DiscussMormonism.com

Darth, and/or Sock Puppet.

I see you've been looking into the Book of Mormon translation method viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21890, what is your perspective as to what actually transpired. Could you give your critical evaluation on the reliability of the witnesses' statements in particular Harris', Emma's, Cowdery's & D. Whitmer's. Do you think Smith used a head in the hat method with scribes and if so with whom?

I know that you asked for SP and Darth's opinion,, but I would like to throw in my two cents, if that's OK.

I think it is pretty evident that Joseph did use the "head in hat" translation. There is more than one eye witness account relating it. The question that has been on the table is whether or not Joseph used any other method besides this, particularly since the Urim and Thumum were specifically mentioned. I believe that there is one vague reference from Oliver Cowdry which stated that the seer stones worked just as well as the Urim and Thumum for Joseph. This would at least elude to the fact that Joseph did actually use the spectacles at least once. However, considering the amount of testimony referring directly to the use of the seer stones in the hat, I think it is safe to assume that this was the method used most often.

I was actually quite confused when I studied Joseph Smith when I was younger. The seer stones and the Urim and Thumum were used as interchangeable terms.

Hi Liz,

My question is rather short and I don't explain what it is I am most interested in. I realize a head in the hat was used at least for show ..because there was an excellent witness Isaac Hales who observed that. He was a hostile witness and there was no reason for him to lie. What he observed was on a very time limited basis and essentially was under the control of smith and Cowdery. So it does not mean that just because Hales observed this ..that that was what Cowdery and Smith did for the vast majority.

When Isaac Hales observed (If I recall correctly) was when he went over to the small house on his property which Smith and Emma were staying at...and which Smith and Cowdery used for a short period of time when they worked on the Book of Mormon. A show ..could have been staged for him. Apparently according to one account...Smith and Cowdery performed at a tavern "Badgers" for the public view the process of writing the Book of Mormon using the "head in the hat" method. Again that doesn't mean this was something Cowdery and Smith actually did in order to write the Book of Mormon..it only means that on a temporary basis they certainly did use a "head in the hat" show to be observed and wanted a few people to see this as a process they claimed to use to translate some plates.

There is a reason I'm asking these guys in particular this question. They are lawyers, they are trained to evaluate evidence and so I'd like to see how they evaluate witness statements/evidence in this case. How reliable do they think the witnesses' statements are with regards to Smith using this "head in the hat" process for scribes such as Emma, Cowdery and Harris. How reliable do they think any of the witnesses are including D. Whitmer with regards to the translation process. And this relates to the Spalding theory because one of the arguments being used against it is that the reliability of the scribes' statements, Emma, Harris,& Cowdery is justification for dismissing the Spalding witnesses. And because Emma's, Harris's and Cowdery's statements are reliable (according to this argument)therefore no other manuscript or even a Bible would have been present because the witnesses & scribes didn't claim one was and they (in some cases) said nothing else was present... plus according to this argument if we accept the reliability of the witnesses/scribes claim to a "head in the hat" would Smith have possibly been able to read anything while his head is in hat.

So I'm looking at this from a non believer's perspective but in particular interested in Darth's and Sock Puppet's perspective for reasons I give above.

Bump for Darth!

Food for thought (from FairMormon):

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

David Whitmer, who only came in contact with the translation after the loss of the 116 pages, indicated through a friend that

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a 'Seer Stone,' which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said.

From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone ... _Saints%29

In 1830 Hiram Page, one of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, claimed to have had a series of revelations through a black seer stone. After Smith announced that these revelations were of the devil, Page agreed to discard the stone which, according to a contemporary, was "Broke to powder and the writings Burnt."[9] Apparently the apostasy of some early Mormon believers can be traced to Smith's move away from the use of seer stones. The Whitmer family, devoted to their importance, "later said their disenchantment with Mormonism began when Joseph Smith stopped using his seer stone as an instrument of revelation."

marg wrote:Darth, and/or Sock Puppet.

I see you've been looking into the Book of Mormon translation method viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21890, what is your perspective as to what actually transpired. Could you give your critical evaluation on the reliability of the witnesses' statements in particular Harris', Emma's, Cowdery's & D. Whitmer's. Do you think Smith used a head in the hat method with scribes and if so with whom?

marg, sorry for the delay. I've been off board for most of the day. I have a 7-day federal court trial coming up, and am using most of my 'spare' time to better prepare for it.

Here is my fairly off the cuff observations. First, what could each of these witnesses have observed? Per the text of the statements, each had a vantage point to see that JSJr put the rock in the hat and then put his face in the hat, and then spoke the English words of the 'translation'. We don't have a first hand account of what was going on inside the hat. That is, we only have hearsay by these witnesses of JSJr telling them about the English words appearing on the magic parchment, itself appearing above the rock when JSJr had his face in the hat. Joseph Knight Sr's was the most detailed description of this hearsay, of what only JSJr would be able to testify first hand. Knight also was the most impressed by this.

If I recall correctly the statements, we do not know if JSJr would raise his face out of the hat before uttering the English words. Did any of the witnesses to the face-in-hat process come upon that process unexpectedly, or was it only upon appointed invitation from JSJr? Michael Morse, Emma's brother-in-law, said he observed this process on more than one occasion. Why stage it for him more than once?

What did the scribed manuscript from the observed process show? Did any of these witnesses examine or even fairly quickly look at that manuscript? Was it consistent with being a continuation of previous 'translation' process--previous to that during which the witness was present?

Where exactly were the gold plates in relation to the hat during this process? (Isaac Hale's account provides the plates were hidden in the woods.)

Basically, we do not have the forensic benefit that could be derived from being able to ask questions to probe surrounding factors, nor to test the veracity of the statements made in writing.

Emma Smith said this was the process day after day. Apart from the magic parchment claim, if JSJr was not composing the text in his head on the fly, then this would have been very difficult for JSJr to have pulled off with memorized text to fool Emma. So, by virtue of the length of time she reported, either she was knowingly helping JSJr perpetuate his hoax or she was attesting to the composition occurring in his own head, on the fly.

On the other hand, we have enough, diverse witnesses to give a great deal of credence to what they have written in their statements (or said, and others wrote down for them): JSJr put the rock in the hat and then put his face in the hat, and then spoke the English words of the 'translation'. From what I know, these witnesses would make for very strange 'bed fellows' in a conspiracy, which also lends credence to what was so attested.

Is this the kind of analysis and type of comments you were looking for, marg?

Thanks S.P.,

I will respond later..the problem is my mind isn't on this stuff atm. I see you are busy anyhow for the next week. But I will respond to your post.

Hi S.P.

I'll take an initial jab at responding to your post, but won't spend too much time on this today. And as you are busy for the next week or so that shouldn't be a problem.

When I read the thread I believe I referenced above, regarding what method Smith used most during Book of Mormon translation, I thought it distracted readers from doing a critical evaluation of whether or not most of the time with the main scribes (that I know of) Emma, Harris, & Cowdery Smith used any method. The typical Smith alone theory perspective seems to assume uncritically most witnesses' statements at face value. From a different perspective such as multiple author theory and/or a spalding theory it leads one to be highly skeptical of taking at face value witnesses' claims other than hostile witnesses who have little or no motivation to fabricate a storyline of what they saw.

I didn't really think where this discussion would go or have particular expectations...but I thought of all the people involved in one, someone such as yourself or Darth non believers, and because you are likely experienced in evaluating witnesses' statement, might offer a well informed experienced perspective.

I haven't been thinking about the Book of Mormon translation for some time and as I'm not involved with Mormonism very much I tend not to remember facts well because I don't have many associations to form memories with. So once you responded I thought I needed to do some refreshing of evidence/data, which I have started doing in the last day. And now I'm realizing how involved this discussion could be. As I said in my first post "what is your perspective as to what actually transpired" and that's really what I'm most interested in. I'd like you(and Darth) to take an interest in arguing from a critical evaluation of statements as to whether one is justified in accepting at face value witnesses statements to the translation process.

So today, I'll make a few comments on your post.

sock puppet wrote:Here is my fairly off the cuff observations. First, what could each of these witnesses have observed? Per the text of the statements, each had a vantage point to see that JSJr put the rock in the hat and then put his face in the hat, and then spoke the English words of the 'translation'. We don't have a first hand account of what was going on inside the hat. That is, we only have hearsay by these witnesses of JSJr telling them about the English words appearing on the magic parchment, itself appearing above the rock when JSJr had his face in the hat. Joseph Knight Sr's was the most detailed description of this hearsay, of what only JSJr would be able to testify first hand. Knight also was the most impressed by this.

This isn't what I was getting at. From a non faith critical evaluation perspective looking at the evidence is there any reason to assume witnesses are telling the truth. Which witnesses are likely to be telling the truth and which ones not. This is where the discussion would become quite involved. And that is something I'd like to do..evaluate each of their alleged statements in the context of surrounding evidence.

If I recall correctly the statements, we do not know if JSJr would raise his face out of the hat before uttering the English words. Did any of the witnesses to the face-in-hat process come upon that process unexpectedly, or was it only upon appointed invitation from JSJr? Michael Morse, Emma's brother-in-law, said he observed this process on more than one occasion. Why stage it for him more than once?

I can think of a reason why they'd stage it for him more than once..they want outsiders to inform others of what they saw. When you read the newspaper accounts for example many of them give the impression they are getting their information directly from an insider, Smith, Harris or D. Whitmer. It seems and is a likely scenario that Smith and Co were promoting or marketing their version of events to the newpapers. They likely didn't have reporters going to them, they went to the newspapers. When you read the translation process by Emma, Harris and Whitmer..there are inconsistencies, as well as similarities and the impression I get is that they had a discussion on what to say transpired. Their memory (in my opinion) isn't clear because they aren't recalling what actually happened they are recalling only a discussion on what they agreed they would say happened. That memory would be weaker with regards to a discussion because there aren't many associations with that sort of memory versus recalling an actual event they were phyically actually involved in which was have sight and sound associations for memory. It explains also why they don't get into much detail, but all 3 of them certainly seem intent on making sure they give the impression that Smith couldn't have done it on his own therefore the supernatural must have been involve. So we have Emma talking about the stone would stop translating if she made a spelling error and wouldn't continue until she corrected it (how could smith know with his face in a hat she was writing spelling errors) and we have Whitmer and Harris (I believe) saying that only when the sentences were correct would the stone continue..but there is no impression given that they would read back sentences to Smith..the impression give is that the stone would know whether or not what was written was correct. So without getting further involved in this..as I say I can think of good reasons why they'd (Cowdery and Smith) would stage the "face in the hat" for outsiders. As time went on and they may have gotten feed back..that the "face in the hat" seemed too much like a con..and realized that it might be best to distance themselves from that explanation. Cowdery and Smith don't get into details, other than to mention the Urim and Thummin..but no hat.

What do we know of the circumstances of what Michael Morse observed. Were Smith and Cowdery in control of the situation by being in a room in which they could hear or see someone approaching.

What did the scribed manuscript from the observed process show? Did any of these witnesses examine or even fairly quickly look at that manuscript? Was it consistent with being a continuation of previous 'translation' process--previous to that during which the witness was present?

I'm not sure where you are going with this. By looking at the scribed manuscript some clues can be found as to what likely occurred. I have looked into this in the past but it's been quite a while and this is another area that can get quite involved.

Where exactly were the gold plates in relation to the hat during this process? (Isaac Hale's account provides the plates were hidden in the woods.)

Frankly I don't think the plates ever existed. But I'll leave this for now.

Basically, we do not have the forensic benefit that could be derived from being able to ask questions to probe surrounding factors, nor to test the veracity of the statements made in writing.

True but that's no reason to accept as face value the witnesses' statements. From a non faith, non believer perspective given all the evidence, it points to a fraud. So assuming a high probability of a fraud..what justification is there that one should accept witnesses' statements. And if one doesn't accept at face value, one can still critically evaluate what was claimed keeping in mind that particular person's likely motivating factors.

Emma Smith said this was the process day after day. Apart from the magic parchment claim, if JSJr was not composing the text in his head on the fly, then this would have been very difficult for JSJr to have pulled off with memorized text to fool Emma. So, by virtue of the length of time she reported, either she was knowingly helping JSJr perpetuate his hoax or she was attesting to the composition occurring in his own head, on the fly.

Well one of the bits of data is that she allegedly gave a statement at the moment I don't have to whom..but I'll look for it later in which she said that the stone would stop translating when she made a spelling error. Because Harris and Whitmer made a similar claim..they talked about if the sentence was wrong the stone would stop and I believe there might be one other person mentioning the stone would stop if there was a spelling error..so I don't see this claim by Emma as being unlikely given what others said. But when one thinks about it, assuming no supernatural involved..how on earth would Smith know when errors were being made if he wasn't looking at what was being written down nor discussing with scribes what they were writing. This sort of claim to me indicates this was something they discussed they would say. It was years after the fact that Emma was supposed to have said this and her memory on what she agreed to say likely would have faded. This sort of claim that the stone would stop until errors were corrected leads me to believe she was in on the hoax.

On the other hand, we have enough, diverse witnesses to give a great deal of credence to what they have written in their statements (or said, and others wrote down for them): JSJr put the rock in the hat and then put his face in the hat, and then spoke the English words of the 'translation'. From what I know, these witnesses would make for very strange 'bed fellows' in a conspiracy, which also lends credence to what was so attested.

Correct but how many witnesses do we have along these lines, and what sort of situation were they involved in. Were they able to catch Smith and Cowdery off guard unprepared before their observation.

I do not think it a likely scenario that Smith dictated to those in the know..with his face in a hat. by the way, I also think the D& C was used as part of the con..to distract people from critically evaluating evidence. I don't for a minute think that Cowdery actually tried to translate as per the D& C (I believe # 10.)

Is this the kind of analysis and type of comments you were looking for, marg?

To some extent yes. I have a book which has a chapter on critically evaluating witnesses' statements. I'm not sure where it is atm. I posted a summary of the chapter in the Celestial forum during the discussion on Spalding. The author is Alex Fisher. I'll probably post a link eventually. I'll continue doing some more reading on the evidence/data and perhaps post again before you respond ..assuming you are going to.

marg wrote:Hi S.P.

I'll take an initial jab at responding to your post, but won't spend too much time on this today. And as you are busy for the next week or so that shouldn't be a problem.

When I read the thread I believe I referenced above, regarding what method Smith used most during Book of Mormon translation, I thought it distracted readers from doing a critical evaluation of whether or not most of the time with the main scribes (that I know of) Emma, Harris, & Cowdery Smith used any method. The typical Smith alone theory perspective seems to assume uncritically most witnesses' statements at face value. From a different perspective such as multiple author theory and/or a spalding theory it leads one to be highly skeptical of taking at face value witnesses' claims other than hostile witnesses who have little or no motivation to fabricate a storyline of what they saw.

I didn't really think where this discussion would go or have particular expectations...but I thought of all the people involved in one, someone such as yourself or Darth non believers, and because you are likely experienced in evaluating witnesses' statement, might offer a well informed experienced perspective.

I haven't been thinking about the Book of Mormon translation for some time and as I'm not involved with Mormonism very much I tend not to remember facts well because I don't have many associations to form memories with. So once you responded I thought I needed to do some refreshing of evidence/data, which I have started doing in the last day. And now I'm realizing how involved this discussion could be. As I said in my first post "what is your perspective as to what actually transpired" and that's really what I'm most interested in. I'd like you(and Darth) to take an interest in arguing from a critical evaluation of statements as to whether one is justified in accepting at face value witnesses statements to the translation process.

So today, I'll make a few comments on your post.

Certainly the external factors of motivations, opportunities, etc. are important to evaluating the reliability of the text. So too are the internal consistencies (and probabilities) of each of the first-hand witness statements, and then the consistencies among the differing statements, and the relationships between these witnesses and with JSJr.

marg wrote:

sock puppet wrote:Here is my fairly off the cuff observations. First, what could each of these witnesses have observed? Per the text of the statements, each had a vantage point to see that JSJr put the rock in the hat and then put his face in the hat, and then spoke the English words of the 'translation'. We don't have a first hand account of what was going on inside the hat. That is, we only have hearsay by these witnesses of JSJr telling them about the English words appearing on the magic parchment, itself appearing above the rock when JSJr had his face in the hat. Joseph Knight Sr's was the most detailed description of this hearsay, of what only JSJr would be able to testify first hand. Knight also was the most impressed by this.

This isn't what I was getting at. From a non faith critical evaluation perspective looking at the evidence is there any reason to assume witnesses are telling the truth. Which witnesses are likely to be telling the truth and which ones not. This is where the discussion would become quite involved. And that is something I'd like to do..evaluate each of their alleged statements in the context of surrounding evidence.

I start from a bit of a different perspective when evaluating a witness statement. I initially take a statement at face value, but examine it to determine if there are reasons to distrust the statement.

Either way, though, critical evaluation is the method we are both looking at what information and clues that are available.

marg wrote:

sock puppet wrote:If I recall correctly the statements, we do not know if JSJr would raise his face out of the hat before uttering the English words. Did any of the witnesses to the face-in-hat process come upon that process unexpectedly, or was it only upon appointed invitation from JSJr? Michael Morse, Emma's brother-in-law, said he observed this process on more than one occasion. Why stage it for him more than once?

I can think of a reason why they'd stage it for him more than once..they want outsiders to inform others of what they saw. When you read the newspaper accounts for example many of them give the impression they are getting their information directly from an insider, Smith, Harris or D. Whitmer. It seems and is a likely scenario that Smith and Co were promoting or marketing their version of events to the newpapers. They likely didn't have reporters going to them, they went to the newspapers. When you read the translation process by Emma, Harris and Whitmer..there are inconsistencies, as well as similarities and the impression I get is that they had a discussion on what to say transpired. Their memory (in my opinion) isn't clear because they aren't recalling what actually happened they are recalling only a discussion on what they agreed they would say happened.

As brief as their descriptions are, and that they have the similarity of the three elements (stone in hat, face in hat, spoke English text) without each having identified significantly other factors suggests that perhaps either the description was staged and these were perhaps the accentuated factors to which each witness's attention was purposefully drawn, that one of witness made a statement and then others sort of reiterated it (sort of like following a template), or perhaps an actual collusion among some or all of these witnesses 'to get their story straight'

marg wrote:That memory would be weaker with regards to a discussion because there aren't many associations with that sort of memory versus recalling an actual event they were phyically actually involved in which was have sight and sound associations for memory.

True, memories of actual events are retained much longer than mere verbal concoctions.

marg wrote:It explains also why they don't get into much detail, but all 3 of them certainly seem intent on making sure they give the impression that Smith couldn't have done it on his own therefore the supernatural must have been involve.

They do, and each was familiar enough with JSJr's personality and abilities to not be impressed by what would be within his skill set to stage. But they were also closely enough associated with JSJr to be in on the hoax, unlike Michael Morse and Isaac Hale.

marg wrote:So we have Emma talking about the stone would stop translating if she made a spelling error and wouldn't continue until she corrected it (how could smith know with his face in a hat she was writing spelling errors) and we have Whitmer and Harris (I believe) saying that only when the sentences were correct would the stone continue..but there is no impression given that they would read back sentences to Smith..the impression give is that the stone would know whether or not what was written was correct.

JSJr could have given each of them that impression by going on to the next sentence and later accepting the prior one as 'correct' regardless of how it was scribe written; and challenging any sentence as wrongly written and when looking at it, insisting on some change, before looking at the stone again for the next sentence, saying that the stone allowed it now that the sentence had been corrected. So the magic of the stone 'knowing' if the sentence being correct or not could indicate their complicity as you suggest, or be a mere manifestation of JSJr's cunning.

marg wrote: So without getting further involved in this..as I say I can think of good reasons why they'd (Cowdery and Smith) would stage the "face in the hat" for outsiders. As time went on and they may have gotten feed back..that the "face in the hat" seemed too much like a con..and realized that it might be best to distance themselves from that explanation. Cowdery and Smith don't get into details, other than to mention the Urim and Thummin..but no hat.

Going vague--and with JSJr continuing to study the Bible and perhaps then focusing on the Old Testament's mention of the Urim and Thummim as such a seer device--made this turn appear actually to be explanatory, when in reality they might have been doing it to mask the earlier concoction (face in hat) that wasn't going over well with others who responded with skepticism to the face in hat story.

marg wrote:What do we know of the circumstances of what Michael Morse observed. Were Smith and Cowdery in control of the situation by being in a room in which they could hear or see someone approaching.

I do not know. There might be more known facts, but maybe not.

marg wrote:

sock puppet wrote:What did the scribed manuscript from the observed process show? Did any of these witnesses examine or even fairly quickly look at that manuscript? Was it consistent with being a continuation of previous 'translation' process--previous to that during which the witness was present?

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Ruses are hard to maintain when facts are probed deeper and broader than the concocted story. Had JSJr and those in on the scam taken care to make the manuscript in progress look like it was just that, or were they sloppy in that regard?

marg wrote: By looking at the scribed manuscript some clues can be found as to what likely occurred. I have looked into this in the past but it's been quite a while and this is another area that can get quite involved.

sock puppet wrote:Where exactly were the gold plates in relation to the hat during this process? (Isaac Hale's account provides the plates were hidden in the woods.)

Frankly I don't think the plates ever existed. But I'll leave this for now.

I think it possible a fake set was made and used as a prop with the 'witnesses'. Sort of how the Kinderhook plates were a concocted hoax. It is awfully convenient that the plates were hidden nearby in the woods, and amazing that they did not need to even be within eyesight from which to be translated. That magic rock was powerful--it could be many rods away from the plates and yet translate them.

marg wrote:

sock puppet wrote:Basically, we do not have the forensic benefit that could be derived from being able to ask questions to probe surrounding factors, nor to test the veracity of the statements made in writing.

True but that's no reason to accept as face value the witnesses' statements. From a non faith, non believer perspective given all the evidence, it points to a fraud.

Agreed. But from the statements alone, I do not think it is clear whether these witnesses were in on the fraud, or dupes of it.

marg wrote:So assuming a high probability of a fraud..what justification is there that one should accept witnesses' statements. And if one doesn't accept at face value, one can still critically evaluate what was claimed keeping in mind that particular person's likely motivating factors.

sock puppet wrote:Emma Smith said this was the process day after day. Apart from the magic parchment claim, if JSJr was not composing the text in his head on the fly, then this would have been very difficult for JSJr to have pulled off with memorized text to fool Emma. So, by virtue of the length of time she reported, either she was knowingly helping JSJr perpetuate his hoax or she was attesting to the composition occurring in his own head, on the fly.

Well one of the bits of data is that she allegedly gave a statement at the moment I don't have to whom..but I'll look for it later in which she said that the stone would stop translating when she made a spelling error.

If anyone was in on the scam with JSJr, Emma was in my opinion as likely as even Oliver Cowdery (though I know there are many here that would take issue with that suggestion).

marg wrote:Because Harris and Whitmer made a similar claim..they talked about if the sentence was wrong the stone would stop and I believe there might be one other person mentioning the stone would stop if there was a spelling error..so I don't see this claim by Emma as being unlikely given what others said. But when one thinks about it, assuming no supernatural involved..how on earth would Smith know when errors were being made if he wasn't looking at what was being written down

Do we know he wasn't? The statements do not specify one way or the other.

marg wrote:nor discussing with scribes what they were writing.

ditto

marg wrote:This sort of claim to me indicates this was something they discussed they would say.

That each of the statements go into the same level of depth of detail is suspicious of collusion or one following the statement lead of the others. Three people witnessing and then describing the same event or process usually focus on different details, one from the other, and go into different depth levels of describing details they observed.

marg wrote:It was years after the fact that Emma was supposed to have said this and her memory on what she agreed to say likely would have faded. This sort of claim that the stone would stop until errors were corrected leads me to believe she was in on the hoax.

Or, as likely in my opinion, that she was parroting the description given by Whitmer or Harris.

marg wrote:

sock puppet wrote:On the other hand, we have enough, diverse witnesses to give a great deal of credence to what they have written in their statements (or said, and others wrote down for them): JSJr put the rock in the hat and then put his face in the hat, and then spoke the English words of the 'translation'. From what I know, these witnesses would make for very strange 'bed fellows' in a conspiracy, which also lends credence to what was so attested.

Correct but how many witnesses do we have along these lines, and what sort of situation were they involved in. Were they able to catch Smith and Cowdery off guard unprepared before their observation.

Don't know. Isaac Hale perhaps asked where are the gold plates--which If I recall correctly he never was privileged to see. He obviously had to have been told they were hidden in the woods. If I were the skeptical father-in-law pissed that my daughter married this man I believed to be charlatan, I might have tried to surveil JSJr following the explanation of hidden in the woods nearby, so that I might catch a glimpse of these plates or learn where the hiding spot for them was.

marg wrote:I do not think it a likely scenario that Smith dictated to those in the know..with his face in a hat. by the way, I also think the D& C was used as part of the con..to distract people from critically evaluating evidence. I don't for a minute think that Cowdery actually tried to translate as per the D& C (I believe # 10.)

The D&C 10 prose could have been part of JSJr's ruse being pulled on Cowdery, if he was not in on the scam.

marg wrote:

sock puppet wrote:Is this the kind of analysis and type of comments you were looking for, marg?

To some extent yes. I have a book which has a chapter on critically evaluating witnesses' statements. I'm not sure where it is atm. I posted a summary of the chapter in the Celestial forum during the discussion on Spalding. The author is Alex Fisher. I'll probably post a link eventually. I'll continue doing some more reading on the evidence/data and perhaps post again before you respond ..assuming you are going to.

If you have specific sources, I'd be interested in reviewing. Are there sites on the web with as much detailed analysis as there are on BoAbr and KEP topics?

sock puppet wrote:If you have specific sources, I'd be interested in reviewing. Are there sites on the web with as much detailed analysis as there are on BoAbr and KEP topics?

I'm not aware of sites which critically evaluate the Book of Mormon translation witnesses from a skeptical perspective.

This is a link to a post I made in the Spalding discussion. I'll pull out the outline from Alex Fisher's book and my comments with regards to evaluating the Book of Mormon witnesses. I was responding to Dan V. I don't think I'll be able to post tomorrow or thursday..so I'll respond to the rest of your post later than that.

viewtopic.php?p=451263#p451263

From Critical Thinking: an Introduction
By Alex Fisher 2001

Chapter 7 - JUDGING THE CREDIBILITY OF SOURCES SKILFULLY

Since so many of our beliefs are based on what other people tell us, on TV or by word of mouth, the critical thinker needs to know how to decide who to believe and in what circumstances. The criteria which apply will depend on the case, but relevant considerations will often include:

–these source's reputation for reliability (contrast the BBC and the Sun newspaper)

–whether the source has a vested interest e.g. someone accused of war crimes who denies any responsibility)

-whether there is corroboration of the claim from independent sources (as when it was claimed that ColdFusion had been produced)

-whether the source has the relevant expertise/training (as when a police officer give evidence in court)

- the nature of the claim itself as when someone claims to have witnessed a miracle

- whether this source can provide credible reasons for the claimant they made (as when someone claims to have encountered aliens from another planet)

We shall divide what we say on this topic into five sections these will deal with the questions about

(i) the person/source whose credibility we wish to judge

(ii)the circumstances/context in which the claim is made which affects its credibility

(iii)the justification the source offers or can offer in support of the claim which affects its credibility

(iv) the nature of the claim which influence its credibility

(v)whether there is corroboration from other sources


Thus, for example, a British policeman (the source) might testify in court (the context) that he saw (the justification) the defendant pass sword through a woman on stage (nature of the claim) and others might testify that they saw too (corroboration) ; or a newspaper reporter employed on the US National Enquirer (the person) might report in the newspaper (the context) that he had been informed (the justification) that the Titanic had resurfaced (nature of the claim) and that the U.S. Navy had eyewitness reports about this remarkable event corroboration) (such report was really published in the National Enquirer a few years ago). The division of our comments into these categories is arbitrary to some ( for example, where should one put the discussion of vested interests?) But it helps organize one's questioning.

Ok so Dan if we very briefly go through a critical examination of the credibility of the sources one can see there is good reason to be highly skeptical of the witnesses.


i) Source/Person: all related except one(Harris) to each other. These individuals when it comes to Mormonism, and claims of angels, God and Smith's claims are not skeptical, inquisitive, independent, objective individuals. All tied to the enterprise Mormonism with participating functions available to them once it starts up. All at the beginning have potential rewards ..financial benefits, power, employment ..whether those materialize is irrelevant to the initial perceptions. All living in extremely hard times in need of work/livelihood (except Harris who is the financial backer) with few opportunities available at the time for uneducated or for those with no assets given by family such as a farm.

The person they testify about is a noted con-artist/magician apparently very persuasive. The details are not clear in their statements in order to be able to rule out that tricks by Smith were not employed. He used a top hat as a prop and as we know top hats have been used by magician, in fact the "rabbit in the hat" trick had been done in Smith's day. It is questionable that they were alert to what he was doing..at least the ones he used tricks with to fool them..such as a few hostile witnesses, perhaps Harris a noted credulous individual and perhaps his wife Emma. Objective individuals do not know the true circumstances of what went on, we only have a brief sketch given by non objective witnesses and only a few hostile witnesses perhaps only one, as Emma's brother in law is once again a related individual who may not be hostile. In any event the circumstances of their exposure was limited and within the control of Smith.

Hurlbut collected statements by Palmyra residents and the reputation of Smith and family were not that they were honest individuals.

ii Circumstance/context:

Smith and family controlled the context in which information was given out. They controlled what people were informed and when. Very few people who were objective observed the initial stages of the enterprise.

iii Justification the source offers or can offer in support of the claim which affects credibility

- the Book of Mormon witness statements indicate witnesses did not require good justifications..plates they testify to knowing they exists were not seen..."spiritual eyes" is word play. Handling them under cloth does not give anyone good justification to know with certainty what the object is. In addition these plates do not even exist for independent evaluation and there is no evidence objectively obtained that they ever existed.

(iv) [b]the nature of the claim which influence its credibility

The nature of the claims are extraordinary, not only claims involving seeing angels and god but just the nature that Smith had little education, little interest in writing, was not observed to have done any preplanning, prewriting, reviewing, or corrections..so the nature of the claim being extraordinary affects the credibility of all involved adversely

(v) whether there is corroboration from other sources

- There is very limited objective hostile witness corroboration. Of that evidence, Smith and co-horts had control.