Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_AlmaBound]

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)

There are other forms of coercion, including blackmail, that may have played out in the tampering with any witnesses, on both sides.

An "unblemished character" is subject to extortion when implicated in a criminal act. It is possible that Hurlbut uncovered some unseemly act of Wright's that subjected him to blackmail.

The same could be said of the Book of Mormon witnesses as well, in terms of motivation to lie for gain, or to protect oneself.

The trouble is, if an act that is subject to extortion or bribery, or even means for gain in your example of Martin Harris, remains uncovered, there is no way to tell if the act in fact ever occurred.

[_marg]

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.

Looking into a hat and reading off glowing words off a rock as described by witnesses, defies natural physical laws.

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.

You do a lot of reading (apparently) but little critical thinking about what it is you do read. And by the way, for NDE's it can all be explained medically/scientifically. But of course if someone wants to believe some supernatural claim, as you seem to have a propensity to do time and time again, they can ignore looking for the rational explanation and take the easy route and assume the supernatural.

[_Ray A]

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.

And I was posting on FAIR since mid-2004, and interacted with Dan there more times than I care to count. You haven't seen Hamblin, Schryver and DCP go after him, have you.

Vogel's scholarship on the topic has come under fire by Mormon apologists on the grounds that he is biased and critical of Mormon faith claims. He is sometimes also criticised by Exmormons and anti-Mormons for not being sufficiently critical of Joseph Smith.

That's because he tries to be objective. Hint.

[_Ray A]

And by the way, for NDE's it can all be explained medically/scientifically.

Perhaps IANDS can arrange for you to present a lecture at their annual conference. I think they'd love to hear your explanations. And perhaps you should tell the newest scientific investigators, a UK medical team conducting a three year research project into clinical death that they should cancel their project. Just explain to them what you know. It could save them lots of money.
>
>
>

[_Jersey Girl]

No, you didn't pass.

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

That's why the outcomes tend to validate the theory.

I am aware of that. Now how about going through the paper again and looking at all the other variables?

And I repeat:

Of course, we have not considered every possible
candidate-author who may have influenced the
composition of the Book of Mormon. We have,
however, selected from among the most likely
candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph Smith. In the
case of Joseph Smith, we had no reliable samples
of prose to test. When reliably identified materials
become available, their addition to this analysis would be worth considering. An effort to compile
such writings is currently underway.50

And?

[_marg]

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)

There are other forms of coercion, including blackmail, that may have played out in the tampering with any witnesses, on both sides.

An "unblemished character" is subject to extortion when implicated in a criminal act. It is possible that Hurlbut uncovered some unseemly act of Wright's that subjected him to blackmail.

The same could be said of the Book of Mormon witnesses as well, in terms of motivation to lie for gain, or to protect oneself.

The trouble is, if an act that is subject to extortion or bribery, or even means for gain in your example of Martin Harris, remains uncovered, there is no way to tell if the act in fact ever occurred.

Both theories..Smith only or Spalding/Rigdon, Alma involve looking at lots of pieces of data, not just any one piece. I gave Aron Wright's name as one example of one witness who was highly respected in the community. This isn't a make it or break it piece of evidence..it's just one piece which adds or detracts to the overall theory.

I disagree with you that the Book of Mormon witnesses and Spalding witnesses could have been equally likely to lie for gain. With the Book of Mormon witnesses we have a small group who know each other, there can easily be collusion amongst themselves. With the Spalding witnesses according to your speculation Hurlbut would have to seek people willing to lie, because the witnesses were not all connected to one another, not even in the same town.. the pool of potential colluders is much greater. Had Hurlbut done what you suggested and that assumes he had the financial means to do so, it is likely that someone would have objected and revealed his tactics. But in fact Hurlbut really didn't get much cooperation, from Spalding's family. And what about Spalding's manuscript which Hurlbut obtained, if there was collusion, he'd have been better to say he never found it in the trunk than to travel all that way to Spalding's widow and obtain a manuscript which in fact doesn't match up to the Book of Mormon.

[_marg]

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.

And I was posting on FAIR since mid-2004, and interacted with Dan there more times than I care to count. You haven't seen Hamblin, Schryver and DCP go after him, have you.

Well you see that's your problem, you've been talking with the wrong people.

Vogel's scholarship on the topic has come under fire by Mormon apologists on the grounds that he is biased and critical of Mormon faith claims. He is sometimes also criticised by Exmormons and anti-Mormons for not being sufficiently critical of Joseph Smith.

That's because he tries to be objective. Hint.[/quote]

Rayyyyyyyyy, of course apologists will criticize those who argue against Mormon faith claims, that's their job to promote faith claims, however they do like, support and employ for their apologetic responses, Vogel and Brodie's rejection of the Spalding theory in support of a Smith only theory.

And yes I've seen Vogel participate on the RFM board and can appreciate why the majority there were frustrated with his perspective of Smith being a pious fraud. He did not get much respect from the majority of participants there. Beastie was one avid supporter but on the whole, he didn't garner much respect. Hey don't get me wrong, he's a really nice guy, very intelligent and knowledgable, but I don't accept his reasoning for rejecting the Spalding theory which seems to rest practically entirely on rejection of Spalding witness statements.

[_AlmaBound]

Both theories..Smith only or Spalding/Rigdon, Alma involve looking at lots of pieces of data, not just any one piece. I gave Aron Wright's name as one example of one witness who was highly respected in the community. This isn't a make it or break it piece of evidence..it's just one piece which adds or detracts to the overall theory.

I agree - all of the evidence should be taken and presented as a composite. I don't think there is such a thing as a Smith only, or a Spalding/Rigdon only.

What I would like to see is a unified approach to a 19th century origin - one that takes into account not only Spalding/Rigdon, but accounts for a Smith collusion and partial authorship as well. I don't think this approach necessarily negates the testimony of any of the witnesses Hurlbut interviewed, it just accounts for an amplification of internal evidence from the Book of Mormon.

I think most of that collusion can be seen within the pages of the book itself, from internal evidence which does not require plagiarism, at least not to the extent of character development seen within the Book of Mormon.

[_marg]

And by the way, for NDE's it can all be explained medically/scientifically.

Perhaps IANDS can arrange for you to present a lecture at their annual conference. I think they'd love to hear your explanations. And perhaps you should tell the newest scientific investigators, a UK medical team conducting a three year research project into clinical death that they should cancel their project. Just explain to them what you know. It could save them lots of money.
>
>
>

Well we should get back to that discussion on NDE's and I will. You make it sound as if the scientific investigators think there is something beyond physiological explanation going on...but you haven 't quoted them, you've only implied it.

Just because they are investigating clinical death and NDE's does not mean they assume anything more than physiological explanations. Woerlee whom I've linked to before in the NDE thread, gives an excellent explanation for people's near death or semi conscious experiences. As he points out, what people think are death experiences are actually conscious experiences before they become unconscious and he explains the physiology behind their similar core experiences .

[_marg]

What I would like to see is a unified approach to a 19th century origin - one that takes into account not only Spalding/Rigdon, but accounts for a Smith collusion and partial authorship as well. I don't think this approach necessarily negates the testimony of any of the witnesses Hurlbut interviewed, it just accounts for an amplification of internal evidence from the Book of Mormon.

When I say Rigdon/Spalding theory I am not eliminating Smith's contribution, only labeling it as such because Rigdon with that theory is considered the main mastermind behind the Book of Mormon. But the theory has variations.