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

[_mikwut]

Hello MCB,

I have great difficulty even understanding Mikwut's posts, and generally skim over them. I also skip over Marg's, for different reasons.

You know, I usually have difficulty understanding what I just "skim over" too.

But, for your skimming pleasure, proper inferences based on the evidence = Good! Speculation = Bad!

my best MCB,

mikwut

[_MCB]

Mikwut:

Perhaps if you would make a better effort to make your posts easier to read, people would be willing to spend more time reading them. Just a suggestion.

Now, back to the neverending debate--

[_mikwut]

MCB,

I would need an example of what your talking about a sentence or two that are too difficult for you to read.

regards, mikwut

[_MCB]

Not too difficult to read, but too time-consuming to understand. Check my re-writing of a particular clunker in your pm box.

You are welcome.

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Your right there not.

For future reference, it should be: You're right, they're not. "You're" being a contraction for "you are" and "they're" being a contraction for "they are."

And my post was in regard to one argument you made, not plural. My post in response to one of your very bad arguments shows one of them for the goofiness it is. You can stomp your feet all you want, you can play the same game with me you play with Dan it won't change how egregiously unfounded your argument in this case is.

I think the reasonable answers to your confusion are quite clear, your not paying attention or your stubbornly clinging to illogical arguments and don't want to admit their unfounded. But let's make sure I am not confused because I quite clearly focused on just one of your arguments for the specific purpose of not allowing you to wiggle by jumping from argument to argument or broaden the scope. I am narrowly focusing on one of your points in my post. Namely, what clearly seems to be an ad hoc escape to reasonable minds and your clear failure to recognize it for that. It is quite simple to understand what you wrote here:

You yourself reject the notion that Joseph actually read words from a stone by coming up with some other explanation you think is more plausible, ie. that Smith had a great imagination. So your theory comes up with an ad hoc response--to explain away a portion of the testimony of the very witnesses you want to think of as being honest! The fact is, unreliable testimony does not constitute "adverse evidence."

as an attempt to claim that Dan is committing an ad hoc fallacy because he doesn't accept the supernatural explanation that a believing Mormon does. Your attempt is either level the logical playing field with Dan that he is doing the same thing you are, or escape from your obvious ad hoc. You call his explanation an ad hoc which it clearly is not. You do this by utilizing the believing Mormons backdrop of belief as the rationale for calling the natural historians explanation based on the natural evidence we have an ad hoc because it "comes up with" something to explain that testimony away. Rather than understanding it as the reasonable inference from the myriad data historical present to us. Therefore making it not an ad hoc. I made great pains to make that point to you above.

This is too wordy and needs to be broken down:

as an attempt to claim that Dan is committing an ad hoc fallacy because he doesn't accept the supernatural explanation that a believing Mormon does.

I am simply pointing out that by Dan's own logic he is committing the same "fallacy" he's accusing S/R of, he simply draws the lines in different places.

Your attempt is either level the logical playing field with Dan that he is doing the same thing you are, or escape from your obvious ad hoc. You call his explanation an ad hoc which it clearly is not.

Well mikwut, if it "clearly is not" then neither is my rejection of Rigdon's testimony. You simply cannot have it both ways. This is what Dan wrote that prompted my comments:

Sidney Rigdon pretended to be converted to Mormonism in November 1830—to explain away SR’s denials

Perhaps you are confused about what Dan is claiming here? Let's make sure we're all on the same page.... Dan is not using "SR's denials" to mean Spalding/Rigdon's denials, he means Sidney Rigdon's denials, as in the passionate, vehement, overly zealous public denials Rigdon makes to having any connection to a Spalding manuscript. That's what Dan is referring to in his comment above. Therefore, Dan is arguing that Sidney Rigdon's testimony constitutes adverse evidence that must be explained away in an ad hoc manner by S/R theorists in order for S/R to survive. I am saying, if Dan's analysis is correct, then his own response to the very same individual, Sidney Rigdon, must also be ad hoc when it comes to Rigdon's claims about knowing what was on the sealed pages of the Book of Mormon.

I am merely pointing out that Dan can't have it both ways. If he wants to insist that S/R responds to Rigdon's testimony in an ad hoc manner, then he must recognize that he does exactly the same thing with the same Rigdon.

These were not meant to be rhetorical questions:

Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No? If not, on what basis do you reject it? And would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why not? It's the same Rigdon!

Please feel free to answer them.

[_Roger]

To make matters worse, in those specific cases he makes excuses or blames the contradictions on non-LDS reporters. Dress it up however you want, that's LDS apologetics.

No its not its an ability to show objectivity and nuance and a proper balance towards all the evidence not just the narrow portion of the Conn. statements and then attempt to put a square peg in a round hole with all the rest. If a Mormon apologist believes in math, it doesn't make Dan an apologist to agree with the Mormon on that matter, that's silly and what your claiming is just as silly.

Actually the analogy is what is silly, mikwut. You really think the two compare and that such a comparison is objective? Or you're joking?

It's like saying if I agree with the followers of Warren Jeffs that 2 + 2 = 4 then I am also justified if agree with them when they claim Mr. Jeffs is a prophet of God and therefore has authority to seal men into plural marriages with teenage girls.

There is a huge difference and if you can't see that, then I'm not sure we can have a rational discussion.

Do you define "objectivity" to mean that we should just take the Book of Mormon witnesses at their word? Of not, then by what criteria do you suggest we filter through their testimonies to determine what is true and what is not? How much of the Book of Mormon witnesses testimony do you reject? Can you point out a few elements of their testimonies that you reject and explain on what grounds you choose to reject it?

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

I don’t have time to respond fully to your post. My list of ad hoc responses to adverse evidence was just a quick reminder of what had been discussed. I didn’t give wording a great deal of thought. The one response you gave that seems to have attracted notice is the following:

This goes back to the testimony of unreliable witnesses. You yourself reject the notion that Joseph actually read words from a stone by coming up with some other explanation you think is more plausible, ie. that Smith had a great imagination. So your theory comes up with an ad hoc response--to explain away a portion of the testimony of the very witnesses you want to think of as being honest! The fact is, unreliable testimony does not constitute "adverse evidence."

Do you accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages? Yes or No? If not, on what basis do you reject it? And would you then consider your own rejection of Rigdon's testimony ad hoc? Why not? It's the same Rigdon!

On the first paragraph, I’ll go with Mikwut’s criticism. On the second, Rigdon’s statement on the contents of the sealed plates is irrelevant. I read it in Van Wagoner’s book. It’s not clear on what basis SR claims this information—hyperbole or revelation? However, the idea that the sealed portion contained the items about the Smith family and history of Joseph Smith is out of line with what the Book of Mormon itself says. Nevertheless, rather than acknowledging the use of ad hoc response to adverse evidence, you are trying to argue that my position is contradictory or hypocritical. This is not an honest response, but a polemical ad hominem maneuver.

[_GlennThigpen]

I haven't had the time for the past few days to even read this thread. Today, while parsing the posts I came upon this gem from Roger.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. There is no "adverse evidence" here. Adverse evidence would occur when you discover Manuscript Found and note that there is nothing in it that has anything to do with lost tribes. Otherwise, the evidence we do have is not adverse, although Glenn has tried valiantly to paint it as though it is. You yourself acknowledge a possible avenue whereby the witness testimony could be accurate and fit nicely into the present evidence. Hence, the ten tribes element does not constitute adverse evidence for S/R. Once again, you are laying a false charge against S/R.

Roger, the foundation of the S/R theory rests upon the premise, based upon testimony of certain witnesses, that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon, "from beginning to end" read like a mythical manuscript written by Solomon Spalding.
So, to take your theory of adverse evidence to its logical conclusion, adverse evidence against the Book of Mormon being the product of Smith alone or Smith Divine, would occur only if you could discover manuscript found and find in it the names Nephi, Lehi, Lamanites, Nephites, etc. that the witnesses said they remember being there.

You have effectively short circuited your whole argument.

Glenn

[_mikwut]

Hi Roger,

Last post to you and you can have the last word.

This is too wordy and needs to be broken down:

I did break it down, in the post to MCB above. Unnecessary speculation = bad, natural inference from the historical data = good. I'll add, keeping a complete historical structure of all the data coherent = good, having a historical structure that focuses too heavily on particular evidence that it has to strain, ignore and distort much of the other evidence = bad.

as an attempt to claim that Dan is committing an ad hoc fallacy because he doesn't accept the supernatural explanation that a believing Mormon does.

I am simply pointing out that by Dan's own logic he is committing the same "fallacy" he's accusing S/R of, he simply draws the lines in different places.

Yes he draws the line with natural historical resources and logic not supernatural beliefs or strained conspiratorial ones. He draws natural inferences from the evidence defined by historical standards not the standards that help a conspiracy theory. Historians have to do this all the time in the same manner Dan is when confronted with movements that include supernatural assertions that cannot be proved by natural means. Those circumstances (just like with Mormonism) don't give a conspiracy story the ability to play the natural history and the supernatural assertions off each other in order to insert credence for their conspiracy story. Rather, conspiracy stories must erect the history based on the natural evidence. The view that has more explanatory power with less speculation regarding the evidence overall is favored. That doesn't mean but S/R explains more when my creativity has no bounds.

Perhaps you are confused about what Dan is claiming here? Let's make sure we're all on the same page.... Dan is not using "SR's denials" to mean Spalding/Rigdon's denials, he means Sidney Rigdon's denials, as in the passionate, vehement, overly zealous public denials Rigdon makes to having any connection to a Spalding manuscript. That's what Dan is referring to in his comment above.

No I am not confused I am still under the belief you are.

Therefore, Dan is arguing that Sidney Rigdon's testimony constitutes adverse evidence that must be explained away in an ad hoc manner by S/R theorists in order for S/R to survive.

Yes. I might add the evidence that supports his denials and the extraordinary speculations necessary for the S/R theory to show the contrary. Overall the entire edifice of evidence supports Ridgon's denials therefore it is not ad hoc for Dan to infer therefrom and it is ad hoc for S/R to speculate so it can escape from the denials and supporting evidence.

I am saying, if Dan's analysis is correct, then his own response to the very same individual, Sidney Rigdon, must also be ad hoc when it comes to Rigdon's claims about knowing what was on the sealed pages of the Book of Mormon.

No it doesn't. It doesn't have anything to do with it. Even if it did, which it doesn't, your still escaping a very important ad hoc regarding the S/R view and Dan is not regarding Rigdon's denials. Your just sneering at something else. Your shrouding that evasive maneuver in this irrelevant observation your making. You don't even do us the pleasure of interpreting the Rigdon statement regarding the sealed plates for context. You seem to insist there is no way to interpret it other than Rigdon viewed the supernatural plates, or was part of the creation of the Book of Mormon, which are not necessary inferences. This is what is so strange with you. You somehow believe that even if you show an inconsistency anywhere in Dan's historical construction (which I am not admitting you have done here) you somehow have credited or bolstered the S/R theory. Marg constantly does this too - all it means is you have found an inconsistency in a historical construction - that happens all the time. That is why the internet is full of 911 truthers.

Actually the analogy is what is silly, mikwut. You really think the two compare and that such a comparison is objective? Or you're joking?

I am not joking. Logic and math are often made analogous although not the same. I drew the analogy to mathematics for simplicity, to point out that agreeing with apologists where agreement is evidentially appropriate doesn't make one analogous to a Mormon apologist it in fact shows how deep of a bias you have and how objective (in that sense) Dan can be. I think that is easy enough to see, I think you recognize that was my point. You have a tremendous habit, so does marg, of losing the most simple points in a fog of beating dead horses in order to think your actually proffering a rational defense for the hackneyed S/R theory. That's why I get so verbose in responding to you, it is a maze of confusing the most simple logical inferences and fallacies. Just look at the lengths Dan has patiently gone to with marg, she will get books from experts and not understand the most simple of concepts and think she is actually smarter than the experts and you agree with it all the way through.

Ironically, you have posted something more analogous to Mormon apologists. You find the need due to the obvious insecurity of your position to point out a grammar error in my post. Something apologists do to fallaciously bolster the position they proffer. Mormon apologists do this quite a bit in FARMS publications, particularly the early ones. That is one of the few FARMS criticisms I agree with. Do you want to admit that has nothing to do with the Spalding/Rigdon theory in any way and I will just say thank you sir and move on, or do you think it bolsters your position somehow and I can make corrections of the portions these 123 pages offer of your grammar? That is rhetorical.

Do you define "objectivity" to mean that we should just take the Book of Mormon witnesses at their word?

No. Neither has Dan. And it is beyond absurd after the amount of time and posts Dan has provided you for you to make such a reduction of his position. Or mine. I don't believe history is objective in the manner that word is being used by you, but if we follow the tools of historical construction we can learn valuable and truthful things about the past and for historical purposes utilize that word for those historical views. It is truth without a capital T. One of those truths happens to be Solomon Spalding didn't pen the Book of Mormon or provide a manuscript from which the author of the Book of Mormon relied on. Joseph Smith wrote it.

I'm still excited to see the S/R evidential case for the Book of Abraham, D&C, Joseph's letters, the correspondence of Rigdon theologically with the Book of Mormon etc... I mean here is evidence that Joseph not only did it, but kept on doing it for your pleasure, but you still think the tell of a group of statements decades old are more convincing than the actual show.

Now, just post - mikwut is too verbose, just a Dan cheerleader or just posts ad homs at you and marg and then continue on as if this never happened, (that was purposely loaded) Just hurry to the stuff I mentioned, I am excited about those and your musings for S/R. Good day Roger.

regards, mikwut

[_MCB]

I drew the analogy to mathematics for simplicity, to point out that agreeing with apologists where agreement is evidentially appropriate doesn't make one analogous to a Mormon apologist it in fact shows how deep of a bias you have and how objective (in that sense) Dan can be.

??

"I drew the analogy to mathematics for simplicity. I only wanted to point out that agreeing with apologists on one point or another does not make the individual a Mormon apologist. It only amounts to polemics. And it shows how objective Dan is." Is that what you meant to say?