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

[_mikwut]

MCB,

Have a good day. Your boring now.

mikwut

[_Roger]

Dan:

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.

That's not good. Mikwut's criticisms tend to be less coherent than yours.

On the second, Rigdon’s statement on the contents of the sealed plates is irrelevant.

No it is not, Dan, and I won't let you get away with proclaiming that it is, as though your proclamation makes it so. It is extremely relevant because it directly confronts the fallacy of your logic which claims that I should consider the word of Sidney Rigdon to be "adverse evidence" to the S/R theory. I absolutely do not consider the word of a man who lies by claiming he speaks for God to be adverse evidence. On the contrary, I should almost take the denials of such an individual as affirmation that I'm on the right track.

I read it in Van Wagoner’s book. It’s not clear on what basis SR claims this information—hyperbole or revelation?

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.

So what? The Book of Mormon was penned at a time when the two men were cooperating. After Smith's death, Rigdon could do whatever he wanted with Smith's memory--have it sainted or deposed. Obviously he concluded the latter would better serve his purpose.

Moreover, one would think, as you do, that such a pronouncement is inconsistent with what the Book of Mormon says about Smith, but these people were masters at twisting the written and spoken word to fit their current purpose. Knowing that he will have to combat the very objection you raise, Rigdon finds a way to do that. Have you read his logic?

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.

It is as honest as it gets Dan, and I'm tired of you attempting to paint me as disingenuous. It has lost it's zing and, frankly, it's arrogant of you and rude. The fact of the matter is that you cannot directly confront the logic because you can see it's validity so you resort to calling me a dishonest polemicist. That's an ad hom fallacy, Dan. It's a diversion.

The fact is, you can't claim that the word of Sidney Rigdon constitutes "adverse evidence" for my theory but the word of the same man does not constitute "adverse evidence" for yours. A child could see the truth in this. And a child could note that you utterly ignored the specific questions I asked and instead merely resorted to name-calling.

[Guest]

mikwut:

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.

This same logic could easily be applied to the very source Dan cites as an authority, McCullagh, and his appeal to Brooke's explanation of why the conspiracy theory with regard to the King's death is the one "to be preferred." It is certainly not the simplest of the three theories, mikwut. That honor falls to the theory that suggests the king was killed by accident. But Brooke finds the conspiracy theory more compelling--though still not proven (as none of them are)--because of its greater explanatory power. That is exactly the scenario we find ourselves in here, when we attempt to compare the three main theories for Book of Mormon production.

If you were to be consistent, you would argue against Brooke and McCullagh by labeling the conspiracy theory "strained" and presenting it side by side with the supernatural explanation as two extremes with the reasonable accident theory in the middle. Such logic amounts to a rhetorical game. Neither McCullagh nor Brooke take your approach. They analyze the explanatory power of each theory on the merits and conclude in favor of the conspiracy. And remember, these are the authorities Dan cited.

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.

You are correct that--all things being equal-- "the view that has more explanatory power with less speculation regarding the evidence overall is favored" but the problem arises when we give you permission to define what is acceptable speculation and what needs explaining.

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.

Good. It is very important that you acknowledge this.

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.

Okay, please list the strongest piece of evidence that supports Rigdon's denials. Remember, this is specific to Rigdon's denial of using a Spalding manuscript to produce the Book of Mormon. I need the strongest piece of evidence you can muster that directly refutes that denial.

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.

Wow. Uhm... responding in order... yes it does. Yes, it has everything to do with it. And since it does, I am "escaping" nothing because there is nothing to escape. If you would have read and understood my post, you would have caught this:

The fact is, unreliable testimony does not constitute "adverse evidence."

Your just sneering at something else.

This is unncessary ad hom.

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.

Need I? You want me to interpret Rigdon for you?

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.

Well then, by all means, answer my question and tell me how Rigdon came to know what was written on the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon plates! I'm all ears!

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)

No, of course not! *roll eyes*

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.

No mikwut. You are so far off in left field it's ridiculous. What I have done, and neither you nor Dan can either simply admit it or find a rational response to it, is to point out a glaring inconsistency in Dan's criticism of S/R. He wants to proclaim that the word of Sidney Rigdon is so trustworthy that it's very existence constitutes "adverse evidence" that must then be explained away in an ad hoc manner by the S/R theory in order for S/R to survive. I have demonstrated how that characterization is glaringly flawed by pointing to additional words of Sidney Rigdon that Dan rejects. I have pointed out that he can't claim the word of Saint Sidney constitutes adverse evidence ONLY when it serves Dan's purpose.

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.

Then again, I am forced to really wonder about your reasoning skills.

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.

This is so convoluted. This is why discussion with you quickly becomes tiresome. Let's review... I wrote:

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.

You responded (bold mine):

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.

So right off the bat you go off in left field with an attempt at analogy that is not applicable. The implication is that Dan is not an LDS apologist even though he does what LDS apologists do.

I can agree with a lunatic who tells me 2 + 2 is 4, mikwut, and it doesn't make me a lunatic, but if I agree with his claim to be Elvis Presley one must begin to wonder about my sanity. There is a difference. That's why your analogy is hopelessly flawed. And the difference becomes even more pronounced when we're talking about devoted fanatics who's math may be spot-on, but who also tell me they were there when Joseph Smith put his head in a hat and read words that magically appeared in a rock. Just because I agree with them on their math does not mean I am obligated to think of them as honest people when it comes to their testimony of Joseph Smith--a man they are highly devoted to! They may be telling the truth when it comes to math and lying when it comes to the cause they are devoted to.

Yes, of course, I realize you are attempting to argue that Dan can pick and choose which elements he wants to accept and reject, BUT THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. If Dan can so pick and choose, so can I. If the very act of Dan picking and choosing is acceptable, then it is also acceptable for me. MOREOVER--and ironically--I actually agree with Dan on virtually all the elements he rejects! What we don't agree on are the elements I reject but Dan accepts. The onus, therefore, is on him to explain why he draws the line where he does. Why does he accept some of their testimony but not all of it? And what is the justification for accepting any of it? I am saying the consistent approach is to take everything they tell us with a grain of salt. Of course, that doesn't mean they are lying all the time, but it does mean we can't simply believe whatever they say and we should instead be very skeptical of what they say. But Dan says, oh no, they are reliable, honest, truth tellers in everything they say except for the supernatural stuff. He CAN'T USE that disagreement between us of where to draw the line as an acceptable means of attacking S/R by labeling ONLY THE PORTION OF TESTIMONY HE CHOOSES TO ACCEPT as "adverse evidence" for a competing theory! That is a wonderful trick, if one could get away with it, but I'm not letting him get away with it.

By attempting to do so, he's claiming that he gets to decide what constitutes adverse evidence and what doesn't! Again, this is so easy, a caveman could see it.

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.

Yeah, of course, it's rhetorical because you're pontificating and don't want me to respond.

When did I EVER say or even imply that my correction of your error somehow bolsters S/R? Answer: I never did. Nor did the thought ever cross my mind. And the fact is I have overlooked many similar errors on your part. But this particular one sticks out like a sore thumb and I thought you might be able to take the correction graciously. The fact is you repeatedly make this error--in fact several times even in this very post I am responding to--demonstrating that you simply do not understand the underlying construction. If you repeat this error within a context that demands proper construction, you are going to look bad, mikwut. It's as simple as that. Take it or leave it.

And yes, we all make errors, myself included.

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.

Mikwut, as an attorney, you should understand that the reason one asks a question is to establish common ground. Can we agree that objectivity does not mean that we should just take the Book of Mormon witnesses at their word? Answer: Yes, we can agree on that. That IS NOT an absurd reduction of your position, it is, in fact A QUESTION whose answer establishes either distance or common ground.

So since, we can agree that we should not simply take the word of the Book of Mormon witnesses at face value, the next question is, how do we decide on what to believe and what not to believe with regard to their testimonies?

Which is why I continued asking additional questions, that you ignored:

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

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.

You're pontificating again. You believe that to be the truth. I agree with some of it and disagree with some of 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.

The first flaw I observe in this is the underlying assumption that if Joseph Smith could create written works after the Book of Mormon then it must mean he created the Book of Mormon all by himself. The fact is Rigdon and Cowdery both could have contributed content to the D & C and Book of Abraham. But whether they did or did not is a separate question from who contributed content for the Book of Mormon.

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.

You have to admit, I think, if you're being honest, that you can be a bit verbose. : ) (Not that I am, by any means, succinct).

[_Roger]

Glenn:

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.

No Glenn. We are talking about Dan's flawed criticisms of S/R rather than my "whole argument" for it. Dan is attempting to manufacture ad hocs for S/R theorists that either aren't really ad hocs--or, if they are, apply just as well to his theory. We're just not buying what he's selling.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

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.

No Glenn. We are talking about Dan's flawed criticisms of S/R rather than my "whole argument" for it. Dan is attempting to manufacture ad hocs for S/R theorists that either aren't really ad hocs--or, if they are, apply just as well to his theory. We're just not buying what he's selling.

Roger, I am talking about your argument and will quote it again.

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.

You say that the only way to produce adverse evidence concerning the lost tribes would be to find the mythical "Manuscript Found" and discover that there is no lost tribes story in it. I do not buy that argument, but assuming that you are correct, by logical extension, the only way to produce adverse evidence against the Book of Mormon would be to discover the mythical "Manuscript Found" and find that it does actually contain the names Moroni, Nephi, Lehi, Zarahemla, Lamanites, and Nephites.

That is your logic and it effectively shuts the S/R theory down if you use it. Now don't go and do a special pleading on me.



Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

You say that the only way to produce adverse evidence concerning the lost tribes would be to find the mythical "Manuscript Found" and discover that there is no lost tribes story in it.

No I didn't, but that would be one way, yes. What I said is that, despite your best efforts, you can't present the actual data set you are given in such a way as to constitute "adverse evidence." You simply do not have sufficient grounds for producing anything from what currently exists that equals adverse evidence with regard to the lost tribes issue. I have explained why that is. I can't help it if you either don't understand it or you simply choose to reject it, but the fact is, what you have does not constitute adverse evidence, hence there is no need for S/R to "explain away" anything with regard to lost tribes.

I do not buy that argument, but assuming that you are correct, by logical extension, the only way to produce adverse evidence against the Book of Mormon would be to discover the mythical "Manuscript Found" and find that it does actually contain the names Moroni, Nephi, Lehi, Zarahemla, Lamanites, and Nephites.

That is your logic and it effectively shuts the S/R theory down if you use it. Now don't go and do a special pleading on me.

Incorrect. Adverse evidence exists when it comes to the Book of Mormon, and plenty of it. Even Dan would be forced to agree with that. Certainly, if I found MF and note that it does actually contain the names Moroni, Nephi, Lehi, Zarahemla, Lamanites, and Nephites, then that would simply add to the adverse evidence that already exists. In fact, that would be the nail in both S/D's and S/A's coffin. As it is, the S/D coffin is ready for occupancy with or without a nail.

[_GlennThigpen]

No I didn't, but that would be one way, yes. What I said is that, despite your best efforts, you can't present the actual data set you are given in such a way as to constitute "adverse evidence." You simply do not have sufficient grounds for producing anything from what currently exists that equals adverse evidence with regard to the lost tribes issue. I have explained why that is. I can't help it if you either don't understand it or you simply choose to reject it, but the fact is, what you have does not constitute adverse evidence, hence there is no need for S/R to "explain away" anything with regard to lost tribes.

Roger, you have produced no cogent argument as to why the lost tribes statements produced by six or seven witnesses is not adverse. All of your arguments require a special pleading, a construction of a lost tribes story which bears no resemblance to any normally recognized lost tribes theme. You have explained absolutely nothing, and have offered absolutely no evidentiary support from any sources other than your own opinion. Your explanation runs contra to the witnesses you depend upon for your support of other aspects of the S/R theory and requires redefining what the lost tribes are referring to. It does not wash historically or logically.
With your reductionism and chameleon definitions you can prove and disprove anything, to yourself.

Just about all of the S/R theory depends upon a special pleading. For example, exempting the specific names the witnesses gave from the Book of Mormon, their descriptions of the manuscript align pretty well with the manuscript residing at Oberlin College. So, S/R theorists say, of course, he went back and rewrote the story (not supported by the witness) and incorporated much of the language from the original manuscript. But then, those things do not appear in the Book of Mormon, such as sciences, arts, antiquities even though witness after witness parroted how amazingly alike the two manuscripts were, except for the religious parts. So, special pleading, the Book of Mormon only followed the general outlines, in spite of what the witnesses said.

Another special pleading concerns Josiah Spalding. There is no doubt that his description is that of the Oberlin manuscript. Although he calls it the "Historical Novel" or "Manuscript Found" we again have a special pleading that Josiah, who was staying with Solomon during at least part of the time the manuscript was being written, was only exposed to the Oberlin manuscript and was oblivious of the mythical second manuscript while everyone of the neighbors were exposed to it.

Then there is the problem with Sidney Rigdon. The S/R absolutely requires that he obtained a copy the mythical second manuscript and reworked it into the Book of Mormon. You have produced no discernible evidence that Sidney Rigdon ever knew anything about that manuscript until the allegations began to fly. The only thing that has really been produced is the fact that the S/R theory requires it, so it must have happened, which is circular.

Another problem requiring a special pleading is that it requires that people, some with pretty big egos, act in manners that are inconsistent with their personalities, desires, and ambitions. But the S/R theory requires it, so it must have happened. That is circular.

Another problem is the fact that only one manuscript of any size, one that a person would recognize as something more than a sermon or short story, was ever reported being placed in the trunk or in being found in the trunk. The S/R theory requires that Hurlbut retrieved two manuscripts, so, yep, he retrieved two manuscripts. That is also circular.

The entire theory is circular.

Glenn

[_marg]

Glenn,

I'm still having a hard time understanding your issue with the "lost tribes". Your argument is that the majority of people back in 1833 when the S/R witnesses were questioned would have accepted the lost tribes story and one which Ethan Smith had written about in which Am. Ind are descendents from the exiled Israeli tribes in 720 B.C. by Assyrians. But they are descendants of all the tribes exiled from then and traveled east to Bering str and over to America.

Could you please consider a naturalistic worldview in your response to me.

So according to you Spalding would have read a similar scenario to Ethan Smith's and accepted it as would have the majority of people living in Spalding and J. Smith's day...and that would be a religious view based upon some Biblical passages in Esdras.

I've pointed out to you a couple of things, Spalding wasn't religious. Also just because some fanatical religious individuals wrote books interpreting the Bible that it reveals or prophecies that Am. Ind were descendants of exiled Israeli tribes in 720 B.C. doesn't mean the majority of people in the day of the writers, took an interest or bought into those religious fanatics book's theory. As it was Morse's geography at the time ..didn't propose this religious interpretation which you say everyone would have accepted.

But my question to you which I don't understand is, if everyone as you say bought into this religious interpretation of the Bible and thought that Am. Ind were descendants of all 10 lost tribes...then why weren't the writer/writers consistent with this theory? Let's say Smith wrote the Book of Mormon as per the Smith alone theory ..Smith is religious or at least one assumes he accepts the Bible is true why wouldn't he buy into this lost tribes theory you say everyone accepted and then why wouldn't he carry that forward in the Book of Mormon? Why would the writers even put into the story that Lehi is a descendent of a Manasseh tribes which is a lost tribe..if that goes against the popular lost tribe theory of the day? How is it that the writer/writers of the Book of Mormon can go against the popular theory which you say everyone would have accepted but not Spalding or anyone else he knew?

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Not much time at the moment:

Roger, you have produced no cogent argument as to why the lost tribes statements produced by six or seven witnesses is not adverse.

Because you have produced no cogent argument as to why the lost tribes statements produced by six or seven witnesses is adverse.

If your argument is correct, then why was B. H. Roberts worried that Joseph borrowed from View of the Hebrews? B. H. Roberts knew his Book of Mormon. B. H. Roberts understood that the premise of VOTH is lost tribes. Why did he still think there was likely a connection?

[_GlennThigpen]

Roger, you have produced no cogent argument as to why the lost tribes statements produced by six or seven witnesses is not adverse.

Because you have produced no cogent argument as to why the lost tribes statements produced by six or seven witnesses is adverse.

Actually I have, and you and marge have contorted logic and reason into unrecognizable shapes in order to try to counter it. Now you are just pretending that it does not exist. But I will summarize briefly the major points.

1. Several witnesses stated that they had read or heard read Solomon Spalding's romance and had examined the Book of Mormon. They agreed that the Book of Mormon adhered very closely to Solomon's mythical second manuscript in the historical details.

2. Six or seven witnesses averred that Solomon believed that the lost tribes were the ancestors of the American Indians and had migrated from the Old World to the Americas via the Bering Straits.

3. There is no such story in the Book of Mormon. As has been pointed out, the Book of Mormon very plainly denotes that the Nephites and Lamanites are not the lost tribes.

Whether you admit it or not, there is a contradiction there, a big one. It does not depend upon finding the mythical second manuscript. It depends upon the statements that the witnesses made about Solomon's story and the Book of Mormon. That is one of the few claims that can be put to a test, and the S/R fails miserably on that point.

I am not going into the B. H. Roberts discussion. That would take up another thread entirely. Suffice it to say that he never tried to claim that the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes. As you said, he knew the Book of Mormon very well and knew what it had to say about itself and the lost tribes.

Glenn