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

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Dan, you can't deny that you and Glenn are bosom buddies when it comes to the Book of Mormon witness testimony. For example, when you excuse David Whitmer's contradictions by blaming them on the reporters, Glenn is right there with you.

The difference here is that the weight of the evidence is solidly against the Book of Mormon as history (even though it can't be definitively proven) whereas the weight of Glenn's inference is tenuous at best. But, again, even if it were solid, it would still not prove Cunningham's statement was inaccurate. That's just the bottom line here. I can't help it. It's not a winning argument for Glenn.

This doesn’t excuse your method of denying probable arguments and proposing imaginative plausible interpretations.

Making allowances for faulty reporting is standard historical methodology.

Cunningham’s memory was intended to support what he had read in the Book of Mormon. He was apparently unaware that the beginning had been rewritten. That’s the problem. This is similar to Miller’s claim that there were “verbatim” passages, or Lake’s claim he found the “same passages”. The rewrite puts these claims into question.

It's speculation either way! We don't know that the 116 pages were written in third person. We can infer that they likely were, but we simply don't know that.

No, it’s not! We do know the 116 pages were in third person; we don’t know that the entire thing was in third person. Your suggestion that part was in third person is speculation, but even if some of it was in first person it still wouldn’t justify Cunningham’s claim, which was made to support his belief that what he had read in the current Book of Mormon was written by Spalding.

With this stance you have negated everything you have said in this thread.

Oh brother.

Very articulate, Roger. Why shouldn’t we apply your sudden rejection of probabilistic arguments to your previous arguments?

In fact, no one can say they “KNOW” anything about anything and we have wasted our time. The only way out of this extreme skepticism and nihilism is to reject infallibilism and use probabilistic arguments. You probably haven’t heard the term infallibilism, so here is a quick Wiki definition:

Infallibilism is, in epistemology, the position that knowledge is, by definition, a true belief which cannot be rationally doubted. Other beliefs may be rationally justified, but they do not rise to the level of knowledge unless absolutely certain. Infallibilism's opposite, fallibilism, is the position that a justified true belief may be considered knowledge, even if we can rationally doubt it. Falliblism is not to be confused with skepticism, which is the belief that knowledge is unattainable for rational human beings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibilism

There has never been a time in this thread that anyone knew anything with the degree that you are demanding now—and you are only demanding it now because it suits your purpose. You are trying to avoid Glenn’s argument rather than dealing with it. Although a probabilistic argument isn’t ironclad, you still need to admit that it exists and is problematic for Cunningham’s “memory”.

Sheesh. First, I typically don't use the word "know" unless I'm pretty sure I know something. Of course, I'm only human, so sometimes I might use it inappropriately. But I try not to and admit it when I do. I called you on your use here, because you can't possibly actually know what you claim to know--just like you claimed to know the extent of my knowledge which is an equal absurdity. My calling you on that does not equate to a slide toward nihilism! That is ridiculous.

Roger, your rejection of Glenn’s probabilistic argument on the grounds that he doesn’t know for sure is a major problem for everything you have said in this thread. None of your arguments rise to the level of certainty you now demand of Glenn. And I didn’t misuse the word “know” when I said we know the 116 pages were written in third person, but we don’t know that it included first person—that’s speculation. Get it?

Second, of course I recognize that Glenn's argument exists. It would be pretty silly to deny it's existence. What I have and do deny is that Glenn's argument presents a problem for Cunningham. It does not for reasons I've given several times now. It is only "problematic for Cunningham’s 'memory'” if Nephi and Lehi and Mormon, etc. were real people. We agree they were not.

It concerns me that you think this argument makes sense. It doesn’t. It’s as illogical as it can be.

Roger, it’s not fallacious to assert that Mormon’s abridgement of Lehi’s record would necessarily be written in third person.

It's not fallacious to assert it as likely. It is fallacious to say we know that's the way it is.

We know that it was written in third person; we don’t know that it all was in third person. There is a possibility that Mormon quoted Lehi or Nephi, but it still wouldn’t justify Cunningham’s claim of frequent occurrences of “I, Nephi.” Besides, Cunningham was applying his memory to what he read in the current Book of Mormon and was unaware that it had been rewritten. That’s where the problem arises.

Implausible? I don't think so. It's true enough that you attempted to paint it in an implausible light, but you did not succeed. You simply think going from first to third and then back to first is implausible, but Joseph Smith admits to rewriting the material! And according to Glenn the rewrite "had to be so different that the adversaries could not challenge them." (!) And that's not even the only solution. In short, Cunningham is not in need of rescue.

You haven’t dealt with my criticism. You have stated it in a weaker form and then simply reasserted your position. Your position requires that Spalding’s MS reads like the current text of 1 Nephi, that Joseph Smith and/or SR changed it to Mormon’s third person abridgement of Lehi’s record, then back to first person Nephi. This is both implausible and too convenient for your needs to rescue Cunningham. It’s not a probable scenario.

Dan, you are overreacting. All I am doing is pointing out the fact that you do not know what exactly was on a few missing pages. I'm not wiping out your profession in the process. I'm just calling you on your inappropriate use of one word. You are the one making a Federal case out of it. Heck, I've even acknowledged that you are free to infer all you want and such an inference might even be correct! This talk of a slippery slope to nihilism is really something else!

But at the same time you have to acknowledge that your inference might also be wrong. That's what uncertainty means.

I don’t think you understand the philosophical implications of what you have been arguing. It doesn’t have anything to do with my supposed misuse of the word “know”, but rather with your sudden insistence on certain knowledge. Why can’t you acknowledge that Glenn is probably right and that there is a problem with Cunningham’s memory? It’s a simple and obvious problem.

Well that, of course, is debatable, but unless the reality is that Glenn's speculation is so infinitely superior to mine that mine is silly by comparison (which it isn't) then the point is moot. Like I said, I have a witness and Glenn does not. You are free of course to conclude that present knowledge supports Glenn and not me, and I am free to disagree.

You don’t have a witness if Glenn is right. Cunningham thought what he was reading in the present Book of Mormon was what Spalding wrote, and that’s a problem. Glenn isn’t speculating that the lost MS was primarily written in third person—he has evidence that such was probably the case. You have nothing.

No I don't. I'm not backing down that you misused the word. It's up to you to acknowledge that or continue to look ridiculous trying to deny it.

Now, why doesn’t that surprise me? We do know that the lost MS was written in third person, and that it was probably primarily if not all written in third person—which makes Cunningham’s claim probably wrong. You’re the one who looks ridiculous trying to deny that because it’s not ironclad, Roger.

I have answered. You just don't like my answers.

Mormon was not a real person. Therefore there is no such thing as "Mormon's abridgement." If there is no such thing as ""Mormon's abridgement" we can't examine it. …

See above and then add this: "Nephi's records" never existed. There was never a time when "Lehi wrote." Nephi never copied anything. Nephi had no father. Therefore "his father’s record" never existed. Neither did "large plates" or "small plates."

Mormon's abridgment never existed, therefore it could not have "included Nephi’s record" nor would it "have been predominately in third person."

I'm not simply being a pain here, Dan. It's important to point this out because, again, you are writing exactly like an LDS apologist would write. In fact, I can hear Glenn cheering you on![/quote]

How does this even remotely answer my arguments? You seem to think because we are dealing with fiction that it can’t be used historically, or to discover what the missing narrative was like. Your position is absurd. And you need to get over your hang up on my quoting the Book of Mormon without constant qualification about its fictitious nature. Critics of any work of fiction treat it just as I do the Book of Mormon. So you’re not making any important point—you are just being a pain and ignoring the arguments.

You have to understand that we can't have a rational conversation if you are going to sound like an LDS apologist. I have to confront the LDS bias before I can even make a rational point. I THINK I might be able to follow your logic if you could find a way to divorce it from Mormonism, but so far you can't. And I'm not convinced it's even possible. I think you are leaning on your understanding of the alleged inner workings of the alleged Book of Mormon plates and then from that basis you make your conclusions. But that premise is flawed from the very beginning! There was no Nephi. No Mormon. No plates. It all came from Joseph Smith (according to you!)

What does exist is a 19th century fiction that claims to be an ancient work. So the claims are fraudulent from the get-go! I'm not even convinced Mormon had to be an abridger in the first attempt. The concept of Mormon abridging something could have been developed to salvage the crisis resulting from the 116 page loss.

This explains more about your inability to understand Glenn’s argument, than it does about me and my style of talking about the Book of Mormon. When I’m critiquing the Book of Mormon, I’m not trying to convince you that it’s fiction. I’m trying to explain the world of the Book of Mormon to you, which can’t be understood without a temporary suspension of disbelief. If I were to critique Harry Potter, you wouldn’t expect me to keep reminding you that magic isn’t real. The Book of Mormon isn’t put together haphazardly—it has a narrative logic that makes sense internally. Cunningham’s claim is inconsistent with that logic, and that has to be considered when evaluating his statement.

In any event, there is nothing here to suggest that Cunningham could not have been exposed to a Spalding manuscript that contained a repetition of the phase "I Nephi." If you were to discover Manuscript Found and find that it doesn't contain the phrase "I Nephi" you would have something. As it is, you have nothing. By contrast, I have a fellow who knew Spalding and was exposed to his manuscript who says he remembers the phrase "I Nephi." Either he's lying, or he's telling the truth. And he's supported by other liars or truth tellers.

The same could be said to you about the lost 116 pages. We are trying to assess the reliability of Cunningham’s memory without having Spalding’s MS for verification. Based on Mormon testimony about Joseph Smith’s method of dictation with head in hat, we have reason to suspect Cunningham’s memory has been tainted by reading the Book of Mormon. His claim about the frequent repetition of “I, Nephi” matches the current text of 1 Nephi, but is problematic when it comes to the first version that was lost. We know that the text originally read more like the third-person narrative of Mosiah-4 Nephi, than it does the first-person narrative of the present text. Since one would expect the first version to read closer to the supposed source-text of Spalding’s MS, it would appear Cunningham’s memory failed him.

4. Cunningham’s claim requires that Spalding’s MS was changed from first person (Nephi) to third person (Lehi/Nephi) in the 116 pages, then back to first person (Nephi).

Not it doesn't. But that is certainly one possibility.

That’s no answer.

You're asking me to believe that he sincerely thought he had been exposed to "Lehi" and "Nephi" when there is nothing like that in Spalding's extant manuscript. And that the others did the same thing--all of them sincerely wrong. And that they remembered teasing Spalding with the name "Ole came to pass" when he never even used the phrase! Even though they all claim Lehi and Nephi were the principle heroes, you want me to believe they were sincerely mistaken about that because we find those names in the Book of Mormon but not in Spalding's extant manuscript. Etc, etc. It's too much of a stretch. I can accept that they were lying, but not sincerely mistaken.

I’m not saying there aren’t liars among the Spalding witnesses, only that it’s not necessary to draw that conclusion and still reject their statements. Cunningham’s claim about frequent repetition of “I, Nephi” is problematic, no matter what the reason is. The Conneaut witnesses did not give their testimony independent from the others, and very likely contaminated each other’s memory.

That’s all for now.

[_GlennThigpen]

In Mormon doctrine the Jews are to be gathered to Old Jerusalem, and the Indians, believing Gentiles, and eventually the lost ten tribes are to be gathered to the New Jerusalem in Independence, MO. The gathering of spiritual Israel (the church) began in 1830.

Missionaries believed they were instigating both.

It's a pointless rabbit trail. But let's see what your D & C says:

7 Yea, verily I say unto you again, the time has come when the voice of the Lord is unto you: Go ye out of Babylon; gather ye out from among the nations, from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Sounds present tense to me.

This is quoting out of context. Here is the header to section 133 from which quoted only verse 7. I will not quote the whole chapter.

1–6, The Saints are commanded to prepare for the Second Coming; 7–16, All men are commanded to flee from Babylon, come to Zion, and prepare for the great day of the Lord; 17–35, He will stand on Mount Zion, the continents will become one land, and the lost tribes of Israel will return; 36–40, The gospel was restored through Joseph Smith to be preached in all the world; 41–51, The Lord will come down in vengeance upon the wicked; 52–56, It will be the year of his redeemed; 57–74, The gospel is to be sent forth to save the Saints and for the destruction of the wicked.

The restoration of the lost tribes from the north country was and is still in the future. It was not a part of the doctrine and beliefs of the early church that the American Indians are descendents pf the lost tribes.

It sure does when Hurlbut puts the very manuscript you use to make your claims in front of at least one of them and they still stand by their statements.

Sure, Wright stood by his statement. When he saw the manuscript, and realized he had made a faux pas, he did what you are so really fond of, made an ad hoc explanation knowing full well that there was no other manuscript and could never be proven wrong.

Forget about the false data obtained from Jockers.

That is a ridiculous statement. There is no false data obtained from Jockers! There are subjective opinions (on both sides!) of how to interpret the legitimate data.

The Jockers study did provide some false data. Bruce did prove that statistically. You have disdained that research, citing problems that you feel it has, but ignore the fact that the Jockers original study would suffer from the very same problems, as well as the ones that Bruce pointed out.

--that just made me realize something in response to one of Ben's worn-out parallelomania charges... if Ben is correct that such stories were a dime a dozen and striking parallels could be found between the Book of Mormon and many other contemporary works, then why did these sort of claims only come from the Conneaut area? Why weren't the missionaries running into this sort of thing where the Book of Mormon reminded the common folk of other stories they had heard all the time?

Roger, you are overstating what Ben was saying. He used lexical tools to find parallels for you in other nineteenth century works in response to your assertion that all of the parallels that have been culled from the Manuscript Found must mean something.
The fact that only Conneaut area witnesses make claims about a connection between the Book of Mormon is something that has already been dealt with. There is no mention by any of the missionaries that went through the area of anyone jumping up in any of the meetings and spouting off about the Book of Mormon being like Solomon's story. They converted one person, Erastus Rudd, who was a near neighbor and in whose home Daniel Tyler said that a lot of that manuscript was written.
The Conneaut area witnesses had one common denominator. Philastus Hurlbut. They were contaminated by him and by popular but erroneous beliefs about the Book of Mormon. Josiah Spalding, on the other hand, had not been contaminated by Hurlbut, and provided a pretty accurate description of the manuscript that now resides at Oberlin College.

There was every chance for their memories to have been corrupted by the Book of Mormon itself and by conversations with other witnesses.

Dan, the fallacy is that you are assuming what you're trying to prove. Their memories only would have been corrupted if you are correct that the Roman story was all there ever was. But that's what you're trying to prove! If that assumption is wrong (as Aron Wright pointedly states) then their memories would not have been corrupted but jogged!

Actually Aaron Wright did not pointedly say or write anything of the kind. As you are well aware, that unsigned draft letter is in the handwriting of one Philastus Hurlbut. You do not know if what was written was a direct quote from Wright, or how much was an interpolation by Hurlbut himself.

It’s possible that the untainted memories of the witnesses would have been like Josiah Spalding’s, but that is an argument contrary to fact. We are stuck with what is, not with what might have been. Glenn is indulging in the fallacy of possible proof.

Finally we agree.

And that was on purpose. I don't know if you recognized the fallacy on your own. But the Spalding theory is riddled with possible proof fallacies.

If Glenn is right, your theory is unnecessary. The idea that Pratt would come up with the same terminology used by Spalding (but absent in the Book of Mormon), and then be in the vicinity of Miller, who the next year drew on his memory of Spalding (rather than Pratt) is just too coincidental—or, rather, too convenient for you. In the case of Pratt, we have evidence, but your theory has nothing—which is more probable? Do you see a consistent pattern in your thinking, Roger?

No, what I honestly see is a biased framing of the argument on your part. I explained this, but obviously you're not getting it.

If Pratt's brother had helped to produce material for the Book of Mormon, then it is no surprise that he would have been privy to information about where Lehi allegedly landed that others would not. On the other hand, you made the case that this information came from Joseph Smith, who we both agree produced at least some content for the Book of Mormon (you think he produced all of it) and then passed it on to Pratt. If Spalding was the originator of the idea that Lehi landed at Darien, then it is no surprise that Pratt--regardless of whether he got the information from Joseph Smith or his brother--would use his terminology.

Here is where you are assuming as true something that has not been established by any fact. Orson Pratt has never been connected with the 116 pages, or with the production of the Book of Mormon at all. But that is the problem with the S/R theory. It assumes as fact many events for which there is no evidence, but on which the theory depends.
If you read John Miller's statement, he said that the straits of Darien was described verbally and did not indicate that it was part of Solomon's mythical second manuscript. As has been pointed out, none of the other Conneaut witnesses produced those specific names. Their description of the landings are so vague as to be unusable as to where in the Americas Solomon landed his people. Maybe because they really couldn't remember, even though many of them supposedly had heard that story repeatedly.

On the other hand, what IS coincidental, is that Pratt would use that terminology IF there was no connection to Spalding and Spalding had written about it in his no longer extant ms. But there is no way to know that either way. That Pratt should go on a missionary journey to the Conneaut area is hardly surprising since Conneaut is close to Kirtland.

As to Miller drawing on Pratt as opposed to Spalding, it can't be established either way. What is clear is that the specific reference to Darien does not come from the Book of Mormon, so you can't claim Miller simply read the Book of Mormon to supply all his "memories."
Furthermore, as I said, IF Spalding did indeed write about Darien, then we would expect Miller to point it out AFTER his memory had been jogged by Pratt. Try as you might, you cannot use what we would expect to happen if Miller is telling the truth as evidence that he's not.

Which Pratt are you talking about? Parley P. Pratt went on the mission to Ohio. Again, Miller described the straits of Darien as a verbal explanation. He did not say that it was in the mythical manuscript.

It's not ad hoc and it has evidential support in the form of the Jockers results. The fact that you disregard the Jocker's results does not mean I have to. I've already stated why I think Bruce's study is not accurate. The KJV factor produces a false separation. Ben Maguire--no friend of S/R!--says if the true author is in the mix, then Jocker's results are very accurate. I've seen no one dispute Ben's observation. There is no more likely author than Joseph Smith and he's included in Jocker's most recent tests and Parley Pratt still shows up in places. That's not ad hoc, Glenn.

Glenn is right! Ben’s comment is conditional and proves nothing. Identifying PPP as one of the Book of Mormon’s authors makes me less confident about Jocker’s results. Treat it like a control on the experiment.

Glenn is not right! Ben's comment is only conditional on the premise that the true author needs to be in the mix of candidate authors. There is no more likely "true author" than Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith was included in Jockers most recent tests. As expected, that inclusion changed some of the results, but not very significantly. I can understand why you would be reluctant to embrace Jocker's study, but if Ben's statement is at all accurate, then S/A is in trouble.

Ben's statement is accurate, which Matt Jockers also tacitly acknowledged. Have you read his comments so much earlier in this thread? He also acknowledged that Bruce's work has produced some positive refinements to his original work. You just cannot assume that the correct author or authors are in any set of candidates. What Bruce did was develop a method to check for the possibility that actual author was not in the mix.
You concerns, as I have pointed out, with Bruce's work are equally applicable to the original Jockers study. Either way, absolute conclusions of authorship based on the original Jockers study are invalid.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Dan:

Cunningham’s memory was intended to support what he had read in the Book of Mormon. He was apparently unaware that the beginning had been rewritten. That’s the problem. This is similar to Miller’s claim that there were “verbatim” passages, or Lake’s claim he found the “same passages”. The rewrite puts these claims into question.

I can agree with this much: If the above is correct, it does call their testimony into question. The mitigating factor is, of course, that not all of the Book of Mormon was rewritten. If that had happened then your case would be more solid than it is. In your favor, however, is the fact that it was the opening chapters that were rewritten which is where we would have expected them to start reading for their comparisons. On the other hand, since it was only the beginning that was rewritten, there is nothing to say that they could not be referring to the post-Words of Mormon section when they make their "same passages" claims.

Another possibility is that Joseph retained his Rigdon supplied manuscript and was able to copy it, however, he had added a substantial portion to it that he knew he could not duplicate. In that case, the "same passages" claims could even apply to some pre-Words of Mormon passages.

The "I Nephi" claim is a bit different, as I have pointed out, there is more than one way it could work.

No, it’s not! We do know the 116 pages were in third person; we don’t know that the entire thing was in third person. Your suggestion that part was in third person is speculation, but even if some of it was in first person it still wouldn’t justify Cunningham’s claim, which was made to support his belief that what he had read in the current Book of Mormon was written by Spalding.

You don't know that, Dan. You strongly suspect it, based on the way the rest of the Book of Mormon reads, but the fact is, you could be wrong about that. You simply do not know it. Regardless, it doesn't matter anyway. Whether the 116 pages were written entirely or partially in third person is irrelevant as Cunningham could be telling the truth either way.

Very articulate, Roger. Why shouldn’t we apply your sudden rejection of probabilistic arguments to your previous arguments?

It's not that I am rejecting probabilistic arguments, Dan. You are the one making that leap. I am simply pointing out that you can't possibly know exactly what was on those missing pages. And I am saying even if your inference is correct, Cunningham could still be telling the truth, so beating this argument to death is getting you nowhere.

Roger, your rejection of Glenn’s probabilistic argument on the grounds that he doesn’t know for sure is a major problem for everything you have said in this thread. None of your arguments rise to the level of certainty you now demand of Glenn. And I didn’t misuse the word “know” when I said we know the 116 pages were written in third person, but we don’t know that it included first person—that’s speculation. Get it?

No, you don't get it. I do not flat out reject Glenn's probabilistic argument. If you think I do, then quote me rejecting it. What I have said is that it doesn't matter either way because the rewrite changed things.

Second, of course I recognize that Glenn's argument exists. It would be pretty silly to deny it's existence. What I have and do deny is that Glenn's argument presents a problem for Cunningham. It does not for reasons I've given several times now. It is only "problematic for Cunningham’s 'memory'” if Nephi and Lehi and Mormon, etc. were real people. We agree they were not.

It concerns me that you think this argument makes sense. It doesn’t. It’s as illogical as it can be.

And it concerns me that you think the above is illogical when I think it should be pretty obvious to any rational person. If you want to see logic that doesn't flow, here it is:

We know that it was written in third person; we don’t know that it all was in third person. There is a possibility that Mormon quoted Lehi or Nephi, but it still wouldn’t justify Cunningham’s claim of frequent occurrences of “I, Nephi.” Besides, Cunningham was applying his memory to what he read in the current Book of Mormon and was unaware that it had been rewritten. That’s where the problem arises.

1. You don't know that it was written in third person, instead you infer that based on what the text looks like after Words of Mormon.

2. You are correct that you don't know that all of it was written in third person. In fact, you don't even know how much would have been written in third person vs. how much in first person. You are making logical inferences based on how much a real person would logically have written and then guessing what Mormon would have condensed and put into third person, but all that is a guess based on what real people would likely have done.

3. There would have been no need for the concept of someone abridging the material prior to the loss of the 116 pages--unless Joseph himself (or Sidney) was doing actual abridging and wanted to cover his actions. Therefore, the concept of Mormon as an abridger likely developed after the loss.

4. There is indeed a possibility that Mormon quoted Nephi and/or Lehi and the fact is, you cannot know to what extent he did so. He could have quoted them for the bulk of the book. You simply don't know one way or another which renders this: "but it still wouldn’t justify Cunningham’s claim of frequent occurrences of “I, Nephi,” invalid.

5. "Besides, Cunningham was applying his memory to what he read in the current Book of Mormon and was unaware that it had been rewritten." -- you don't know that. You suspect it, and, while it's possible that he did not know that, as I have said several times now, it is irrelevant. Even if he didn't know the beginning had been rewritten he could still be telling the truth that Spalding's ms contained a repetition of "I Nephi." It doesn't matter what happened in between. None of the other witnesses contradict that. The only thing that contradicts it is MSCC which proves that either a) Cunningham is lying or b) MSCC is not the ms they are referring to.

Your position requires that Spalding’s MS reads like the current text of 1 Nephi,

No it doesn't. It merely requires a repetition of the phrase "I Nephi" and a lot of "And it came to pass."

that Joseph Smith and/or SR changed it to Mormon’s third person abridgement of Lehi’s record,

Not necessarily, but that is one possibility, yes. The abridgement concept did not have to originate prior to the loss.

then back to first person Nephi. This is both implausible and too convenient for your needs to rescue Cunningham. It’s not a probable scenario.

Given that you don't accept any of the S/R premise, I would not expect you to find it a probable scenario. I don't find it very probable that the use of a Bible would not have raised red flags for honest dupes. I do not find it very probable that the contradictions in their testimonies are the fault of ignorant reporters. I don't find it very probable that Emma Smith was telling the truth except where we can plainly see she was lying. I don't find it very probable that Joseph came up with all this stuff off the top of his head. We just disagree.

It's interesting that when I make statements like this:

But at the same time you have to acknowledge that your inference might also be wrong. That's what uncertainty means.

99% of the time you come back with something like this:

I don’t think you understand the philosophical implications of what you have been arguing. It doesn’t have anything to do with my supposed misuse of the word “know”, but rather with your sudden insistence on certain knowledge. Why can’t you acknowledge that Glenn is probably right and that there is a problem with Cunningham’s memory? It’s a simple and obvious problem.

That is an attempt to deflect the conversation away from the obvious.... which is "at the same time you have to acknowledge that your inference might also be wrong. That's what uncertainty means." You can't seem to bring yourself to simply acknowledge that so instead you attempt to paint me as the one who is being unreasonable by erroneously suggesting that I somehow maintain an "insistence on certain knowledge." Well, back up your assertion then and pull the quote where I am insisting on certain knowledge. But before you waste your time and mine, understand that there is a difference between insisting on certain knowledge and simply pointing out that in a specific case it doesn't exist despite the fact that you are asserting it does.

Why can't you simply acknowledge that neither you nor Glenn know for sure what was on those missing pages?

And why can't you simply acknowledge that whatever was on them is irrelevant to Cunningham's statement?

I am out of time for now.

[_GlennThigpen]

3. There would have been no need for the concept of someone abridging the material prior to the loss of the 116 pages--unless Joseph himself (or Sidney) was doing actual abridging and wanted to cover his actions. Therefore, the concept of Mormon as an abridger likely developed after the loss.

There was no need for a rewrite before the 116 pages were lost. The whole idea of the rewrite was either (a) to confound he robbers lying in wait to show Joseph up when he retranslated the part that had been stolen or (b) to cover up an inability to reconstruct the original text.
It would help your understanding of that rewrite if you would read some of the articles that Royal Skousen has written on the subject. You may distrust him because he is a faithful LDS, but he presents some pretty clear facts to consider. The current Book of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon shows evidence of being incomplete. It appears that there were two chapters in Mosiah already written and were part of the 116 pages that were lost.
You also have to remember that according to the S/R theory, Rigdon already had the whole shebang ready to go and Joseph was just reeling off dictation from the an already prepared manuscript. Even if one were to accept as fact that the idea of inserting Mormon as an abridger after the loss of the first 116 pages in order to bridge the gap between the Nephi chronicles, that still does not provide any reason to believe that the first 116 pages were written in anything but the third person.
Loud disclaimer, I am not saying that it is a proven fact, only that based on the rest of the Book of Mormon, the author of the 116 lost pages probably wrote it them in the third person also. Now, you may jump up and down saying that I cannot know that, and I will agree with you. However, you will have to produce some evidence that it was not written in the third person that overrides the textual and historical evidence that ha been presented.

4. There is indeed a possibility that Mormon quoted Nephi and/or Lehi and the fact is, you cannot know to what extent he did so. He could have quoted them for the bulk of the book. You simply don't know one way or another which renders this: "but it still wouldn’t justify Cunningham’s claim of frequent occurrences of “I, Nephi,” invalid.

It does not matter to what extent Mormon quoted Lehi or Nephi. The quotes would have been verbal quotes such as Nephi quoting his father. Places where Nephi stood up and verbally proclaimed "I, Nephi" would be few if any. That is the point that Dan is trying to make. That is the way Mormon quoted people in the rest of the Book of Mormon.

You keep saying that that does not matter, because Cunningham was not talking about the Book of Mormon, but about a second more than mythical manuscript. However, those witnesses who remembered Nephi and Lehi so well also stated how very much like Solomon's manuscript read the Book of Mormon. From beginning to end. Verbatim passages even. Principally if not wholly.

Artemas had memory problems. He probably even got the year wrong that he last saw Solomon.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

but deception doesn’t prove Joseph Smith wasn’t inspired—that’s a claim scholarship is not equipped to answer. Could a true prophet—if there is such a thing—lie? Theoretically, yes!

This is where you lose me.... "deception doesn’t prove Joseph Smith wasn’t inspired"? What does that mean exactly? And how does that assertion specifically apply to this discussion?

I mentioned this because you seem to think that discrepancies in the 1838 account are evidence against Joseph Smith/divine theory. I don’t think they are.

Cunningham’s memory was intended to support what he had read in the Book of Mormon. He was apparently unaware that the beginning had been rewritten. That’s the problem. This is similar to Miller’s claim that there were “verbatim” passages, or Lake’s claim he found the “same passages”. The rewrite puts these claims into question.

I can agree with this much: If the above is correct, it does call their testimony into question.

You should hold onto this concept as the most probable alternative.

The mitigating factor is, of course, that not all of the Book of Mormon was rewritten. If that had happened then your case would be more solid than it is. In your favor, however, is the fact that it was the opening chapters that were rewritten which is where we would have expected them to start reading for their comparisons. On the other hand, since it was only the beginning that was rewritten, there is nothing to say that they could not be referring to the post-Words of Mormon section when they make their "same passages" claims.

This is where you start looking for any possible escape. If anything, they are referring to the entire Book of Mormon, not just the last part. Lake referred to the story of Laban, and Cunningham “I, Nephi,” for examples. Miller said “from beginning to end.”

Another possibility is that Joseph retained his Rigdon supplied manuscript and was able to copy it, however, he had added a substantial portion to it that he knew he could not duplicate. In that case, the "same passages" claims could even apply to some pre-Words of Mormon passages.

The "I Nephi" claim is a bit different, as I have pointed out, there is more than one way it could work.

This is where you go wrong. There is always going to be other possibilities in any set of historical problems as long a imagination has free reign. Spaldingites might share such speculations among themselves, but it’s not appropriate in debate where the strengths and weaknesses of each position are being tested.

You don't know that, Dan. You strongly suspect it, based on the way the rest of the Book of Mormon reads, but the fact is, you could be wrong about that. You simply do not know it. Regardless, it doesn't matter anyway. Whether the 116 pages were written entirely or partially in third person is irrelevant as Cunningham could be telling the truth either way.

I’m probably not wrong. That’s the point.

It's not that I am rejecting probabilistic arguments, Dan. You are the one making that leap. I am simply pointing out that you can't possibly know exactly what was on those missing pages. And I am saying even if your inference is correct, Cunningham could still be telling the truth, so beating this argument to death is getting you nowhere.

If Cunningham isn’t supported by the lost 116 pages, it’s not likely that he was supported by Spalding’s MS since the lost MS would have been closer to it both chronologically and as a source. Normally, in these matters, one expects that the further away one gets in pedigree from a source document the less similar in wording it gets, and vice versa. Your attempt to save Cunningham’s statement is way too convenient and improbable.

No, you don't get it. I do not flat out reject Glenn's probabilistic argument. If you think I do, then quote me rejecting it. What I have said is that it doesn't matter either way because the rewrite changed things.

Ya, it just happened to changing this so that Cunningham’s memory was accidentally verified.

And it concerns me that you think the above is illogical when I think it should be pretty obvious to any rational person.

It’s irrelevant “if Nephi and Lehi and Mormon, etc. were real people”. That has nothing to do with an abridgement being written in third person.

1. You don't know that it was written in third person, instead you infer that based on what the text looks like after Words of Mormon.

I’ve given you this argument before. Whatever Joseph Smith says about the lost MS must be taken as true since he feared that the MS was still around to prove him wrong and both Harris and Emma would know if he were wrong. So when Joseph Smith says in the Preface that it was an abridgement of the book of Lehi by the hand of Mormon, you can take that as reliable information. The Preface to the 1830 edition was based on D&C 10, given in May 1829 right before the lost MS was replaced, which also mentions the “abridgment” and a more particular account on the plates of Nephi. Mosiah begins abruptly and has no superscription like Mormon’s other books. A summary of the missing beginning of Mosiah is found in Words of Mormon 1:12-18. Thus Joseph Smith retained at least p. 117 when Harris took the 116-page MS. This is in third person.

2. You are correct that you don't know that all of it was written in third person. In fact, you don't even know how much would have been written in third person vs. how much in first person. You are making logical inferences based on how much a real person would logically have written and then guessing what Mormon would have condensed and put into third person, but all that is a guess based on what real people would likely have done.

No. I’m using the example that the fictional Mormon left us in Mosiah-4 Nephi.

[/quote]3. There would have been no need for the concept of someone abridging the material prior to the loss of the 116 pages--unless Joseph himself (or Sidney) was doing actual abridging and wanted to cover his actions. Therefore, the concept of Mormon as an abridger likely developed after the loss. [/quote]

No need. According to whom? I have argued that Joseph Smith chose an abridger/narrator from the end of the book’s history to make his job easier. You can’t insist that an abridgment could only be used if there was an actual record to be abridged. (Spalding’s MS was a lot longer than the Book of Mormon?)

4. There is indeed a possibility that Mormon quoted Nephi and/or Lehi and the fact is, you cannot know to what extent he did so. He could have quoted them for the bulk of the book. You simply don't know one way or another which renders this: "but it still wouldn’t justify Cunningham’s claim of frequent occurrences of “I, Nephi,” invalid.

The evidence shows that you are probably wrong. That would make the lost MS essentially the same as the replacement text. What you are describing as “possible” doesn’t fit with what we know as “probable”.

5. "Besides, Cunningham was applying his memory to what he read in the current Book of Mormon and was unaware that it had been rewritten." -- you don't know that. You suspect it, and, while it's possible that he did not know that, as I have said several times now, it is irrelevant. Even if he didn't know the beginning had been rewritten he could still be telling the truth that Spalding's ms contained a repetition of "I Nephi." It doesn't matter what happened in between. None of the other witnesses contradict that. The only thing that contradicts it is MSCC which proves that either a) Cunningham is lying or b) MSCC is not the ms they are referring to.

You are finding it hard to deny that Cunningham was commenting on the current Book of Mormon text, which according to your theory accidentally confirmed his memory of Spalding’s MS. What are the chances? You can’t refer to the other witnesses for support, because they are not independent witnesses. None of them support his memory of “I, Nephi”.

that Joseph Smith and/or SR changed it to Mormon’s third person abridgement of Lehi’s record,

Not necessarily, but that is one possibility, yes. The abridgement concept did not have to originate prior to the loss.

You have challenged the abridgement in order to argue that the lost MS had frequent “I Nephi” in it, but that has failed.

then back to first person Nephi. This is both implausible and too convenient for your needs to rescue Cunningham. It’s not a probable scenario.

Given that you don't accept any of the S/R premise, I would not expect you to find it a probable scenario. I don't find it very probable that the use of a Bible would not have raised red flags for honest dupes. I do not find it very probable that the contradictions in their testimonies are the fault of ignorant reporters. I don't find it very probable that Emma Smith was telling the truth except where we can plainly see she was lying. I don't find it very probable that Joseph came up with all this stuff off the top of his head. We just disagree.

Don’t cloud the issue with other unrelated arguments. Need I remind you what an ad hominem circumstantial is?

But at the same time you have to acknowledge that your inference might also be wrong. That's what uncertainty means.

I have acknowledged the possibility that Mormon quoted Nephi, but that has to be weighed against the probability that the lost MS didn’t have “frequent repetition of ‘I Nephi’”—which is what you need to acknowledge.

I don’t think you understand the philosophical implications of what you have been arguing. It doesn’t have anything to do with my supposed misuse of the word “know”, but rather with your sudden insistence on certain knowledge. Why can’t you acknowledge that Glenn is probably right and that there is a problem with Cunningham’s memory? It’s a simple and obvious problem.

That is an attempt to deflect the conversation away from the obvious.... which is "at the same time you have to acknowledge that your inference might also be wrong. That's what uncertainty means." You can't seem to bring yourself to simply acknowledge that so instead you attempt to paint me as the one who is being unreasonable by erroneously suggesting that I somehow maintain an "insistence on certain knowledge." Well, back up your assertion then and pull the quote where I am insisting on certain knowledge. But before you waste your time and mine, understand that there is a difference between insisting on certain knowledge and simply pointing out that in a specific case it doesn't exist despite the fact that you are asserting it does.

Why can't you simply acknowledge that neither you nor Glenn know for sure what was on those missing pages?

And why can't you simply acknowledge that whatever was on them is irrelevant to Cunningham's statement?

I am out of time for now.

From the beginning, I have mentioned the possibility while talking about probabilistic arguments. Our time here has been needlessly wasted getting you to acknowledge the problem with Cunningham’s claim.

[_Roger]

Our time here has been needlessly wasted getting you to acknowledge the problem with Cunningham’s claim.

Which, unless I missed it, I still haven't done. Out of curiosity, what question should we have been needlessly wasting our time on?

[_bschaalje]

Roger:

Out of curiosity, what question should we have been needlessly wasting our time on?

Here's my two cents worth.

I just saw an interview with author Jonathan Kay of “The Truthers.” The book identifies several clusters of people who seem ‘susceptible’ to believing in/promoting conspiracy theories. It suggests reasons why conspiracy theories are popular in these clusters even though believing the conspiracies is a real stretch. One cluster that scares me is the mid-life crisis cluster (although I guess I’m pretty much past that).

The book is about highly improbable conspiracies. It does note that there are real conspiracies, but real conspiracies are usually badly planned, badly carried out, and not kept secret. For example, the Watergate break-ins were poorly carried out, with lots of whistle-blowers, and easy to investigate.

I haven’t read the book yet, but obviously the interview made me think about the purported Spalding-Rigdon-Smith-Pratt-Whitmer Book of Mormon conspiracy theory while reading it. I remembered reading a thread in another blog a couple of years ago by John Hamer.

(http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/07/18/the-spaulding-fable/)

Hamer’s thread lays out in a sarcastic but thought-provoking way how unlikely this conspiracy is, how unlikely it is that the players would agree to their part in the conspiracy, and how unlikely it is that the various participants would keep their silence to their deaths. I think these are holistic questions that haven’t been well-addressed by S/R theorists.

Here’s an excerpt:

Meanwhile, Sidney had become a Campbellite preacher and moved to Ohio’s Western Reserve (not far from the Conneaut home of the long-deceased Solomon). Sidney realized that for his plan to work he couldn’t possibly publish the manuscript himself. That would be too easy. And it would spoil the fun of having fellow conspirators with whom to split his eventual proceeds and with whom to share his most dangerous secrets. His mind immediately turned to Joseph Smith Jr. — just 250 miles away in Palmyra, New York. How had Sidney met Joseph or heard of him? It doesn’t really matter. Why would he immediately know that the young man would be the perfect person to pretend to create the manuscript of a book? And how did he imagine that a poor nobody like Joseph could ever get it published?
Ultimately, we have to realize that this is the kind of visionary Sidney was. Not only could Sidney imagine things that no one else would; the fact that these things ultimately succeeded proved his brilliance.

However it was that Sidney knew Joseph, it was very fortunate that no other person on earth knew they knew each other. Sidney immediately traveled to Palmyra in secret. Once again extremely careful not to be seen by anyone, he met with Joseph and the two made a pact. Joseph would pretend to translate Sidney’s manuscript and Joseph would take all the credit and all the rewards. Later they would use the resulting book to found a church, which Joseph would lead and in which Sidney would play an important supporting role. It was just the kind of deal any successful preacher with a manuscript he believed was priceless would make with an impoverished young man with no prospects. Sidney made several other secret trips to Palmyra — fortunately always unseen by anyone except Joseph — and ultimately gave Joseph the manuscript.

I was wondering what your reactions are to the questions raised by the Hamer thread and the Kay book.

Bruce

[_marg]

Bruce,

I haven't followed what your statistical study/studies is/are about. I have a vague idea on one aspect...which I believe is that according to your study the Jocker's study tells us nothing of value if the true or true author's writings are not included in the input to be studied.

Could you tell me whether the wordprint studies so far done say anything with respect to whether or not the Book of Mormon was due to an input of several authors or most likely due to an input of only one author?

by the way Bruce

It does note that there are real conspiracies, but real conspiracies are usually badly planned, badly carried out, and not kept secret.

How would one know about all the good conspiracies which are successful and not found out? How would one determine what percentage of real conspiracies are found out versus one's not found out?

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Which, unless I missed it, I still haven't done. Out of curiosity, what question should we have been needlessly wasting our time on?

It’s quite telling that you can’t admit there’s a problem with Cunningham’s claim. However, Bruce does bring up a more interesting subject, which makes me want to repost my discussion of conspiracy theories, especially those that become ad hoc and circular explanations for adverse evidence. By that, I mean testimony is neutralized by including witnesses in the conspiracy.

To Bruce’s book, I would add Michael Shermer, The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies, How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (New York, NY: Times Books, 2011), which compares irrational belief in conspiracy to belief in gods and ghosts. He also distinguishes real conspiracy and “conspiracy theory”. (pp. 208-9)

1. There is an obvious pattern of connected dots that may or may not be connected in a causal way. … But when there is no forthcoming evidence to support a causal connection between the dots in the pattern, or when the evidence is equally well explained through some other causal chain—or through randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy are elevated to near superhuman power to pull it off. …

3. The more complex the conspiracy, and the more elements involved for it to unfold successfully, the less likely it is to be true.

4. The more people involved in the conspiracy, the less likely they will all be able to keep silent about their secret goings-on.

5. …

6. …

7. The more the conspiracy assigns portentous and sinister meanings and interpretations to what are most likely innocuous or insignificant events, the less likely it is to be true.

8. The tendency to commingle facts and speculation without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability of factuality, the less likely the conspiracy theory represents reality.

9. Extreme hostility about and strong suspicions of any and all government agencies or private organizations in an indiscriminate manner indicates that the conspiracy theorist is unable to differentiate between true and false conspiracies.

10. If the conspiracy theorist defends the conspiracy theory tenaciously to the point of refusing to consider alternative explanations for the events in question, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he has already determined is the truth, he is likely wrong and the conspiracy is probably a figment of his imagination.

Under “Why People Believe Conspiracies,” Shermer says: “Conspiracy theorists connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns, and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias and the hindsight bias (in which we tailor after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition” (p. 209).

Regarding this aspect of conspiracy theory, consider the following from Wiki about confirmation bias:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. …

They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations). …

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military, political and social contexts. …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The following is also from Wiki under Hindsight bias, and because it’s not only pertinent to conspiracy theory but also has relevance to the Spalding witnesses, I will quote a large portion with underlining added:

Hindsight bias, or alternatively the knew-it-all-along effect and creeping determinism, is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place.[1] It is a multifaceted phenomenon that can affect different stages of designs, processes, contexts, and situations.[2] Hindsight bias may cause memory distortion, where the recollection and reconstruction of content can lead to false theoretical outcomes. It has been suggested that the effect can cause extreme methodological problems while trying to analyze, understand, and interpret results in experimental studies. A basic example of the hindsight bias is when a person believes that after viewing the outcome of a potentially unforeseeable event that they "knew it all along". Such examples are present in the writings of historians describing outcomes of battles, physicians recalling clinical trials, and in judicial systems trying to attribute responsibility and predictability of accidents.[3]

… This study is frequently referred to in definitions of the hindsight bias, and the title of the paper, “I knew it would happen”, may have contributed to the hindsight bias being interchangeable with the term “knew it all along” hypothesis. …

The hindsight bias is defined as a tendency to change an opinion from an original thought to something different because of newly provided information [10]. Since 1973, when Fischhoff started the hindsight bias research, there has been a focus on two main explanations of the bias: distorted event probabilities and distorted memory for judgments of factual knowledge [11]. In tests for hindsight bias a person is asked to remember a specific event from the past or recall some descriptive information that they had been tested on earlier. In between the first test and final test they are given the correct information about the event or knowledge. At the final test he or she will report that they knew the answer all along when they truly have changed their answer to fit with the correct information they were given after the initial test. Hindsight bias has been found to take place in both memory for experienced situations (events that the person is familiar with) and hypothetical situations (made up events where the person must imagine being involved). More recently it has been found that Hindsight Bias also exists in recall with visual material [11]. When tested on initially blurry images the subjects learn what the true image was after the fact and they would then remember a clear recognizable picture. …

To understand how a person can so easily change the foundation of knowledge and belief for events after receiving new information three cognitive models of hindsight bias have been reviewed [12] . The three models are SARA (Selective Activation and Reconstructive Anchoring), RAFT (Reconstruction After Feedback with Take the Best) and CMT (Causal Model Theory). SARA and RAFT focus on distortions or changes in a memory process while CMT focuses on probability judgments of hindsight bias.

The SARA model explains hindsight bias for descriptive information in memory and hypothetical situations and was created by Rüdiger Pohl and associates [13] [12]. SARA assumes that people have a set of images to draw their memories from. They suffer from the hindsight bias due to selective activation or biased sampling of that set of images. Basically, people only remember small select amounts of information and when asked to recall it at a later time they will use that biased image to support their own opinions about the situation. The set of images is originally processed in the brain when first experienced. When remembered this image is reactivated, and the ability for editing and alteration of the memory is possible which takes place in hindsight bias when new and correct information in presented. Leading one to believe that this new information when remembered at a later time is the persons original memory. Due to this reactivation in the brain a more permanent memory trace can be created. The new information acts as a memory anchor causing retrieval impairment [14]. …

Hindsight bias has similarities to other memory distortions such as misinformation effect and false autobiographical memory [10]. Misinformation effect occurs after an event is witnessed new information received after the fact influences how the person remembers the event, and can be called post-event misinformation. This is an important issue with eyewitness testimony. False autobiographical memory takes place when suggestions or additional outside information is provided to distort and change memory of events, this can also lead to False memory syndrome. At times this can lead to creation of new memories that are completely false and have not taken place. All three of these memory distortions contain a three stage procedure[10]. The details of each procedure are different but can result in some psychological manipulation and alteration of memory. Stage one is different between the three paradigms although all involve an event, an event that has taken place (misinformation effect), an event that has not taken place (False autobiographical memory), and a judgment made by a person about an event that must be remembered (hindsight bias). Stage two consists of more information that is received by the person after the event has taken place. The new information given in hindsight bias is correct and presented up front to the person, while the extra information for the other two memory distortions is wrong and presented in a indirect and possibly manipulative way. The third stage consists of recalling the starting information. The person must recall the original information with hindsight bias and misinformation effect while a person that has a false autobiographical memory is expected to remember the incorrect information as a true memory[10].

For a false autobiographical memory to be created the person must believe a memory that is not real. To seem real the information given must be influenced by their own personal judgments. There is no real episode of an event to remember, so this memory construction must be logical to that person's knowledge base. Hindsight bias and misinformation effect recall a specific time and event this is called an episodic memory processes [10]. These two memory distortions both use memory based mechanisms that involve a memory trace that has be changed. Hippocampus activation takes place when an episodic memory is recalled [17]. The memory is then available for alteration by new information. The person believes that the remembered information is the original memory trace not an altered memory. This new memory is made from accurate information and therefore the person does not have much motivation to admit they were wrong originally by remembering the original memory. This can lead to motivated forgetting. One must then ask: Can we learn from our mistakes if we ignore that they happened?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Hindsight bias is essentially what I have previously described as begging the question, which consists in assuming the Spalding theory is right and then inventing ad hoc theories and speculations that conform to the theory no matter how unsupported, contradicted, and convoluted. New information about the Book of Mormon and the suggestion by Nehimiah King, who was first to make the claim in early 1832 in Conneaut and, according to Dale, “took on a life of their own and traveled by word of mouth to adjacent Erie County, Pennsylvania by the time Elder D. P. Hurlbut served his LDS mission there in the spring of 1833” (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO/sain1922.htm).

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

How would one know about all the good conspiracies which are successful and not found out? How would one determine what percentage of real conspiracies are found out versus one's not found out?

Seems logical enough, but this is one of those circular arguments when used to defend a conspiracy theory. The lack of evidence for conspiracy isn’t proof for the conspiracy.

Shermer’s 4th point: “The more people involved in the conspiracy, the less likely they will all be able to keep silent about their secret goings-on.” Bruce (and John Hamer) mentions four conspirators (Spalding-Rigdon-Smith-Pratt-Whitmer), but by my tally there are a lot more conspirators with Joseph Smith:

Sidney Rigdon – stole MS from printer’s office and rewrote it before passing it to Joseph Smith and pretended to be converted by Parley P. Pratt
Emma Smith – lied about translation
Martin Harris – lied about translation
Oliver Cowdery – lied about translation
David Whitmer – lied about translation
Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery – lied about translation
Two unknown scribes (probably Whitmers) – scribes who knew truth about translation, but kept quiet
Whitmer family – who possibly knew truth about translation

Parley P. Pratt – who pretended to convert Rigdon in Ohio

Katharine Smith Salisbury – who lied about not seeing Rigdon at her family’s residence in Manchester, NY, in 1827, before his pretended conversion
Smith family – who kept Rigdon’s pre-1830 contacts with Joseph Smith a secret