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

[_Uncle Dale]

...Dale, have you been able to convince any non LDS historian or literature specialist that your parallels have any significance?
...

Other than Roger and Mary, I cannot even get anyone to admit
that ten-word-long repetitions of phrases in Alma 5, of the same
phrases in Alma 3, have any relationship at all.

Maybe if the copied "parallels" were twenty-words-long, I'd
have better luck.

After all, there are still skeptics who say that Joe Smith probably
never consulted the KJV Bible, when dictating 1st Nephi, 2nd Nephi,
Mosiah and 3rd Nephi. That the shared phraseology is due to the
fact that God will "speak the same words unto one nation like unto
another. And then the two nations shall run together..."

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

I know how the game is played. I understand what Dan is attempting to do here. I did not complain when he not so subtly implied that I am embarrassingly stupid or paints me as silly and desperate.

I'm not complaining now. I'm merely showing that your attempts to jump on board that bandwagon and paint us as irrational loons simply because we suspect more than just Joseph Smith contributed content to the Book of Mormon is an avoidance tactic and an unnecessary one. THAT is why I am now asking for the details of YOUR theory.

If it seems like in the process of this discussion I used harsh terms to describe your behavior here, it’s because you began by saying you weren’t trying to win a debate with me and then you became extremely polemical and rude. The terms I used—embarrassing, silly, desperate—are accurate descriptions of your behavior. Both you and Marg run off and Google a few things and come back experts. It’s the zeal and over confidence that I find annoying.

[_MCB]

It’s the zeal and over confidence that I find annoying.

I find the constant harping on the same disagreements to be annoying. Where can we find agreements? Why can't we work from there?

Craig, for example, appears to have backed up to the stance "We found Smith here, and Cowdery there, so who else can we add in to fill in the blank spots?"

[_Roger]

Dan:

If it seems like in the process of this discussion I used harsh terms to describe your behavior here, it’s because you began by saying you weren’t trying to win a debate with me and then you became extremely polemical and rude.

First, I'm not sure why you view being "polemical" as such a bad thing--especially here. This is, after all, a discussion forum and the dispute over who produced the content for the Book of Mormon has never been without controversy.

Second, when it comes to being rude, that is a fairly subjective matter when we have no non-verbal cues to go on. Quite frankly, I found your attitude to be rude, pretty much from the start. If I came across as becoming extremely rude as the discussion progressed, I don't know what to tell you other than if you ask anyone who is familiar with me online, this is the way I am all the time. In other words, I don't think I was any more rude with you than I am with anyone else, nor do I think I am any more rude than the average poster.

I think if you take an honest look at the thread, Dan, you will see that what I have been challenging all along is your position on how the Book of Mormon got here, while defending my own, which is what discussion on a forum like this is all about. I have been challenging and even highlighting the weak areas of your Book of Mormon production theory (just like you and others are doing with mine) and it seems that you don't like that. But I have never challenged you as a person--except when I borrowed your phraseology.

The terms I used—embarrassing, silly, desperate—are accurate descriptions of your behavior.

Suffice it to say, I disagree. In my opinion it might be more accurate to say that you think disagreement with Dan is embarrassing, silly and desperate.

Both you and Marg run off and Google a few things and come back experts.

If it makes you feel better, I have been studying this for a few years now. I realize that doesn't make me an expert, but I am probably at least beyond the novice stage. I become convinced that S/R better explains the data by studying it. I came from a Smith-alone position very similar to yours--although I never had the level of confidence in the Book of Mormon witnesses that you do.

It’s the zeal and over confidence that I find annoying.

Why would that bother you? Glenn exhibits the same--or more--level of "zeal and over confidence." Yet it's only mine and marg's that bothers you. Why is that?

[_Roger]

Dale:

From the Mormon side, it is perfectly understandable. Oliver Cowdery
really did meet Jesus Christ, face-to-face in Kirtland, Ohio in 1836;
and Sidney Rigdon really did meet Jesus Christ, in the same manner,
in Hiram, Ohio, four years before that.

So -- for the Mormon, at least -- there was no conspiracy and
those wondrous events really occurred.

What I am saying, though, is that Rigdon could have believed God had placed MF in his care for a divine purpose. He could have believed Spalding's Nephites were real and Spalding was a real translator. Of course he is going to believe that any "revelation" he adds is also legitimately from God. Since Spalding mentions seer stones, Rigdon could have also believed that Joseph Smith had a God-given ability and was therefore authorized to add still more revelation to the narrative. This would also explain why Oliver thought he should be able to get his rod in on the act. Virtually all of this would have been seen as legitimate revelation. None of it would have raised suspicions, as Dan thinks, and none of it would have been thought of as fraud. This could have all taken place, and Cowdery still believes he really saw Jesus Christ in 1836.

I'm not quite sure how the non-Mormon accounts for the wonderful
professions of Cowdery and Rigdon -- nor even for David Whitmer's
having interacted with an angel who displayed to him the liahona,
the sword of Laban, etc. Can the non-LDS say that they were real?

I suppose that the non-Mormon, who does not accept those holy
manifestations as real, must introduce some excuse, such as
false memories, faded memories, hypnosis, and such. Either that,
or early members such as Cowdery and Rigdon occasionally told
lies as great as those told by Joe Smith (and with his support).

I don't know which, but it must be something along those lines, Dale. If I were to guess, I would think a combination of "vision" brought about by trying really hard to "see" something, and "white lies" made in order to not appear to be lacking faith. When I videotaped my friendly (fraudulent) faith healer, I had members of his flock speaking their "words of faith" to me. Positive confession becomes a hugely important thing in these kinds of circles. These kinds of people actually think you can bring about positive events in your life such as healing by simply speaking positive confessions. Conversely a negative confession can bring about bad things. Under that kind of pressure, its not too difficult to imagine Harris or Whitmer convincing themselves they had really "seen" plates.

If the early Mormon witnesses (like Cowdery and Rigdon) were
reliable in their professions regarding the Book of Mormon, then
why would they not be equally reliable in their professions of
having encountered Jesus Christ?

Well that's just it. I don't think they were reliable at all. At least my skepticism is consistent in that regard. I don't believe them when they say words appeared in the stone and I don't believe them when they say "the whole" came from the urim and thummim and I don't think they ever saw Christ.

In the summer of 1844 Sidney Rigdon made use of his theophany
of 1832 as the basis for his claim to the LDS leadership. Shortly
before his own death, Oliver Cowdery was writing letters to
David Whitmer, seeking to promote their claims to that leadership.

Were Cowdery and Rigdon still honest religious dupes that late in
the game? Perhaps so. If so, then maybe there was no conspiracy.

Or again, maybe they never viewed any of it as a "conspiracy." I certainly don't believe they would have thought of it as "fraudulent." I think they would have seen it as God bringing all these elements together for a wise and wonderful purpose. So what if they had to sell the public on the implied (after my conversation with Dan) idea that each word came from the lips of Joseph as he read them off the stone. The very notion that they are all working together with one divine purpose is itself viewed as evidence that God is directing it all.

Ironically, Dan's notion that these witnesses don't have to mention a Bible when by george we know one was used--and not think of it as fraudulent, can also be used to show that these same witnesses don't have to mention any other source--so long as whoever knows about it thinks it is "revelation" at least on par with the Bible!--and not think of it as fraudulent.

[_marg]

Marg,

I have a few comments about your post to Mikwut. I hope Mikwut doesn’t mind.

I’ll quote him making a comment to Loftus after her talk. " Like you study memory, I study perception and vision. What strikes me about human memory in addition to what you said about the fallibility is how extraordinarily reliable it is. It’s astonishing how good our memory is. I can say the same thing about perception. I can produce illusions which violate common sense. And then you find out what causes the illusion. But this doesn’t prove that vision is highly fallible. It proves under ordinary circumstances it’s extremely good. But using contrived stimulus I can produce an illusion which illuminates the mechanisms of perception. "

I couldn’t believe this questioner from the audience got away with the logical fallacy of proof from analogy. The analogy has problems since magicians (or more properly illusionists) don’t fool the eyes—the eyes are working properly the whole time. A more meaningful analogy would be for your eyes to be permanently fooled, which Loftus’s questioner brought up himself. However, he brought it up as if it were a problem for Loftus, implying that memory works the same way as eyes—it doesn’t. Memory can, unlike seeing magic tricks, can be fooled permanently. Memory, as the research shows, is far more fragile than sight.

The same “contrived situations” are used to find cures to diseases, etc. That’s how it works.

You know better than Dr. Ramachandran how it science works huh? Do you have any idea who that questioner is? He is not an illusionist and I'm sure he knows a heck of a lot better than you do how science works, in fact I'm positive he does. And he's no slouch when it comes to understanding how the brain functions, I'm sure he knows a lot more about memory than you do as well and is well aware of memory studies and hence the reason for his comment to Loftus.

Ya I'm using google for wiki for your benefit not mine:


"Brief bio: Vilayanur Subramanian "Rama" Ramachandran (born 1951) is a neurologist best known for his work in the fields of behavioral neurology and psychophysics. He is the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition,[1][2][3] and is currently a Professor in the Department of Psychology[4] and the Neurosciences Graduate Program[5] at the University of California, San Diego.

Ramachandran initially obtained an M.D. at Stanley Medical College in Madras, India, and subsequently obtained a Ph.D. from Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. Ramachandran’s early work was on visual perception but he is best known for his experiments in behavioral neurology which, despite their apparent simplicity, have had a profound impact on the way we think about the brain.

Ramachandran was elected to a visiting fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford (1998-1999), and in 2005 he was the co-winner (with Michael Brady) of the Henry Dale Prize awarded by the Royal Institution of Great Britain. He gave the 2003 BBC Reith Lectures and was conferred the title of Padma Bhushan by the President of India in 2007. He has been called “The Marco Polo of neuroscience” by Richard Dawkins and "the modern Paul Broca" by Eric Kandel. Newsweek magazine named him a member of "The Century Club", one of the "hundred most prominent people to watch" in the 21st century.[6]"

I couldn’t believe this questioner from the audience got away with the logical fallacy of proof from analogy.

I can't believe you think he was making a proof by analogy. You haven't a clue Dan what his point is.

Let me explain...he wasn't offering any "proof" by analogy nor setting up an analogy. You missed his point entirely. He was pointing out how science works and clarifying because quite frankly Loftus doesn't do a good job of this, that her particular studies do not warrant conclusion that memory generally is fallible or in all or any situations it's fallible. He was pointing out that what her studies show is only under the circumstances or variables that she sets out within a study of which she find memory to be fallible, do her studies have anything to say about memory. You aren't very logical if this isn't obvious to you.

This is the very problem that has been going on in this discussion.with you, Glenn and Mikwut.

That's why I asked Mikwut and yourself to give me the best study you know which highly correlates to the particulars of the conneaut witnesses in order to warrant a conclusion their memory was not to be relied upon.

I find it interesting how you said something along the lines of "memory studies" are not the reason you reject the conneaut witnesses statements..because according to you the Book of Mormon witnessess are so highly reliable in their claims of the translation process that no matter what you reject the conneaut witnesses statements. Meanwhile you still persist in trying to argue against the Conneaut witnesses based on your opinion they didn't remember correctly Spalding's manuscript. If it's not important why do you persist?

I don't have time to read the rest of your post and won't have time until the weekend as I have a busy week.

Hopefully you'll have found a memory study which correlates with the situation of the Conneaut witnesses in order to warrant dismissing them on the basis of faulty memory. Because really that's all that important Dan in order to dismiss them with warrant. If you haven't then you it appears you are harassing me.

[_Roger]

Glenn wrote:

I agree that the Roman story is not a preliminary manuscript to any supposed second manuscript. Solomon's widow said that she put the manuscript in the trunk along with his sermons and some other papers. His daughter, Matilda said that Solomon had written many short stories for her, one of them being "The Frogs of Wyndham". Josiah Spalding describes the Roman story in his statement. He went to see Solomon after the war of 1812 broke out. He said that Solomon started his novel then. Aron Wright said in his "draft letter" when shown the Roman manuscript, that "in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America". Any "second" manuscript would seem to come after the Roman manuscript. He could not have started the Roman story after he gave the "MF" to Engles for review because of Josiah's statement, which places it in 1812.
Josiah, John, Martha, nor Matilda Spalding do not intimate anywhere that he was working on two
manuscripts. You can only conclusively come up with one manuscript.

Yes, at this point we only have one ms that even remotely resembles the Book of Mormon. This ms, Brodie wants us to believe is just barely enough like the Book of Mormon to get the false memories rolling, but not nearly enough like the Book of Mormon to establish a common author. I have to acknowledge that when Spalding uses words like: "sprightliness" or "dastard" or "buxom lasses" I have to wonder. On the other hand, parallels do exist. Ben tells me that is a common thing because the Book of Mormon was produced at about the same time and dealt with a similar topic.

If that were all there were to it, I could agree with Ben and call it a day. But the fact is the allegations of a connection were made BEFORE any of the parallels were even known to exist. And when one looks at the parallels between Spalding's discovery narrative and Joseph Smith's discovery narrative, I'm sorry, but "coincidence" just doesn't cut it. Even B.H. Roberts--no friend of S/R--noted the parallels in a footnote, but never attempted to explain them.

To my mind, one of three possibilities explains those parallels....

1. Spalding had incorporated a discovery narrative very similar to the one in MSCC into MF and Joseph/Sidney borrowed from it in 1838 to produce Smith's discovery narrative.

2. Joseph Smith got a hold of MF from Hurlbut in 1834.

3. Joseph Smith somehow saw and borrowed from MSCC in 1834 before it went back to Howe, and then made use of it in 1838.

There is evidence for #2. #3 seems very unlikely. #1 would imply that Rigdon or Smith hung on to Spalding's discovery narrative either physically or in their memories for about 8 years before making formal use of it. I am inclined to go with #2.

[_MCB]

Joseph Smith got a hold of MF from Hurlbut in 1834.

Or even just the first page of it. While the rest of the ms. was immediately destroyed.

Which fits in well with

What I am saying, though, is that Rigdon could have believed God had placed MF in his care for a divine purpose. He could have believed Spalding's Nephites were real and Spalding was a real translator. Of course he is going to believe that any "revelation" he adds is also legitimately from God. Since Spalding mentions seer stones, Rigdon could have also believed that Joseph Smith had a God-given ability and was therefore authorized to add still more revelation to the narrative. This would also explain why Oliver thought he should be able to get his rod in on the act. Virtually all of this would have been seen as legitimate revelation.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Rigdon could have believed God had placed MF in his care for a divine purpose. He could have believed Spalding's Nephites were real and Spalding was a real translator. Of course he is going to believe that any "revelation" he adds is also legitimately from God.

Many things "could have" happened -- and we can keep all
of those possibilities in the back of our minds, for future
reference and development. Rigdon enters the Mormon
scene near the end of 1830, quickly converted to the new
theology and its self-proclaimed authority. Even though we
have some compelling evidence regarding his professions
and actions before that date, the average investigator of
Mormon origins probably will have little interest in Rigdon.
Thus, we can only bring Rigdon into the picture AFTER we
have convincingly accounted for events prior to his conversion.

Since Spalding mentions seer stones, Rigdon could have also believed that Joseph Smith had a God-given ability and was therefore authorized to add still more revelation to the narrative. This would also explain why Oliver thought he should be able to get his rod in on the act. Virtually all of this would have been seen as legitimate revelation.

I agree. But again, this falls into the "could have" category
of historical reconstructions. We should be wary of trying
to link up Rigdon's probable activities with Cowdery's
probable activities --- until we have first of all presented a
compelling case for Cowdery's secret involvement in the
creation/compilation of the Book of Mormon text.

Three important early documents in this regard are to be
found in Book of Commandments chapters 7 & 8, along
with the mid-1829 "revelation" received/written by Cowdery.
If we can first of all present a case for Cowdery's integral
involvement in the compilation of the book, we can later
extend his probable methods/interests to Rigdon.

None of it would have raised suspicions, as Dan thinks, and none of it would have been thought of as fraud. This could have all taken place, and Cowdery still believes he really saw Jesus Christ in 1836.

It gets much more complicated than that, Roger. Cowdery
also claimed to interact with an angel, and with John the
Baptist, and with Peter, James and John. When Cowdery
first appeared in northeastern Ohio, at the end of 1830, he
was reported in local newspapers as acting like a prophet.
The sum total of Cowdery's professions and pronouncements
reaches beyond the bounds of a deluded man making honest
mistakes about his religious experiences. Ether they all really
did happen (as Mormons claim) or he was a knowing liar.

Cowdery's being a knowing liar does not automatically mean
that he possessed no beliefs in God and Christ -- but that
same liar status can help explain some of his actions, whether
or not he was a faithful Christian. That may seem paradoxical
at first consideration, but I think we must hold open the odd
possibility that Cowdery was BOTH deceptive and sincere --
a fanatic who believed in supernatural powers. but who was
also ready to bend the truth more than a dishonest lawyer.

I don't know which, but it must be something along those lines, Dale. If I were to guess, I would think a combination of "vision" brought about by trying really hard to "see" something, and "white lies" made in order to not appear to be lacking faith.

Since you are indeed a never-been-Mormon, your attempts at
figuring out Mormon origins fits in well with my presentation of
what non-LDS must think, in order to explain those origins. But
you are only one such example, and I can only look at your
assumptions as constituting one out of several different ways
in which the non-Mormon might account for those origins.

Certainly there must have been some "mix" of piety and fraud
involved in Mormon origins -- just as there was a mixture of
piety and deception in the attempted cover-up of polygamy
at Nauvoo, of Joseph Smith's kingly coronation, etc. etc.
In his April 6, 1844 Conference Talk, Sidney Rigdon spoke on
the subject of Mormon origins and secrecy -- Perhaps we can
read between the lines of his discourse, to comprehend how
secrecy=deception=lies.

When I videotaped my friendly (fraudulent) faith healer, I had members of his flock speaking their "words of faith" to me. Positive confession becomes a hugely important thing in these kinds of circles. These kinds of people actually think you can bring about positive events in your life such as healing by simply speaking positive confessions. Conversely a negative confession can bring about bad things. Under that kind of pressure, its not too difficult to imagine Harris or Whitmer convincing themselves they had really "seen" plates.

We can detect some of the basis for those earliest Mormon
professions in the pages of the Book of Mormon itself. The
text gives us examples of belief=faith, seeing with the "eye of
faith," and how a seer's perception is greater than that of a
prophet. Close attention to the book's doctrines on these points
may help us understand what the earliest Mormons meant by
"mysteries," "knowledge," "seeing," etc. I think we should be
prepared to understand that they used witnessing language in
ways rather different from scientific observation/reporting.

Well that's just it. I don't think they were reliable at all. At least my skepticism is consistent in that regard. I don't believe them when they say words appeared in the stone and I don't believe them when they say "the whole" came from the urim and thummim and I don't think they ever saw Christ.

It is very difficult to separate concrete manifestations from
"visions" in that early Mormon testimony. When Sidney Rigdon
and Oliver Cowdery claim to have interacted with "Christ," we
must remember that they are using language differently from
the way you and I might use language. Quite likely those first
Mormons did experience wonderful things -- but there are many
ways to induce hallucinations and a sense of profound awe in
deceived believers.

I used the word "mixture" earlier, and I suppose we moderns
must hold open the possibility of different sorts of mixtures
of faith, belief, secrecy and deception among the first Mormons.
Again, the deception surrounding religious activities in Nauvoo
comes to mind -- there were no doubt a variety of mixtures of
faith and fraud among those who participated in the Council
of Fifty, for example. We should keep those examples in mind.

Or again, maybe they never viewed any of it as a "conspiracy." I certainly don't believe they would have thought of it as "fraudulent." I think they would have seen it as God bringing all these elements together for a wise and wonderful purpose. So what if they had to sell the public on the implied (after my conversation with Dan) idea that each word came from the lips of Joseph as he read them off the stone. The very notion that they are all working together with one divine purpose is itself viewed as evidence that God is directing it all.

We can speculate on the "mixture" of secrecy and faith, almost
endlessly. Probably that "mixture" varied from person to person,
with the top two or three Mormon con-men possessing a mix
quite different from that held by the multitude of dupes. I'd
say it is best for investigative purposes that we keep an open
mind regarding such things.

Ironically, Dan's notion that these witnesses don't have to mention a Bible when by george we know one was used--and not think of it as fraudulent, can also be used to show that these same witnesses don't have to mention any other source--so long as whoever knows about it thinks it is "revelation" at least on par with the Bible!--and not think of it as fraudulent.

It would be very helpful if we today could conduct a cross
examination of those early witnesses. But I do not suppose
that we could count upon Oliver Cowdery to always tell us
the truth. Suppose, by some magic, we suddenly had Oliver
here with us, and could question the fellow closely -----

What would you ask him? How reliable do you think his answers
to your questions would be?

My advice -- Start articulating your origins theory with some
remarks about Smith. Then bring in Cowdery. And wait to
bring in Rigdon until you have presented a logical, possible
case for the secret interaction of Smith and Cowdery.

UD

[_MCB]

Dale, what is the likelihood that Cowdery could have been in Nashville, Tennessee on September 7, 1828?