Roger,
Not surprisingly, we just disagree.
One thing that helps scholars come to agreement is adherence to the rules of logic and acknowledgement about what parts are ad hoc. Without that basic understanding, there’s no surprise on my part that we will come to anything close to what might be agreement—even if we stick to our positions. I have given this up long ago and have been writing for those who might be reading along.
Of course I have already shown that every element of these claims is not correct. We have demonstrated the testimony is unreliable. We have responded to independent corroboration (namely: the elements corroborated are not disputed) and I have shown how none of the responses you wish to describe as ad hoc, actually are.
You have been in a different debate than I have. You have only shown that you don’t know the sources, that you can’t interpret them using historical standards and methodology, that you think ad hoc speculation substitutes for evidence.
You did dispute the corroborated elements because they demonstrate that no MS was used for the bulk of the Book of Mormon dictation. You tried to escape this with various ad hocs. Trick-hat theory, locked doors, etc.
The mere fact that these are highly interested witnesses establishes that their testimony is unreliable. But beyond that, we have pointed directly to elements in their testimony that simply cannot be accurate if S/A is correct--and your response is to:
1. make excuses or blame non-LDS reporters; or
2. claim that false supernatural elements do not spoil the rest of the statement
Number 1 is exactly what LDS apologists do and number 2 is simply extremely weak. You might have more of a case here if these were not people who were heavily invested in the cause, but they were.
Your definition of interested is that they were believers. But they had nothing to gain and everything to lose, which in fact happened. You have also ignored the fact that they became believers because of what they witnessed. It would be like discounting the testimony of the Spalding witnesses because they believed what they said—only they didn’t lose anything by doing so. Being Christians could be used to show they were interested in Mormonism’s downfall and therefore were “interested” witnesses. The Mormon witnesses had independent corroboration, which the Spalding witnesses didn’t.
What you call “excuses” and consideration of reporting methods is standard methodology and common sense. Your attempt to use Joseph Smith’s claims of seeing in the stone to discount the otherwise mundane descriptions of the witnesses is in violation of those two principles.
They certainly are if what they are testifying to rests on the truthfulness of their paranormal experience! Your witnesses leave you no other option but to accept the paranormal experiences they claim. No one disputes the mundane element that Joseph put his head in a hat and rattled off some words.
You are disputing that the bulk of the translation was done in this manner and have resorted to ad hoc speculation about trick hats, locked doors, blankets, lying witnesses, etc. Here you repeat what has been shown to be illogical and ridiculous, namely that people who have paranormal experiences are disqualified as witnesses—that they are incapable of distinguishing between the mundane and the visionary. This has been studied, by the way, by sociologists and those who have such experiences are otherwise “normal”. The problem arises when a person has a break with reality and can’t tell the difference. Believe it or not, Roger, such experiences are part of the human condition. You have a lot to learn in this regard to make your skepticism complete and more sophisticated. However, I note that you don’t question the witnesses’ mundane experience of seeing Joseph Smith with head in hat, which includes a denial that a MS was used or could be used by Joseph Smith without being observed. So your appeal to their paranormal experiences amounts to nothing but distraction and sloppy thinking.
Actually marg did show that Emma lied. Which is consistent with the lies about Joseph's participation in polygamy. Both lies were an attempt to bolster her husband's reputation.
She didn’t show that Emma lied about her observation of Joseph Smith dictating with head in hat, although she tried by assuming the miraculous element in Emma’s description (i.e., Joseph Smith correcting her spelling without looking) was such evidence. This argument fell flat on it face for several reasons. You can’t use her lying about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, which we have independent evidence for, to prove that she lied about her observations of Joseph Smith’s head in hat, which you haven’t established and which independent testimony supports.
We've been over this before. The analogy to marg and I fails (miserably) because we are not heavily invested in promoting Blaine's magic. That's why I said you would need to interview Blaine's wife. Here's some of what I said:
I think you should reread this section of the thread, because Marg’s seeing the glass window ripple like water could be used by a future reader (using the same assumptions) to conclude Marg is a liar—that no such miracle could have happened. What you said was shown to be totally useless.
This is the problem you continually run into--your witnesses are not objective, Dan. Again, that should be obvious. But for some reason, you want to overlook that and think the best about them.
My group of witnesses include non-believers like Isaac Hale and Michael Morse, which you have discounted using ad hoc escape. So your call for objective witnesses is disingenuous. I don’t know how many times I have said this, but the bias objection can be overcome through multiple independent testimonies—which you say you don’t deny because you can use speculation about trick hats, locked doors, blankets, and lying witnesses to overcome.
Why would you accept that Rigdon believed he had a revelation? What compels you to come to that conclusion? --especially when the content of the revelation serves his purpose?
Regardless, your straight answer (finally) is "no." You do not accept Sidney Rigdon's testimony when he claimed to know what was on the sealed Book of Mormon pages. Good. Therefore we both reject that claim.
You haven’t been listening, Roger. I have consistently said that you are assuming Rigdon lied about his revelation. So far, all I have seen from you is a consistent blind-spot when it comes to paranormal claims. In your worldview, is there not anyone who can hallucinate?
As might be expected, you did not answer question #2 and gave only an ambiguous response to question #3. Could you please answer question #2? On what basis do you reject Rigdon's claim to know what was on the sealed pages of the Book of Mormon plates? Especially if you don't think he lied. On what grounds do you reject his testimony?
Your response to #2 will help us analyze #3.
I’m a naturalist, Roger. I deny the existence of the supernatural on the basis of insufficient evidence. Some evidences for the supernatural are lies, but much of it is due to the human condition and the ability of our brains to produce hallucinations. In Rigdon’s case, I see no reason to question the sincerity of his claims. At least, if you do, you have a burden to show that he lied to make your argument have force. Remember, you brought what you thought was an obvious situation that would force me into an ad hoc explanation, which it doesn’t. But even if it did, it would be irrelevant to what you are doing with Rigdon’s denials and Pratt’s support.
So for Dan, Rigdon's testimony constitutes adverse evidence for S/R because:
1. he denied my theory (!)
2. Dan thinks there is no evidence connecting him with the Spalding MS or with Joseph Smith before 1830.
3. Pratt corroborates Rigdon
Obviously point number 1 is ridiculous since anyone who has anything to hide could get off the hook by simply denying any involvement--which, of course, is what we would expect them to do.
If Rigdon had not denied the charge, there is no doubt that you would be using his silence as proof for your theory. So why can’t I use his denial as evidence that your theory is wrong? You certainly can’t pretend that it doesn’t matter because he would deny in any case. This reminds of a story about the husband of a celebrity who was asked by a tabloid journalist if he was gay. The man indignantly responded—“NO!!!!” The heading on the next day’s paper read—“HUSBAND OF CELEBRITY DENIES BEING GAY.”
Point number 2 would be less ridiculous if your assertion that there is no evidence was correct. The problem is there is plenty of testimonial evidence connecting both Rigdon to a Spalding ms and Rigdon to Joe Smith prior to 1831. I can't help it that you choose to reject that testimony, but given your point number one, you shouldn't since witnesses claimed it was so and that seems to be good enough for you when it comes to Book of Mormon witnesses.
Roger, there is no evidence connecting Rigdon with the Spalding MS. There is only speculation based on what your theory needs to happen to get the MS to Joseph Smith. Of course Rigdon knew Joseph Smith after Dec. 1830 after the Book of Mormon’s publication, but you need for Rigdon to somehow know Joseph Smith before he started dictating about April 1828. There is only Lorenzo Saunders, who was obviously mistaken.
Regardless, beyond the testimonial evidence, there is circumstantial evidence in the form of convenient (or pesky depending on your point of view) gaps in both Rigdon and Smith's itineraries that would have allowed them to meet.
That’s not circumstantial evidence. That’s only opportunity defined in a broad way—broad because there’s no evidence that they were even in the same vicinity as one another. It’s only unaccounted for time in which imagination can be inserted.
And still more circumstantial evidence in the form of doctrines in the Book of Mormon that conveniently support Rigdon's side of the hot theological debates he was involved in. And still more circumstantial evidence in the form of predictions of a spokesman for Joe Smith that were later claimed by Rigdon. You respond in an ad hoc manner that it was referring to Cowdery, but that is only based on your assumption that it could not have been intended for Rigdon since your thesis does not allow it--which, of course, is circular.
Cowdery was the first spokesman, giving the first public sermon. Cowdery was there writing. He also used a rod like Aaron. Other things point to Cowdery as Joseph Smith’s Aaron. The idea that it referred to someone with whom Joseph Smith had not met (but actually did) is circular because you are trying to use it as evidence for your theory—which it’s not. Mikwut and I gave evidence of why Rigdon’s version of restorationism was more radical than Cambpell’s but it was nevertheless different than Joseph Smith’s. You never responded to Mikwut’s list. You also didn’t respond to my mention of my study of restorationism, which explains the similarity between Rigdon and the Book of Mormon. Correlation doesn’t necessarily prove causation.
In any event, we clearly see that your point #2 is not valid since you do not get to decide what is and is not acceptable evidence for S/R.
It’s not me that decides. It’s the discerning public who demands that you fill huge gaps in your theory with something other than speculation. You can’t get the MS (which didn’t exist in the first place) into Rigdon’s hands, nor can you get it from Rigdon to Joseph Smith.
Point number 3 is not valid because, as I have stated at least 3 times now, Pratt might have been a dupe or Pratt could have known more than he admitted. In either case we would expect him to give supporting testimony, so, given that he does exactly what S/R predicts he would do in either case, the fact that he did so, does not constitute adverse evidence for S/R.
Notice that you didn’t answer my questions. Pratt stated that he took the Mormon gospel to Rigdon, and that Rigdon didn’t know anything about it before then. So Pratt denies being involved in a conspiracy with Rigdon. This requires that you either accuse Pratt of lying or try to explain in some convoluted and implausible way how Pratt was a dupe. Pratt’s denial isn’t predicted by your theory, because nothing requires Rigdon to have an alibi witness. Pratt’s testimony was unforeseen by the Spalding theorists, who had to had to include Pratt in the conspiracy to negate it. This is typical of conspiracy theories in general—but it’s the ad hoc nature of such things and why it’s hard to pin them down. In any case, Pratt’s existence is adverse evidence that must be accounted for—even if poorly.
Therefore, having disposed of Dan's three stated reasons for believing Rigdon's testimony is adverse for the S/R theory, we find that, in actuality, there is no logical reason why I should agree.
Roger, you are wasting time denying the obvious.