. The whole concept of Mormon the abridger may have arisen AFTER the loss. It is just plain silly to attempt to argue that you can somehow surmise (for me) what Mormon did or did not do when I don't even accept a real Mormon.

Given that, when trying to convince me, you would have to argue that Joseph or Oliver, attempting to play the part of Mormon, would not have written the Book of Lehi in first person, or, to follow Dan's theory, that Joseph would have been bound to dicatate in third person, but you have absolutely nothing to rest that assumption on.

In the second place, I have already shown how it fits with S/R. Spalding certainly could have written the text any way he pleased and then Rigdon, Smith or Cowdery were free to change it in whatever way served their purpose. They were absolutely not bound to follow your speculative logic. And then beyond even that, we know they did indeed rewrite the whole thing up to Words of Mormon, changing much and, in fact, by their own admission, focusing more on religion in the second attempt. (A phenonmenon also confirmed by the S/R witnesses, by the way.)

This whole argument is simply baseless. You simply have no way of knowing whether:

1. Spalding wrote MF in the first person
2. Rigdon changed the story
3. Smith Cowdery changed the story
4. or how different the rewrite is.

All the best.

[Guest]

Roger,

Unfortunately the burden of proof was on the prosecution to show that a murder had occurred beyond a reasonable doubt and that the murderer was the mother and they simply did not accomplish that. I think if they had gone for a lesser manslaughter conviction, the result would have been different.

Unfortunately, I think you are right about the death penalty part—which is irrelevant to the jurors’ duty. As I said, the jurors exercise unreasonable doubt, especially since the ad hoc theory was an obvious lie. One juror said the evidence looked really bad for Casey, but the prosecution couldn’t prove the manner of death—apparently admitting the circumstantial case was convincing. The defense was a joke. They tried to spin a conspiracy theory and cover up by the father as well as they guy who discovered the body. If you reject that and believe the father’s denial, you have a solid circumstantial case.

For you to apparently attempt to relate the prosection's failure to present sufficient evidence to remove reasonable doubt to the S/R, S/A, S/D discussion here... well let's just say I fail to see any rational correlation.

The reason I brought this up was to show what happens when defenders of a position invent ad hoc escapes from adverse evidence and present them to untrained people. You and Marg are like the defense and Spalding advocates are the jurors, and those reading along without a position are probably reacting to your arguments like most of the world is reacting to the Anthony acquittal.

With regard to your previous post, there is too much to comment on for the time being but arguing that one can know something from inferance is simply illogical on it's face. One does not know something from inferance, one may suspect something from inferance. Knowing something from inferance is akin to knowing the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.

Huh!?! You compare logical inference to religious testimony? Without inference, there is no knowledge of anything. This seems extreme coming from someone who wants to infer the witnesses’ silence about a Bible being used that a MS was also used.

Roger, we know what an abridgement is in general; we also know what Mormon’s abridgement looks like. We are using the known to infer the unknown. It’s what statisticians, historians, and scientists do all the time. We are using this probabilistic information to question the accuracy of Artemas Cunningham’s statement-- “I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, ‘I Nephi.’” You are using his statement to argue that the lost MS was atypical of what is expected, which is wishful thinking and circular. It’s obvious that Cunningham’s memory of the “frequent repetition of the phrase, ‘I Nephi,’” comes from the Book of Mormon.

According to 1 Nephi 19, Nephi didn’t make plates until he reached the promised land—upon which he engraved “the record of my father, and also our journeyings in the wilderness, and the prophecies of my father; and also many of mine own prophecies have I engraven upon them … wherefore, the record of my father, and the genealogy of his fathers, and the more part of all our proceedings in the wilderness are engraven upon those plates of which I have spoken” (1 Ne. 19:1-2). This is what Mormon abridged, but Nephi’s account wouldn’t start until after the company had reached America. So the part that Mormon abridges from Lehi couldn’t quote Nephi’s record, and therefore wouldn’t use “I, Nephi.” Instead, it would be written in third person and may have used “I, Lehi.” Later in the narrative Mormon would have abridged Nephi’s record, which also would have been written primarily in third person and may have included the infrequent phrase “I, Nephi.”

[_GlennThigpen]

Roger, you have the text of the Book of Mormon itself as evidence and the story of the lost 116 pages, with notes that the the the text up to the Words of Mormon is very different from the rest of the book. That is what my reasoning is based upon. It does not require any type of ad hoc rationalization, which would be required to produce a theory that the 116 pages were not written in the third person.

Glenn:
This is just silly. The fact is we simply do not know whether the 116 pages were written in thrid or first person or (more likely) a combination thereof. To argue that I am somehow bound to accept that Mormon was a real redactor is absurd. I don't even believe Mormon is a real person. The whole concept of Mormon the abridger may have arisen AFTER the loss. It is just plain silly to attempt to argue that you can somehow surmise (for me) what Mormon did or did not do when I don't even accept a real Mormon.

Given that, when trying to convince me, you would have to argue that Joseph or Oliver, attempting to play the part of Mormon, would not have written the Book of Lehi in first person, or, to follow Dan's theory, that Joseph would have been bound to dicatate in third person, but you have absolutely nothing to rest that assumption on.

It does not matter whether you accept Mormon as a real person or not, no more than you have to accept Fabius as a real person in the Roman story that Spalding wrote. The Spalding Roman story was written from the perspective of the fictional character Fabius.

So you have a character, Mormon, fictional or not, who is the purported abridger of records that he has been given the responsibility for. He speaks in the first person in the Words of Mormon, giving a bit of an explanation of what he is doing and why. His abridgement was supposedly from some plates which he had entrusted to him. Joseph Smith was supposedly translating that abridgement, and had translated 116 pages. Quoting from the preface of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:"I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon;"
This is evidence that Joseph was purporting to be translating an abridgement from the large plates of Nephi. There is no reason to believe that the 116 pages would have been done any differently from the rest of the books that Mormon was supposed to have abridged, which includes all of the Book of Mormon from Mosiah onward except for the actual Book of Mormon in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moroni.
As I said, the evidence is in the text of the Book of Mormon itself and the historical record.

In the second place, I have already shown how it fits with S/R. Spalding certainly could have written the text any way he pleased and then Rigdon, Smith or Cowdery were free to change it in whatever way served their purpose. They were absolutely not bound to follow your speculative logic. And then beyond even that, we know they did indeed rewrite the whole thing up to Words of Mormon, changing much and, in fact, by their own admission, focusing more on religion in the second attempt. (A phenonmenon also confirmed by the S/R witnesses, by the way.)

This whole argument is simply baseless. You simply have no way of knowing whether:

1. Spalding wrote MF in the first person
2. Rigdon changed the story
3. Smith Cowdery changed the story
4. or how different the rewrite is.

All the best.

Of course the writers of the Book of Mormon were not bound to follow my logic. It is the other way around. I have to follow their leads as to how the first 116 pages were written. And, yes, there are clues, which have been presented to you.

And the result is a problem for Artemas Cunningham, who was remembering the Book of Mormon. That is five of the eight Conneaut witnesses that have fallen by the wayside. Five who are trying to find the lost tribes, and one trying to find "I, Nephi."

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

My comments on your comments to Glenn:

This is just silly. The fact is we simply do not know whether the 116 pages were written in thrid or first person or (more likely) a combination thereof.

Either way, the “frequent repetition of ‘I Nephi’” is not likely because the first part is Lehi’s record.

To argue that I am somehow bound to accept that Mormon was a real redactor is absurd. I don't even believe Mormon is a real person.

Red herring!

The whole concept of Mormon the abridger may have arisen AFTER the loss.

The name isn’t important. The record was an abridgement. Remember, too, that what is said later about the first part is said with the belief that the lost MS still exists.

It is just plain silly to attempt to argue that you can somehow surmise (for me) what Mormon did or did not do when I don't even accept a real Mormon.

Red herring!

Given that, when trying to convince me, you would have to argue that Joseph or Oliver, attempting to play the part of Mormon, would not have written the Book of Lehi in first person, or, to follow Dan's theory, that Joseph would have been bound to dicatate in third person, but you have absolutely nothing to rest that assumption on.

If you want to know what Joseph Smith’s idea of an abridgement looks like take a look at Nephi’s abridgement of Lehi’s record in 1 Nephi 1-8. Then look at p. 117 and following if you want to know what the lost p. 116 and before looked like. There’s no “I, Lehi”, no “I Mosiah”, no “I, Benjamin”, etc.

In the second place, I have already shown how it fits with S/R. Spalding certainly could have written the text any way he pleased and then Rigdon, Smith or Cowdery were free to change it in whatever way served their purpose. They were absolutely not bound to follow your speculative logic. And then beyond even that, we know they did indeed rewrite the whole thing up to Words of Mormon, changing much and, in fact, by their own admission, focusing more on religion in the second attempt. (A phenonmenon also confirmed by the S/R witnesses, by the way.)

The point is Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record isn’t the same as Nephi’s first-persona narrative. It’s obvious that Cunningham was responding to what he read in the Book of Mormon, not an actual memory.

This whole argument is simply baseless. You simply have no way of knowing whether:

1. Spalding wrote MF in the first person
2. Rigdon changed the story
3. Smith Cowdery changed the story
4. or how different the rewrite is.

And through these four revisions, Spalding’s original wording remained? This is far more speculative than what you accuse Glenn of doing. You can’t use something this speculative against something that is a reasonable and logical inference. Something that has no evidence support can’t refute something that has more support.

[_Roger]

If you want to know what Joseph Smith’s idea of an abridgement looks like take a look at Nephi’s abridgement of Lehi’s record in 1 Nephi 1-8. Then look at p. 117 and following if you want to know what the lost p. 116 and before looked like. There’s no “I, Lehi”, no “I Mosiah”, no “I, Benjamin”, etc.

The point is Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record isn’t the same as Nephi’s first-persona narrative. It’s obvious that Cunningham was responding to what he read in the Book of Mormon, not an actual memory.

This is evidence that Joseph was purporting to be translating an abridgement from the large plates of Nephi. There is no reason to believe that the 116 pages would have been done any differently from the rest of the books that Mormon was supposed to have abridged, which includes all of the Book of Mormon from Mosiah onward except for the actual Book of Mormon in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moroni.

Dan writes: "It’s obvious that Cunningham was responding to what he read in the Book of Mormon, not an actual memory." On the contrary, what is obvious is that Dan & Glenn's biases are coloring their logic. What's interesting is that their conclusions negate each other. It's certainly NOT obvious that Cunningham had no actual memory of "I Nephi" and, try as they might, Dan and Glenn's arguments do not even come close to establishing that.

There is more than one solution to this and either way is equally plausible.

1. It is so patently obvious that Spalding's narrative could have been written in first person with regard to Nephi (and based on eyewitness testimony likely was) while the "Book of Lehi" may have been changed to third (as Glenn speculates) due to Mormon's purported abridgment and then the 116 page replacement converted back to first person.

2. On the other hand, as Dan points out, Joseph Smith's idea of an "abridgment" does not have to equate to a third person account! (Which is Glenn's argument!) Dan cites 1 Nephi 1-8 as his proof text, which begins with the phrase "I Nephi" (!) Given that example, there is no reason to assume (as Glenn does) that the original, with specific regard to Nephi, had to have been written in the third person. In fact, Lehi could have easily quoted Nephi as saying, "I Nephi" and then continued with his abridgment of Nephi's account in first person or a combination thereof. Notice, that does not mean I am arguing that's the way it happened, I am just saying that this is certainly one plausible explanation.

There is no conflict either way. The only problem here is Glenn's assumption that an abridgment can't be written in first person so that the repetition of the phrase "I Nephi" becomes questionable. There is no basis for that assumption.