Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_AlmaBound]

The signals for Spalding and Rigdon show up in predictable places in the Book of Mormon, that correspond to the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

What makes these places predictable? I have an idea myself, but I am interested in where you think those places are and why.

[_marg]

I don't think they are consistent if you do tell me which ones are, and which parts are consistent. It's very simple Ray, and no need to rush when you finish work and have time.

There 8 points of general consistency listed in the link. Now if you expect witnesses to give 100% matching accounts, you don't live in the real world.

If you believe the Book of Mormon witnesses you don't live in the real rational world.

[_marg]

The Spalding witnesses who had no vested interest, would receive no benefits, no financial gain or power, didn't seek out attention for this but were sought out,

It is possible that they did have a vested interest - they could have been paid to say what they said.

And tell me who do you think would have paid them?

[_AlmaBound]

And tell me who do you think would have paid them?

Who conducted the interviews and what was the motivation?

The most direct answer is that the interviewer could have paid off those witnesses in an effort to bring down Joseph Smith Jr.

Do I have evidence of that transaction? No. But then again, I don't have any direct evidence of a collaboration between Rigdon and Smith either.

Possibilities are a tricky thing, once you start down that road.

[_Ray A]

Their stories aren't consistent and they are to put in plainly absolutely ridiculous..defy natural physical laws.

And that is the crux of your whole argument and whole motivation, marg. Others, with more open minds consider other possibilities. Automatic writing isn't necessarily magical.

Dare I recommend Lyall Watson's book Supernature? Looking for answers to currently unexplainable phenomena.

I wouldn't, because you have everything in the universe figured out.

[_Ray A]

If you believe the Book of Mormon witnesses you don't live in the real rational world.

It's not that I believe them, that isn't the point. So let me repeat: I'm going on the witness evidence. So let me repeat: There have been no exposures or denials on the part of the witnesses. So let me repeat: Investigation isn't a black and white matter.

[_Ray A]

some how or another according to Vogel none of them can correctly remember what Spalding wrote. So yes, I don't think Vogel is very logical on this particular issue. And I even suspect he's more motivated to support the Smith only theory because that theory the Church/apologists can accept and work with. Anyone who writes about the Spalding theory not only will get no support from the church, few people would be interested in reading about it, because people outside the church don't care but the church will actually do what it can to sabotage anyone, respected for their work, promoting the Spalding theory. So they will sabotage writers and others when possible who support the Spalding theory. If I were a writer of history, knowing my main audience will be Mormon I wouldn't want to sabotage my work and have a huge multi-billion dollar corporation work against me. That's my opinion.

Once again you have it all scrupulously and marvellously worked out. I shouldn't have doubted.

Would I be presumptuous to recommend that, as a very basic start, that you read the Wiki entry on Dan Vogel?

(ducks for cover)

[_AlmaBound]

If you believe the Book of Mormon witnesses you don't live in the real rational world.

It's not that I believe them, that isn't the point. So let me repeat: I'm going on the witness evidence. So let me repeat: There have been no exposures or denials on the part of the witnesses. So let me repeat: Investigation isn't a black and white matter.

What is telling to me is the phrase "with a spiritual eye."

I believe Martin was telling the truth when he said that he saw the plates with a spiritual eye.

But then, I think that means he also "saw" many other things with his spiritual eye, including himself and his actions as part of the book itself, making them true, according to his understanding.

[_marg]

And tell me who do you think would have paid them?

Who conducted the interviews and what was the motivation?

The most direct answer is that the interviewer could have paid off those witnesses in an effort to bring down Joseph Smith Jr.

Do I have evidence of that transaction? No. But then again, I don't have any direct evidence of a collaboration between Rigdon and Smith either.

Possibilities are a tricky thing, once you start down that road.

All theories consist of possibilities, they wouldn't be theories otherwise, they'd be facts with conclusive proof. Obviously possibilities need to be given weight, the warrants to back them need to be considered. Of course an interviewer could pay the interviewees, however one would need to consider the financial resources to do so, the gains for doing so etc. One would also need to consider the witnesses, their likely credibility. As a for instance in this case how likely would it be that Aron Wright a judge though at the time of the investigation by Hurlbut he might have been an ex judge, how likely would he have been motivated to lie. Apparently an extremely respected individual in the community, "entrusted with the office of magistrate" "In all the relations of life he sustained an unblemished character " (from his obituary)

So sure you can throw that out as a possibility that they were all paid, but with few if any warrants to back that speculation the possibility appears extremely low. For someone to pay them, they'd have to have the financial resources to do so, and it would have to be worth their while, plus the witnesses were not all closely connected so it would be difficult to orchestrate without anyone revealing they'd been approached to do lie for financial reward.

When it comes to the Book of Mormon witnesses there is some evidence for example in Martin Harris' case that he was financially motivated. For others there was the potential reward of power, prestige and respect. Emma it's been established was willing to lie (I.e. polygamy) and she was motivated by the family potentially gaining all 3 rewards I mention. So the warrants to speculate on motivation of potential power, prestige and financial reward should Mormonism succeed is quite strong and realistic.

[_marg]

Would I be presumptuous to recommend that, as a very basic start, that you read the Wiki entry on Dan Vogel?

(ducks for cover)

Ray I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but let me point out to you, that I participated and followed closely the thread Vogel participated in here on MDB dealing with Spalding theory. So that is where I get my impression of his position of the Spalding theory.