Dan:
I have already shown that what you label "trick hat" is not ad hoc. S/R can exist just fine with or without a "trick hat." Just as easily as S/A can. It is silly for you to continue to attempt to present the notion of a "trick hat" as though it was some sort of escape from adverse evidence. That is just nonsense.
What you write above is nonsense and absurd. The trick-hat theory isn’t something I made up. I didn’t make Marg say it; she said it on her own—with a straight face no less. I use it only as a quick example—there are several others, which I have listed many times. Roger, it doesn’t matter if S/R needs the trick-hat theory or not—it’s still ad hoc. We spent several pages arguing with Marg about it, and she neither acknowledged it as ad hoc nor gave it up.
Nor should she. Why should she acknowledge something as ad hoc when it isn't? The fact is, as I have stated before,
unreliable testimony does not constitute adverse evidence. The Book of Mormon witnesses claim that God made words appear in a magic rock. That we reject that claim does not mean we are responding in an ad hoc manner to adverse evidence that would otherwise sink our theory--and if you're going to insist that it does, then I am going to point out that you respond in an ad hoc manner yourself to the exact same testimony. Only it's worse for you because you think the word of those witnesses IS reliable! So then, given that, you have to explain why you think their word is reliable
except for the portions that go against your theory.
And yes
it does matter whether S/R needs a trick-hat or not. If S/R could only survive by postulating a trick hat,
then such postulating would constitute an ad hoc response. But S/R
doesn't need a trick hat and marg
was not postulating a trick hat
to avoid impending doom for S/R without it! This is obvious Dan. An objective historian should see this. She was just offering the possibility as
one possible, natural avenue. And I see nothing wrong with such speculation! I haven't heard anything better from you. Smith was something of a trickster, Dan, even you would agree with that. Magicians use trick hats. So what's so weird about marg speculating about Smith's hat? What's weird is your attempt to turn harmless speculation into a desperate attempt by S/R to respond to adverse evidence. That is just plain absurd.
And she didn’t just start using it without a reason. It was brought up when it appeared her attempt to dismiss all the witnesses as interested and therefore not trustworthy wasn’t working, so she offered a theory that she thought would explain the evidence of multiple independent testimony. That’s an ad hoc escape pure and simple.
No she didn't. That's ridiculous. Neither marg nor I nor any non-partisan observer would consider the word of biased, heavily invested cult members to be adverse evidence that must be responded to in an ad hoc manner in order to save their competing theory. That's like saying the word of FLDS members constitutes adverse evidence to which the state of Texas must respond in an ad hoc manner in order to save it's theory that Jeffs participated in statutory rape. It's ridiculous. McCullah wouldn't accept that. Brooke wouldn't. Your witnesses were motivated to embellish their testimonies, Dan, in order to promote the cause they were highly devoted to--and we can see clear examples of them doing exactly that. So their word on the matter does not constitute adverse evidence. If there is no adverse evidence, then one cannot respond in an ad hoc manner.
For your version of S/A, however, it's a bit different, because you want to believe that their word
is reliable. Well, if their word is reliable then you are going to have to deal with their supernatural claims, which then become adverse to your theory.
The fact is your theory requires something in the way of a response to the same testimony you want to present as being adverse to S/R because that testimony was intended to claim that God was providing a translation to Joseph Smith and, just like S/R, you do not accept that. Therefore, just like S/R proponents, you have to respond to that in some manner. You choose to characterize your response as not being ad hoc since you argue that supernatural elements are unnecessary. The problem is--and this is key--the problem is the witnesses themselves--whose testimony you are attempting to recruit for your theory--don't give you that option. You have to forcefully extract it from their testimonies which were intentionally designed to support Glenn's theory (S/D), not yours. They do not agree with your interpretation of their testimonies. Therefore, if you're going to accept their testimonies as being reliable then they are as adverse to your theory as they are to S/R.
It troubles me that you think the above is logical. It’s not.
It shouldn't trouble you, Dan. There's plenty of trouble in the world already. Rest assured, the logic is quite sound.
I’m free to accept the observations of the witnesses while rejecting their interpretations. This is standard procedure in courts of law. You must be familiar with this, Roger. So you are free to do the same. Where you go wrong is when you try to overcome the part of their testimony that is not interpretive but is adverse to the Spalding theory.
Interpretive! So there's the operative word! And,
conveniently, Dan gets to be the judge of which elements of their testimonies are merely "interpretive" and which are truly observational! So when David Whitmer boldly proclaims that words appeared in the stone, he surely would agree with you--were he taking part in this discussion--that, yes, of course, the "words appearing in the stone" part of my testimony were purely "interpretive" and not to be taken as a literal observation--even though Whitmer himself used a seer stone! When Emma claims her husband corrected her spelling even though it was impossible for him to see what she had written, I'm sure she'd enthusiastically agree that that is merely
her interpretation and that it wasn't intended to be taken as a literal observation!
The fact is, Dan, yes, you are free to accept whatever portions of their testimony
you choose to accept--people are free to do all kinds of things--but by the same token we are equally free to point out the obvious--that the word you are choosing to accept is coming from highly biased, devoted, cult members who were heavily invested in the cause they are testifying about who have a demonstrated propensity to embellish their testimonies. And we are free to reject most of what they tell us on that basis, thereby rendering their word as not constituting adverse evidence for our theory.
You think you have an escape clause in claiming the supernatural is inherently ad hoc and that by so proclaiming you are only getting your theory off the hook, but the fact is, if that escape clause works for S/A then it just as surely works for S/R.
I’m having difficulty following your desperate and convoluted logic, but I’ll give it a stab. The witnesses saw Joseph Smith dictate with head in hat for the bulk of the Book of Mormon, which they thought was miraculous. There was no real miracle here. No different than a fraudulent medium or psychic could do, but probably better. You agree.
Actually I don't. Evidence is weak that "witnesses saw Joseph Smith dictate with head in hat
for the bulk of the Book of Mormon." None of the skeptical witnesses support that, and I take the word of friendly witnesses very skeptically. Again, if Joseph could really do that, then there was no need to hide him from the public view. It should have been done out in the open with anyone being able to at least get within eyesight. The more skeptical witnesses claiming they saw Joseph dictating for hours on end, the better. Even more so if we'd have non-Mormons testifying that they were there when Joseph was dictating 3rd Nephi 1 or whatever. But we don't see that at all. The most we see from true skeptics is that Joseph put his head in his hat and rattled off a few words. I could do that. And even friendlies admit a blanket was used to keep Joseph from the eyes of the public.
So what we have are two competing theories, and yours is the one that has trouble with this adverse evidence.
Not correct. My theory has less trouble with it than yours does because yours suffers from attempting to extract truth from tainted testimony. The word of unreliable witnesses is not adverse evidence. This is true in any court of law.
To escape it, you have offered ad hoc speculations such as trick hats, locked doors, blankets, and conspiring and lying witnesses.
Your logic is getting worse. In the first place I don't have to "escape" anything since the word of unreliable, biased witnesses is not adverse. In the second place, the blanket is adverse to your theory (as well as Glenn's) not mine, since if Joseph could do what you both claim he did, then there is
no need for a blanket. The need arises when Joseph can't do what you claim he could. And yet David Whitmer even acknowledges that its purpose was to shield Joseph
from the eyes of the public. This is adverse evidence for your theory that you then have to escape by twisting David's language to speculate that the poor, distracted, prophet must not have been able to concentrate--as if a blanket would allow him to stay focused. But you have no basis to make that wild speculation that clearly goes against what Whitmer actually says. You can only accomplish it by twisting David's language--this is what LDS apologists do.
You can't explain how Joseph Smith pulled this off any more than we can. Sure, like us, you can speculate all you want, but you can't definitively say how he did it. The problem is that when we propose one possible natural avenue (as opposed to the supernatural) you then attempt to mock it by labeling it "trick hat" and then falsely proclaiming it to be an ad hoc response to adverse evidence as if your theory is somehow superior in explaining how Smith pulled it off! And the irony is, you yourself refuse to accept the very intent of the exact same testimonial evidence you want to present as being adverse for S/R. I find this whole dynamic remarkable.
Again, this is convoluted and incoherent. It appears you are still trying to slip out of defending your theory by requiring me to prove with absolute certainty my theory before admitting yours has problems. That’s ad hominem.
There's nothing convoluted or incoherent about it. The standard for coherency is not whether Dan likes it. I am simply not letting you get away with what you want to get away with. If you don't have to prove with absolute certainty how Smith pulled it off, then neither does S/R. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If your response to the elements of Book of Mormon witness testimony that you choose to reject is not ad hoc, then neither is ours.
The only thing that’s needed is to show my theory is more probable than yours.
Not correct. You need to show that your theory has greater explanatory power. You need to show how your theory
better explains all the data. And it doesn't. It is too simplistic. It blames virtually everything on Joseph Smith, when it's clear that Joseph Smith was not the only one who had a vested interest in the success of early Mormonism. Certainly he was a key player--no doubt, as it turned out,
the key player. Certainly he had charisma. Certainly he had natural abilities and tremendous power of persuasion. But the evidence points to Smith plus helpers. That's why Mormonism was successful. That's why we're having this discussion today.
I have shown that the bulk of the Book of Mormon came out of Joseph Smith’s mouth while his face was in his hat.
You have not shown that. You have cited biased witnesses who claim and/or imply that
it all came out of Joseph's mouth while his face was in a hat--and even you don't accept that. But those witnesses can't be trusted. The most we can safely conclude is that Smith put his head in his hat sometimes and rattled off a few words. That he could do that for hours on end is questionable. But if he could then that skill works just as nicely for my theory as it does for yours. If Smith had that skill, then all the better. It makes borrowing ideas from a Rigdon supplied manuscript all the more easy. People have photographic memories. It's not a supernatural gift. But again, you have not shown that to be the case, but if you're going to claim it for your theory without having established it, the reality is it works for S/R as well.
We know he did it—the question of how is a different matter. It's just your smokescreen or red herring.
Not at all, Dan. I'm simply pointing out that there's not that much difference between S/A and S/R when it comes to speculation about how Smith did it. None really. So whatever way you want to speculate works for S/R too. In the end, all it amounts to is your speculation, which is certainly not adverse evidence for S/R.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.