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

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Isn't this admitting the S/R witnesses could have been mistaken?

I think that's unlikely.

Were the Book of Mormon witnesses mistaken that Joseph Smith put his head in his hat?

As Glenn has pointed out, there are several witnesses who mention that Spalding's novel used a lost tribes theme as a basis. MSCC does not contain a lost tribes theme, yet you are convinced that is the only manuscript they could have been exposed to--despite Aron Wright's direct denial.

That would be pretty majorly mistaken, don't you think? Aron Wright was so mistaken that he didn't recognize the manuscript he had been exposed to many times even when it was placed in front of him? Instead he claims that was not the right manuscript, even though you are sure it was? And then they mistakenly think that manuscript had some sort of a lost tribes theme when anyone can see it doesn't? And not only that, but they also claim it was written in King James English even though MSCC is not? And they falsely remember teasing Spalding by calling him "Ole came to pass" because of his overuse of that phrase, when MSCC doesn't use it? And they are adamant that they remember the names of Lehi and Nephi when there is nothing even close to that in MSCC? In spite of all this, I'm supposed to think they were just mistaken?

[_marg]

(From post on Wed Aug 10, 2011 10:46 am)

Dan : “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.”

Dan in order to critically evaluate evidence you need to consider that evidence within the context of all other evidence.

The reason I suggested Emma was probably lying has to do with what she said taking into consideration the context of all the other evidence I’m aware of including her likely personal interests, benefits, motivations. She's newly married when Smith starts the religious enterprise. Hher dad is annoyed with Smith and his treasure seeking, and plates in the house which no one is allowed to see. Both Harris and Whitmer describe Smith looking into a hat of which they say he read from a stone glowing with words and that when Smith’s scribe would make a mistake they had to correct it before the stone continued. So Emma’s statement which says essentially the same thing is consistent with theirs.

The Book of Mormon witnesses other than Emma's dad and brother in law, all have a vested and financial interest in this new start up religion, none of them appear the least bit skeptical or questioning. Their statements appear to be purposefully planned to adhere to a party line..and to promote that the supernatural was involved. This is also consistent with the statement/testimonies in the Book of Mormon.

What I described is what I observed. It was a one time observation of an event recorded and on the internet, of which I made known I viewed it there. I don’t and wouldn’t simply accept the trick at face value, without any skepticism. Contrast that with the Book of Mormon witnesses who describe things they didn’t even see, but presented it as if they had..and not one word indicating skepticism.

I also considered the Book of Mormon testimony statements..their claims of hearing God and seeing an angel, I considered Emma’s lack of skepticism regarding the alleged “miraculous” plates she supposedly dusted around but never looked at..despite the fact that her dad was annoyed with it all and didn’t buy into any of it and despite that those plates and this new religion were important to her future financial well being…since that was at the time the only means by which Smith demonstrated plans to earn a living for her and their children. And yet we are supposed to believe her that she doesn’t even attempt to look at the plates?

What I did in critically evaluating was use the method McCullagh wrote about…which is to make an inference or arguments to the best explanation. The evidence leads one to conclude the best explanation is that the witnesses including Emma are not only unreliable but as well they lied at times to serve their ends. Day after day, Smith could not have consistently known when they were misspelling while he kept his head in a hat. That bit of information along with the other they related..was obviously intended to promote the miraculous ..that a God was involved.

I’ll post their statements:


David Whitmer: Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

Martin Harris (according to his friend Edward Stevenson) By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."

Emma Smith: (from 1856 interview with Edmund C. Briggs)

... When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, “Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?” When I answered, “Yes,” he replied “Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived.” He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls. ...

--Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History 9 (January 1916): 454.


Contrast those statements, with myself, in which a one time event of 10 minutes I observe via computer a video taped scene. I relate the circumstances and I don't claim Blaine put his arm through an actual glass window..I describe what I saw and no more..but I use words such as “We see his hand it appears to go through the newspaper and window..as if the window was fluid. I appreciate Blaine is a magician, a trick is involved just as Emma and I believe Whitmer and Harris were aware of Smith’s unsuccessful treasure seeking ventures. So they should have showed some skepticism. Yet we are supposed to believe according to you Dan that the Book of Mormon witnesses completely fell for this tall tale of a stone glowing words translating plates. How stupid do you think people reading your arguments are? It is so absurd for you to argue they are reliable witnesses, that it doesn't deserve a discussion or for you to be taken seriously on this.

So someone reading my statement years from now, should appreciate context, my motivation and interest, when, where, by whom, the trick was performed and also should note my words “his hand appears to go through the window”. I do not say his hand went through the window…I indicate skepticism. So why should anyone years later think I’m lying Dan? I have no motivation to lie, I am describing a trick I viewed once, on my computer performed by a magician and I present it with skepticism.

You wrote in a past post: The Spalding theory thrived largely because Joseph Smith’s method of translation was not widely known. When the theory came to their attention, witnesses dismissed it based on what they observed. Descriptions of Joseph Smith’s method were given by many witnesses, both in Harmony and Fayette, over many years. They weren’t special witness, but either casual observers or scribes. This type of evidence historians regard as primary source material. The Spalding witnesses are subject to a great deal of skepticism, largely due to the nature of their memories and because their statements were not supported by the MS when found.

Both historian Brooke and philosopher McCullagh would disagree with you. Primary evidence from witnesses can not be taken at face value when there is good reason to be skeptical of claims. Notice that Brooke as described by McCullagh critically evaluated all the evidence that was known and appreciated the chroniclers’s statements within the context of other evidence. Brooke appreciated the chroniclers were not reliable when they claimed the King's death was an accident, because they were motivated to present the King’s death as being a result of divine interference using a human agent, (it also probably was not in their best interest to suggest a conspiracy) They also had no loyalty to King William and he wasn't well liked. Notice although Tirel offers primary evidence, he flees the country and in later private conversations he tells people who Brooke considers reliable that he denied killing the King, yet Brooke does not accept Tirel's claim even though it's via reliable witnesses. Instead Brooke evaluates the statement within the context of all the other evidence...and determines what would be Tirel's motivation to say what he did.

Note Dan, both historian Brooke and philosopher McCullagh consider evidence in the context of all the other evidence and don’t take those witnesses' statements even if primary, at face value. Instead they take into consideration individuals' statements (to be used as evidence), by critically evaluating their motivation, self interest along with considering their statements in the context of all the other evidence. They found because of motivation and interest..Tirel and chroniclers statements' unreliable. Brooke also critically evaluated the witnesses who in later years heard Tirel deny killing the King and considered their statements reliable even though they thought Tirel lied to them. Why might that be Dan? Because those witnesses had no reason or motivation to lie.

The Book of Mormon witnesses not only were motivated to lie for self interest but their statements appear purposefully prepared in advance to conform to a party line given them. Their statements don't ring true...and given the context of other evidence..they are extremely unreliable witnesses for those claims which promote the miraculous and anything benefiting promotion of the start up religious enterprise..which they have a vested interest in.

[_Roger]

Dan:

Actually it matters quite a bit. The S/R witnesses are testifying to having seen Solomon Spalding's novel, but, as you know, what they describe with regard to "lost tribes" does not come from MSCC. That's is a PROBLEM for you and Dan who think MSCC was the only manuscript they could have seen.

It’s not a problem for me, but for the witnesses.

It's not a problem for you if they're lying. It is a problem for you if they believe they are telling the truth. While it is easy to confuse the premise of the Book of Mormon with a lost tribes theme (as Roberts points out when he states that nearly every anti-Mormon writer makes that mistake) is it impossible to make that mistake using only MSCC. There is nothing even close to a lost tribes theme in MSCC.

As I said before: either their memories about Spalding’s MS are correct, and therefore not like the Book of Mormon (which isn’t about the ten tribes),

Essentially that's what my never-ending debate with Glenn is all about. But your phrase "therefore not like the Book of Mormon " is loaded. Obviously its a subjective opinion to say something is "not like the Book of Mormon." That's why I quoted B. H. Roberts who certainly knew his Book of Mormon well and he characterized the difference as trivial--or in his own words: "of slight importance." So then what you subjectively characterize as "not like the Book of Mormon," B. H. characterizes as "of slight importance." I agree with Roberts. While technically you are correct--there is a difference--in reality, the difference is trivial. So much so, that, according to Roberts--who was speaking from the early 20th century--nearly every anti-Mormon writer makes that blunder.

They key question is whether or not the witnesses are telling the truth about Spalding's novel using a lost tribes context. If they are, then MSCC is not the manuscript we're looking for.

or their memories are incorrect and can’t be relied on.

So you're willing to throw out their entire testimonies on the basis of one (disputed) element, whereas with the Book of Mormon witnesses, even though we know the supernatural elements in their statements can't be true, you're willing to accept everything else they say?

It makes sense that a skeptical Spalding would have connected the Indians with Asians and Romans, but not the lost tribes.

Spalding couldn't have used a lost tribes theme because it doesn't make sense to you? Despite what multiple witnesses say? Spalding went to Dartmouth and was schooled by the same Prof. who taught Ethan Smith. So Ethan Smith could write about the lost tribes, but Spalding couldn't? Whether Spalding was skeptical of religion or not is irrelevant to the use of a lost tribes theme as the basis of a fictional novel.

That problem is directly put to Aron Wright who definitively claims that MSCC--the manuscript you and Dan claim has to be the one they were referring to--was not the one they were referring to but that there was another. Therefore, as I've stated many times now, they were either lying or telling the truth.

They could be lying, but if their memories were playing tricks on them in 1833, nothing would have changed that when Wright later said MSCC wasn’t the MS. In other words, Wright’s later statement doesn’t change anything. I made this observation more than once without response from you.

Well if I didn't respond it's either because I didn't have time or because I think the conclusion is highly unlikely--to the point of being ridiculous. What you are suggesting is that you know better than they do when it comes to which manuscript they were actually exposed to on many occasions. But if you are correct about that, then they were seriously mistaken! Their minds were playing major tricks on them! I could see this occuring--maybe... possibly--with one or two unusual witnesses who either had really bad memories or were unusually susceptible to the power of suggestion, but to have it happen to the whole group? And then on top of that to have later, unsolicited witnesses come out of the woodwork and support their really false memories? I just can't buy that. It's easier to believe they were all lying because they secretly hated Joseph Smith.

But then, you make it even more unlikely by suggesting that they could all have been so seriously (but honestly) mistaken--as, for example, to think they remember Lehi and Nephi--and yet when the real manuscript they actually had been exposed to many times was placed in front of them and there's no Lehi or Nephi, they still think their earlier statements were correct and therefore there must be another manuscript!

Either way, Dan, these are not very honest people. Either that or you're simply wrong to think MSCC is the only manuscript.

To combat the notion that they are telling the truth, you are attempting to show that they were lying since they claim Spalding's novel was at least based on a lost tribes theme and you point to the Book of Mormon and say, there's no lost tribes theme there, hence, they cannot be telling the truth.

No. Haven’t you been listening? This doesn’t necessarily show that they were lying. I believe most of us who have commented on this discrepancy use it to show that it’s likely that their memories were being corrupted (confabulated, constructed, etc.) by reading the Book of Mormon and by hearing what was commonly wrongly believed about the Book of Mormon.

I was addressing the comment to Glenn, who is more willing to think they were lying than you are. So it would be appreciated if you could take that into account when you feel obligated to respond to posts I address to Glenn. I may be wrong but I think Glenn can see how far-fetched it is to think all of these witnesses were suffering from group memory confabulation. No doubt he would prefer to fall back on that rather than concede that they were telling the truth, if there were no other alternative. But there is another alternative. They might all have been lying. That's where Glenn's logic leads on the lost tribes issue he can't let go. It's extremely unlikely that they could have honestly thought MSCC had a lost tribes theme when it obviously doesn't. And they surely didn't get that idea from the Book of Mormon. So where did they get it? As you have pointed out, the only place is through published anti-Mormon materials who, as Roberts says, make the blunder.

I suppose if we were going to stretch our minds we might think that the evil Hurlbut picked up this notion from anti-Mormon materials and then infiltrated it into the minds of his honest dupes, but it seems unlikely that he would have thought the Book of Mormon was based on the lost tribes given that he himself had been a Mormon and presumably knew something about the Book of Mormon. And then also one would think that when the hard evidence was placed in front of the honest but sorely mistaken Aron Wright, he would have immediately seen the error and retracted his statement, as, surely the rest of them would have done, given their honesty. But that didn't happen.

Raising the bar on the verbatim statement to an impossible height and demanding unreasonable proof is what Mormon apologists do.

It's ridiculous to say that I'm raising the bar when it is the witnesses themselves who set it. If the witnesses had said what Glenn wishes they had said, then he might have a case. As it is he thinks they say something that they don't actually say. All I am doing is pointing out what they actually said. Glenn wants them to say things they don't actually say.

The only reason you speculate that Joseph Smith and OC or even SR changed Spalding’s MS is that you need them to do so to explain why the Book of Mormon isn’t about the ten tribes. That’s an ad hoc escape, which we have told you over and over.

No I don't. Show me one instance where they cite a specific Book of Mormon passage that they claim supports the popular lost tribes theme. Instead, they talk about Spalding's manuscript as using a lost tribes context for his fiction. Like I said, they are not experts on the Book of Mormon, nor should we expect them to be. Maybe they heard in rumor that the Book of Mormon has a lost tribes basis so they assumed what they heard was correct. So what? Does that mean they were dishonest when they say much of the history is the same as Spalding's? Of course not! Only polemicists bent on promoting a contrary Book of Mormon production theory would automatically jump to that conclusion--especially when the witnesses pointedly tell us that a lot of religious material was indeed added. Oh, says the polemicist, but lost tribes is not religious material--therefore it has to be categorized as historic and therefore must have been passed from Spalding to Rigdon to Smith and Cowdery verbatim! Rubbish! In the first place, anyone can see that the very motivation for immigration to the "promised land" in the Lehi story is religious with all kinds of supernatural events surrounding it. And in the second place, as I have stated several times, it's not the fault of my witnesses or my theory that your witness lost the manuscript which then allegedly required a different version of the story. It's certainly clever that you attempt to make that look like my problem when it's really your problem.

[_GlennThigpen]

Roger, I understand that part very very well. However none of the S/R witnesses ever saw those 116 pages. They were basing all of their claims on the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon. Artemas Cunningham and his "I Nephi" recollections is the only one of those witnesses that is affected by the loss of the 116 pages. It does not matter what changes that Sidney Rigdon or anyone else could have made.

Glenn:
Actually it matters quite a bit. The S/R witnesses are testifying to having seen Solomon Spalding's novel, but, as you know, what they describe with regard to "lost tribes" does not come from MSCC. That's is a PROBLEM for you and Dan who think MSCC was the only manuscript they could have seen.

That problem is directly put to Aron Wright who definitively claims that MSCC--the manuscript you and Dan claim has to be the one they were referring to--was not the one they were referring to but that there was another. Therefore, as I've stated many times now, they were either lying or telling the truth.

To combat the notion that they are telling the truth, you are attempting to show that they were lying since they claim Spalding's novel was at least based on a lost tribes theme and you point to the Book of Mormon and say, there's no lost tribes theme there, hence, they cannot be telling the truth.

And yet, as I've explained again and again, Rigdon could have changed the story and Smith/Cowdery could have changed the story. No! You protest. They could not, because the S/R witnesses claim the historical part was verbatim! So, I then point out that, no, that is simply what you wish they had claimed, but none of them ever do. The closest you can get is "nearly verbatim" for some of the content. B.H. Roberts is correct to state that the difference you are trying to make something out of--which is something like a lost tribes epic vs some families of the same people-- is "of slight importance." The only way this argument could work would be if all the witnesses had claimed the historical part was identical in every aspect. Verbatim. And they do not do that.

Roger, I never said that the S/R witnesses said that the historical parts were verbatim or nearly verbatim. I have produced statements that say that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon were "principally if not wholly" taken from the Book of Mormon and that "The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding, --- I find much of the history and the names verbatim."

You keep trying to make believe that "ten lost tribes" or a "large portion of the ten tribes" can be reduced to a small group of two tribes and that a couple of million can be reduced to maybe a hundred and it be "of slight importance."
I know that you have to do so for yourself, but it is highly illogical. No matter whether you consider the lost tribes theme to be religious or historical, it is the S/R witnesses that said that the lost tribes emigrating to the Americas via the Bering straits was the theme of Solomon's mythical second story.

That mass migration via the Bering straits is certainly not in the Book of Mormon. Nor is the account of "their residence for a long time in China" in the Book of Mormon. Nor is the account of bringing the "Jews from Palestine to America via Italy during the reign of Constantine, and set forth that at Rome they engaged shipping to convey them to some place in Great Britain, but encountered stormy weather and were finally wrecked somewhere on the coast of New England" in the Book of Mormon. (Although it does bear an uncanny resemblance to a Spalding manuscript that we do know exists.) Nor is the account of "Lehi's descendants, who were styled Jaredites" in the Book of Mormon.

If anyone had changed so many details from Solomon's original story as described by the witnesses, the Book of Mormon historical accounts could not have been taken "principally if not wholly" and could not "be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding."

Those details are comparisons that we can make and the S/R theory fails at every turn. All of the rest of the details are things that can be obtained from reading the Book of Mormon. Your rationalizations do not withstand a logical scrutiny.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...Not surprisingly, you define testimony that falls in line with your theory as being
adverse evidence to S/R which then requires an "ad hoc" response; whereas you do
not define additional testimony from the same witness as being adverse evidence to
your theory which then relieves you of any obligation to respond in an ad hoc manner.
...

I've run into this sort of critics' response frequently in the past.
Their argument appears to be that the Spalding authorship claims
for the Book of Mormon were "set in stone" by E. D. Howe's book
in 1834 --- and that any additional information supplemental or
expansive to those basic 1834 assertions are "ad hoc" garbage.

Whenever I meet with this argument I simply walk away from the
discussion, because it prejudges any additional information I might
wish to add to the ongoing conversation.

There is, however, another more productive way in which we can
consider the 1834 book, and that is as an imperfect, incomplete
attempt to provide linkage between the authorship of the Book of
Mormon and 19th century figures other than Joseph Smith, Jr.

If we look at Howe's book (and its included witness statements, etc.)
as just such an imperfect report, then additional information can be
added to Book of Mormon authorship discussions, without any need
for accusations of improper "ad hoc" theorizing.

Unfortunately the Spalding-Rigdon "theory" has become a stereotyped
narrative, which both proponents and critics believe they already know
by heart and can recite in a half-dozen accusative sentences. This is
a problem -- a problem which I feel can only be surmounted by our
relegating Spalding and Rigdon to the sidelines of future discussions,
and by concentrating upon the physical/literary evidence presented by
the Book of Mormon itself.

If our examination of the Nephite record leads us to the conclusion that
it includes multiple, non-biblical authorship "voices," THEN we can
entertain the Spalding-Rigdon assertions and examine them one-by-one.
Perhaps some of the conclusions presented in Howe's 1834 book will
then be judged (by all concerned) as having been faulty -- and perhaps
other reports, from 1833 onward, can be retained as providing at least
some factual information.

Then again, I'm prepared for the Brodieite/LDS response, that my suggestion
in and of itself constitutes yet another forbidden "ad hoc" disruption of the
ongoing controversy.

Uncle Dale

[_marg]

I've run into this sort of critics' response frequently in the past.
Their argument appears to be that the Spalding authorship claims
for the Book of Mormon were "set in stone" by E. D. Howe's book
in 1834 --- and that any additional information supplemental or
expansive to those basic 1834 assertions are "ad hoc" garbage.

Whenever I meet with this argument I simply walk away from the
discussion, because it prejudges any additional information I might
wish to add to the ongoing conversation.

An argument can be made against the sort of ad hoc accusations Dan Vogel has been arguing. A brief analogy to the sort of argument he makes which while not equivalent in all respects suffices to illustrate. His argument is like arguing in a murder case of a husband (J. Smith) suspected of conspiring with a girlfriend (Book of Mormon witnesses) for murdering his wife (the Book of Mormon). Dan's argument is similar to saying that the say so of the girlfriend that the husband and her were together at the time of the murder and didn't commit it..is primary evidence..and any evidence such as what the neighbours (S/R witnesses) saw .. is ad hoc...and because due to their age their eyesight isn't perfect (due to time lapse memory not perfect) while the girlfriend should know better whether or not the husband and her were together at the time..but not near the wife.

While the ad hoc concept can be useful for reasoning purposes in situations in which there is strong refuting evidence against a proposed hypothesis...it is not appropriate to be used in situations in which one uses it to maintain their own hypothesis by arguing that their evidence supercedes all other evidence when in fact their evidence is weak, tainted or biased and non-verifiable. This is how Dan employs the ad hoc accusation ..when he claims the Book of Mormon witnesses are reliable witnesses and evidence counter to their claims is ad hoc.


He has used the book "Justifying Historical Descriptions" by McCullagh as a warrant for his ad hoc accusation, but in actual fact the book does not warrant his use of it.

There is, however, another more productive way in which we can
consider the 1834 book, and that is as an imperfect, incomplete
attempt to provide linkage between the authorship of the Book of
Mormon and 19th century figures other than Joseph Smith, Jr.

If we look at Howe's book (and its included witness statements, etc.)
as just such an imperfect report, then additional information can be
added to Book of Mormon authorship discussions, without any need
for accusations of improper "ad hoc" theorizing.

I think Dan would still argue "ad hoc" even if you said Howe's book was imperfect.

Unfortunately the Spalding-Rigdon "theory" has become a stereotyped
narrative, which both proponents and critics believe they already know
by heart and can recite in a half-dozen accusative sentences. This is
a problem -- a problem which I feel can only be surmounted by our
relegating Spalding and Rigdon to the sidelines of future discussions,
and by concentrating upon the physical/literary evidence presented by
the Book of Mormon itself.

I asked Bruce as did Roger if the wordprint studies can show multiple versus single authorship for the Book of Mormon..I'm not aware of him answering that question. I think at a minimum that is something the wordprint studies should be able to show. If they show multiple authorship and it is strong evidence for multiple authorship then arguing against the Smith alone theory is a waste of time.

If our examination of the Nephite record leads us to the conclusion that
it includes multiple, non-biblical authorship "voices," THEN we can
entertain the Spalding-Rigdon assertions and examine them one-by-one.

Exactly... but you started with "if". So it is a matter of "if" it can be shown multiple authorship. And I think wordprint analysis should be able to show that.

Perhaps some of the conclusions presented in Howe's 1834 book will
then be judged (by all concerned) as having been faulty -- and perhaps
other reports, from 1833 onward, can be retained as providing at least
some factual information.

Then again, I'm prepared for the Brodieite/LDS response, that my suggestion
in and of itself constitutes yet another forbidden "ad hoc" disruption of the
ongoing controversy.

This ad hoc accusation by Dan has been nonsense. In the very book Dan uses to warrant his accusation of ad hocs against S/R ... there are 3 theories which parallel quite closely the 3 Book of Mormon theories. At no point does the author McCullagh say that because one theory is more ad hoc than another it is the better theory. In fact although he mentions "ad hoc" as a factor he doesn't use it as a factor in arguing which theory is the best explanation. The only thing he uses is explanatory power and scope..as the determining factor for arguing to best explanation for the theory that the King was murdered by a conspiracy involving the King's brother.

[_GlennThigpen]

If our examination of the Nephite record leads us to the conclusion that
it includes multiple, non-biblical authorship "voices," THEN we can
entertain the Spalding-Rigdon assertions and examine them one-by-one.
Perhaps some of the conclusions presented in Howe's 1834 book will
then be judged (by all concerned) as having been faulty -- and perhaps
other reports, from 1833 onward, can be retained as providing at least
some factual information.

Then again, I'm prepared for the Brodieite/LDS response, that my suggestion
in and of itself constitutes yet another forbidden "ad hoc" disruption of the
ongoing controversy.

Uncle Dale

I don't know who the Brodeites are, so I cannot speak for or against them. I think that you may be stereotyping the LDS. I am all for further light and knowledge. And I believe that the preponderance of LDS posters that I have engaged also have that leaning.

As for the multiple authorship claims, LDS scholars have been asserting that from the very beginning. The Book of Mormon claims that it has multiple authors, so it would be stupid for an LDS to claim only one. (We do claim only one translator though.)

The Larson, Rencher, Layton study did compare the different claims of authorship and concluded that there indeed were different authors as claimed by the Bok of Mormon. I don't think that the Berkley Group compared but a couple of authors because they used much larger groups of words than the earlier Larson study.

What I think would be useful is to take the results from the original Jockers study and use those results against each other. What I mean is that we take the books of Nephi and separate them according to the authors that the Jockers study assigned as the most likely candidates. Group all of the Cowdery texts together. Group all of the Rigdon texts together. Group all of the Isaiah texts together. And so forth.

The Nephi text would have to be culled to remove the parts when he is quoting someone else and use only words which can be identified that were actually spoken by Nephi.

The same thing can be done for all of the other books in the Book of Mormon.

Then Nephi/Spalding can be compared against Nephi/Rigdon, and Nehi/Cowdery, or whoever. If they were truly different authors writing those chapters, then the NSC method should clearly differentiate between them. If it does, then that would show that there were multiple authors for Nephi, but if Nephi/Spalding and Nephi/Cowdery and Nephi/Rigdon are indistinguishable, it would show that there was only one author for the Nephi text.

The same comparison could be done for Nephi/Rigdon against any other chapters that Rigdon was assigned as the most likely author in other parts of the Book of Mormon. If he was truly the author of the chapters, they should be pretty indistinguishable, but if they show a marked difference, then that would present a problem for any Rigdon authorship claims.

The same thing could be done for all of the authors that were included in the original Jockers study.

I do not know if this is really feasible or not. If Bruce Schaalje is still watching this thread, maybe he could chime in on this.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

I would certainly be interested in the results. Perhaps two teams, a Criddle team and a Schaalje team (?) could independently do the same experiment and then compare results.

Where you might get into subjective trouble is:

Then Nephi/Spalding can be compared against Nephi/Rigdon, and Nehi/Cowdery, or whoever. If they were truly different authors writing those chapters, then the NSC method should clearly differentiate between them.

In practical terms, exactly what would "clearly differentiate" mean?

[Guest]

Glenn:

I would certainly be interested in the results. Perhaps two teams, a Criddle team and a Schaalje team (?) could independently do the same experiment and then compare results.

Where you might get into subjective trouble is:

Then Nephi/Spalding can be compared against Nephi/Rigdon, and Nehi/Cowdery, or whoever. If they were truly different authors writing those chapters, then the NSC method should clearly differentiate between them.

In practical terms, exactly what would "clearly differentiate" mean?

Say that Nephi/Rigdon was selected as the subject text. Nephi/Cowdery and Nephi/Spalding could be tested against the Nephi/Rigdon text using the open set NSC methods that Bruce developed. If Rigdon is actually the author of the texts attributed to him by the original Jockers study, then the authorship should be assigned to the unobserved author. But if Nephi/Spalding and Nephi/Rigdon and Nephi/Cowdery were really the product of a single author, then Nephi/Cowdery and Nephi/Spalding should both show up ranked higher than the unobserved author. I really do not know how to set up such a test, but I believe it is possible. That is why I am hoping that Bruce is still watching this thread. He is really the person that could tell me if I am blowing smoke or not.

Maybe a version of the Larson, Rencher, Layton study could be used also. I know they checked for multiple authorship using the authors as layed out by the Book of Mormon, but they did not check an author against himself, chapter by chapter. I think that this would eliminate any suspected skew by the use of archaic language, checking an author against himself.

Like I said, I do not know how feasible it is. Hopefully someone will chime in and either burst the bubble, or ad to the din.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Dale:

Whenever I meet with this argument I simply walk away from the
discussion, because it prejudges any additional information I might
wish to add to the ongoing conversation.

Which is probably a wise response. I tend to stay with such conversations despite the biased prejudgment to see where the weak spots are in S/R theory and whether those weak spots have answers. Despite their bias--or perhaps as a direct result of it--critics tend to have a natural knack for honing in on the weakest elements of a competing theory. If the best they can come up with is asserting that S/R can't be true because it's witnesses claimed Spalding used a lost tribes context or that they suffered from group memory confabulation, then I don't think we have much to worry about.

There is, however, another more productive way in which we can
consider the 1834 book, and that is as an imperfect, incomplete
attempt to provide linkage between the authorship of the Book of
Mormon and 19th century figures other than Joseph Smith, Jr.

Which, of course, it is. Howe does not present solid evidence to connect Rigdon to MF. Much of what has accumulated under the banner of S/R has come after 1833-34. Howe got the ball rolling.

If we look at Howe's book (and its included witness statements, etc.)
as just such an imperfect report, then additional information can be
added to Book of Mormon authorship discussions, without any need
for accusations of improper "ad hoc" theorizing.

I have found that, for whatever reason, most S/R critics aren't interested in being objective. Therefore any excuse to claim ad hoc theorizing on our part will do. It is enough for me to understand that Dan is being inconsistent in his treatment of Rigdon's testimony. When Rigdon's testimony serves his purpose of attacking an S/R framework, he uncritically accepts it as true. But when acceptance of Rigdon's testimony would tend to support S/R claims, he rejects it. He then finds a way to rationalize the inconsistency, claiming (albeit ambiguously at this point) that he's only rejecting that portion of Rigdon's testimony on the basis that he rejects all claims to the supernatural. If that is a correct summation of Dan's reasoning for rejecting that portion of Rigdon's testimony (and I've attempted to give him plenty of opportunity to clearly state it and so far he hasn't) then it is apparently only coincidental that it also relieves him of the obligation to respond in an ad hoc manner.

Regardless, as I said, it is enough for me to conclude that inconsistently is apparently the only way to respond to Rigdon's claims if one is advocating Dan's honest dupes version of S/A.

Unfortunately the Spalding-Rigdon "theory" has become a stereotyped
narrative, which both proponents and critics believe they already know
by heart and can recite in a half-dozen accusative sentences. This is
a problem -- a problem which I feel can only be surmounted by our
relegating Spalding and Rigdon to the sidelines of future discussions,
and by concentrating upon the physical/literary evidence presented by
the Book of Mormon itself.

I don't see much harm in debate on a website that is designed for debate with the few people in the world who seem to have an interest in the topic. Whether either side will convince the other of anything in such a forum is, admittedly, unlikely, but at least speaking for myself, I enjoy the discussion. It helps me identify weak spots in S/R that I would likely have overlooked otherwise--whether stereotypical or not--and it also gives me an opportunity to respond to the challenges.

I could see how responding to bogus (stereotypical) charges can give the impression of validity, or conversely, that a lack of understanding on the advocate's part may unintentionally result in the perpetuation of false stereotypes, but that sort of thing is inherent whenever humans interact. Especially lay people. I don't think overall discussion should cease simply because human advocates often have an incomplete understanding of what they're advocating for. If such were the case then advocating for anything would require one to be an expert in it.

As far as concentrating upon the physical/literary evidence presented by the Book of Mormon itself, I think we can all agree that the text itself holds promise. The question seems to be in how to interpret the data and for that we tend to have to take the word of experts. When the experts come to different conclusions, we lay people are left to duke it out on debate forums.

Like marg says, however, one would think a scientific consensus surely must be possible as to whether or not the content of the BOM--excluding the KJV plagiarism of course--is the product of more than one author.

If our examination of the Nephite record leads us to the conclusion that
it includes multiple, non-biblical authorship "voices," THEN we can
entertain the Spalding-Rigdon assertions and examine them one-by-one.

Agreed. This is where scientific consensus could productively intervene in the debate. So far, I don't see that consensus. Both marg and I asked Bruce about that. On page 120 I asked Bruce:

Given the variability, how confident are you that regardless of whenever the content for the Book of Mormon was composed, there were multiple authors contributing to the final product? Can you quantify it, say on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being certainty of multiple authors and 1 being certainty of only one author?

To my knowledge he did not respond to that specific question. But that would certainly seem to be a key question that needs to be answered.

Perhaps some of the conclusions presented in Howe's 1834 book will
then be judged (by all concerned) as having been faulty -- and perhaps
other reports, from 1833 onward, can be retained as providing at least
some factual information.

Then again, I'm prepared for the Brodieite/LDS response, that my suggestion
in and of itself constitutes yet another forbidden "ad hoc" disruption of the
ongoing controversy.

Well given that multiple authors is anathema to "Brodieites" --or at least Dan's version of S/A, I would expect nothing less.

What I've never understood is the level of passion Dan and other S/R critics display for even entertaining the notion that anyone other than Joseph Smith might have contributed content to the Book of Mormon. What difference does it make? And why does it (apparently) make such a huge difference? If, for example, any of the material Cowdery at least attempted to produce, actually made the final cut, would that be a game-changer?