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

[_MCB]

OK. Thank you for your clarification. I have my own counter for that, but I will remain silent on the issue.

And the other question?

[_GlennThigpen]

OK. Thank you for your clarification. I have my own counter for that, but I will remain silent on the issue.

And the other question?

Oh, the argument from silence. <grin>

Glenn

[_MCB]

No, Mr. King died shortly after. Some of the early Mormons were known for some terroristic practices. I really didn't want to set off a temper tantrum on your part.

And the other question?

[_Uncle Dale]

...I've not the slightest doubt that the Book of Mormon is as it advertises itself. The chances are less than a million to one that any nineteenth century writer authored that book.
...

Well of course not -- there is no way a 19th century author could
have traveled back in time to write the chapters from Isaiah, Malachi
and Matthew. So it will always be a safe bet, to say that the book
was not authored by a 19th century writer.

But I am curious to know whether or not Mormons believe that the
Preface to the book was indeed authored by a 19th century writer --
by Joseph Smith, Jr., to be more precise?

If you agree that Smith wrote that part of the book, do you also believe
that it matches up with his word-print to a very high degree? Do the latest
LDS NSC tests for authorship confirm that Smith wrote the Preface?

If he did write that Preface, then he can be included in a "closed set"
NSC test for authorship, including it and the other 239 chapters; correct?

UD

[_why me]

For either of you:
So LDS explain the Swedenborgian parallels with Mormonism by saying that Swedenborg was also a prophet? That Swedenborg was Joseph Smith's John the Baptist? It is surprising that if this is so, they don't mention him.

Swedenborg saw the verses of Paul and produced an interpretation of what Paul taught. Likewise for Joseph Smith. I think that Swedenborg was interpreting in his own way, what paul was teaching about the celestial and the terrestial.

[_Roger]

MCB:

No doubt you are familiar with this from Edward Hunter:

"I asked him if he was acquainted with the Sweadenburgers. His answer I verially believe. 'Emanuel Sweadenburg had a view of the world to come but for daily food he perished.'"

more here:

http://rsc.BYU.edu/pubJHawsBibleImportance.php

[_Uncle Dale]

..more here:
http://rsc.BYU.edu/pubJHawsBibleImportance.php

Which says:

Miller raises an intriguing possibility. A Mormon convert, Sarah Cleveland, and her Swedenborgian husband, John Cleveland, moved to Quincy, Illinois, in the mid-1830s...

Mrs. Cleveland has been pointed out by some researchers as a
probable early plural "wife" of Joseph Smith -- Smith also inherited
a female follower of the Prophet Jacob Cochran, in the widow of
his brother -- yet another Joseph Smith plural. Likewise, the
widow of the famous anti-Masonic martyr, William Morgan, became
one of Smith's plurals.

Has anybody ever put forth the suggestion, that Smith was exposed
to various obscure sectarian tenets in the form of "pillow talk" with
his female intimate partners? Probably the Roy seminary teacher
would not want to consider such a possibility.

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

You keep giving polemical answers, rather than historical ones.

Which is only logical considering that I am not an historian.

You can’t reject Whitmer’s testimony based on Knight’s statement. You’re playing games with these sources.

I am NOT rejecting Whitmer's testimony based on Knight's statement. On the contrary, I am saying that Whitmer's statement and Knight's statement do not contradict one another. And that therefore, Knight's statement can be seen as complementary to Whitmer's.

Knight says:

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated.

If anything, it seems to me that you are the one playing games with eyewitness testimony that you otherwise rely on. (By contrast, I have other reasons for being skeptical of most of it. But you seem to want to take most of it at face value.) The fact is, you suggest that a King James Bible was used CONTRARY to what Knight says. You need to show what grounds you have for overruling Knight.

What I have heard you say, is that you justify the hypothesized Bible use because--according to you-- it would not have raised suspicions because everyone knows that the Book of Mormon quotes from the Bible.

But that's a pretty weak response to Knight's blatant claim that "the whole" was translated by "the urim and thummim." It seems to me that you are the one making an argument from silence here in order to make the hypothesis work. You are saying, despite the fact that no one mentions a Bible, I think one was used. And when you run up against Knight telling you that the "whole" was translated by Smith putting his head in his hat "and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on" you have to overrule Knight in the case of the Isaiah quotations and then theorize about what Knight meant to say but didn't.

If you have some way of harmonizing Knight's testimony with the use of a Bible, I'm all ears.

This is another ad hominem circumstantial argument. I find it ironic that you have at least twice stated that you are not out to win this debate. Obviously you can’t deal with Whitmer’s testimony directly. So you lose.

Fine. I lose because I don't believe Whitmer's denial of a Spalding manuscript. I can live with that. He was either lying or not in a position to have known.

It’s difficult to argue with someone who is not bound by the rules of reason. You have just told me you are going to believe whatever you want about Whitmer despite the evidence. So why need we talk further?

Who's rules?

It’s up to you to prove Whitmer lied or that he didn’t know what he was talking about. That is, you must formulate a convincing historical case for either of these propositions. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion.

Let me quote Dan Vogel commenting on the testimony of David Whitmer in American Apocrypha:

“Yet there are contradictions among the various accounts of Whitmer's testimony.” p 85-86

“Concerning what the angel said, Whitmer's interviews are perhaps irreconcilable.” p 86

On page 89 you show that in 1882 Whitmer claimed: "These hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel and these ears heard his voice; and I know it was of God." And then subsequently in 1885 Whitmer reported: "We did not touch nor handle the plates."

So, why should I believe the word of David Whitmer?

You also write this:

Inducing visions is a function of charismatic religious leaders. Smith lived in a day when revival preachers moved their audiences to speak in tongues, fall into trances and see visions of heaven, hell, the devil, or Jesus. His followers expected no less of the man they called their prophet. If Smith sometimes induced visionary experiences, he had willing subjects to work with. - p 92

I agree. So we can be polite and give Whitmer the benefit of the doubt that it was Smith's charismatic abilities that caused him to "see" plates that other humans would not have seen in the real-world with physical eyes and we can blame later interviewers for not asking the right questions, or we can chalk it up to the fact that Smith had willing subjects to work with, but either way, the fact is, as you aptly point out, the experience of the Book of Mormon witnesses was something other than the statement they signed implies it to have been.

I see no reason to accept any of it as anything more than "visions" brought about by blind devotion to a charismatic leader.

Earlier, you wrote:

There’s a difference between saying Whitmer contradicted himself, and that various interviews have contradictory elements. Given the different interviewers and time span, these things are to be expected, and it is the historian’s job to try, as far as possible, to reconstruct the story. Some contradictions are only apparent. The part about Whitmer is not a contradiction.

I think it clearly is a contradiction and I think you simply want to give Whitmer the benefit of the doubt, which then requires you to go to great lengths in explaining what he should have said (to avoid the contradiction), but didn't. You want to blame the contradictions on the way the interviewer asked the question or even the questions they failed to ask. This seems to be an indication you have a polemical interest in maintaining the integrity of the Book of Mormon witnesses--at least to the extent that they allow you to rescue them from their own "different readings."

Why not? Knight was a witness. He speaks authoritatively and his statement does not contradict the statements of other witnesses. In fact, I would argue that it fits nicely with the strong implication of the other statements.

You are the one who quoted Knight as contradicting Whitmer.

No. Do you really not understand the case I am making? Why would you state that?

The “strong implication” you see is only the polemical use you can make of them. You apparently have no historical use for them. To assert that Knight speaks authoritatively for all the witnesses is just silly.

My assertion was not silly, Dan. You may not want to accept it, but to pronounce it silly is silly. His statement DOES NOT contradict the other statements. It complements them. You are the one who wants to accept the rest of it, but find a way around the part you don't like.

No witness is impartial when it comes to Mormon origins.

Agreed. And yet you seem to want to put their testimony on a pedestal that we must assume they were honest people who would never lie or stretch the truth--or see plates that weren't there--to suit their purposes.

Mormons distrust non-Mormon testimony, and non-Mormons distrust Mormon witnesses. It’s not that simple. Historians don’t have the luxury of dismissing sources out of hand. Given Whitmer’s firsthand knowledge of the translation process, he (as well as other witnesses) rightly concluded that the unfounded assertions that the Spalding MS was used by Joseph Smith were wrong.

I am not simply dismissing their testimony out of hand, and by "their" I mean more than merely Whitmer. But even given the luxury you lack, you still came to the conclusion that: “Concerning what the angel said, Whitmer's interviews are perhaps irreconcilable" and yet for some odd reason, you want me to simply accept his denial of a Spalding manuscript as though his word settles the matter.

I have given reasonable explanations about the Bible’s use,

None of which can be supported by the eyewitnesses you otherwise rely on--except by their silence, which, last I checked, IS an argument from silence.

which is a relatively small part of the Book of Mormon when compared to allegations about the massive use of the Spalding MS.

Massive by comparison? I think you're exaggerating.

You are stuck with the multiple witnesses since you are trying to explain the origin of the greater portion of the Book of Mormon. The needs of the Spalding theory can’t be reconciled with the eyewitness testimony.

At the rate of production after the 116 page loss, there was ample opportunity to have production taking place off site. The manuscript does not come certified with Whitmer's seal of inspection on every page. Dictation could have been taking place in Fayette while filler material was being composed elsewhere.

But your last assertion is fairly broad and requires more space than is practical for an internet post. In short, I can simply say that I do not find the Book of Mormon witnesses to be very reliable. On the other hand, I see no reason to think the S/R witnesses were not being truthful, and it is noteworthy that you have provided no reason to conclude otherwise--except that your theory requires false memories.

Okay, we agree then. But didn't you speculate earlier that Cowdery may have copied from the KJVB when Smith was gone to Palmyra?

You’re still trying to sidestep my point about the variant readings coming from the stone. It’s this kind of thing that wearies me.

Yes, I am getting a little weary myself of your appeals to a stone you don't think was anything more than a prop. So let's break this down into something we can both use, hopefully:

1. Earlier on this thread, you speculated that Cowdery may have copied from the KJVB when Smith was gone to Palmyra.

2. We both agreed that the stone was merely a prop. Therefore nothing came from the stone including variant readings.

3. Given that, we want to ascertain where the variant readings actually did come from.

4. Hence my reference to your earlier speculation. Do you wish to retract that speculation or do you still see it as a viable option?

5. If you wish to retract it or at least set it aside in favor of the idea that "the stone was used" to produce the variants, I will need you to be more specific about how exactly you think that occurred.

This exchange is relevant:

Okay, this is where you lose me. When you say "the stone was not used is probably not correct" --it sounds as though you are saying that even for the Isaiah quotations, Joseph stuck his head in his hat and rattled off Isaiah chapters, apparently making subtle, italics-based changes on the fly. If not that, then how do you conceive of reliance on a Bible and "use of the stone" as coinciding?

The important thing is that the variant readings were certainly explained in the context of revelation. You need to acknowledge the problem that the variant readings give to your assumption that the Isaiah chapters were simply copied from the Bible. I believe it was Parley P. Pratt who said Joseph Smith used the stone to correct the Inspired Version.

I am starting to notice a reluctance on your part to get into the details of how you see the stone use converging with your hypothesized Bible use--to the extent that you now avoid a direct answer.

I have no problem with the variant readings being "explained in the context of revelation" --although I will say that I am certainly not aware of any early witness specifically addressing that question and offering that explanation in response, are you? If not, then it seems we have another argument from silence.

Why does the notion that Isaiah chapters were simply copied from the Bible present problems for my point of view that yours would (presumably) be immune to? I think S/R's explanation is perfectly reasonable, indeed, it explains the data better, in my opinion. It just might be that the variants present more of a problem for your point of view than mine.

S/R suggests that any one of the inner circle (Smith, Rigdon, Cowdery or Pratt) could have copied those sections, making the changes as they copied, after carefully considering the theological implications of each change as they were being made. This is a much more reasonable interpretation of the variants than thinking Smith made the changes during dictation on the fly. And if you are not going with the idea that the changes were made on the fly during dictation, then you're back to Cowdery copying text and either producing the variants himself (which puts you into S/R territory) or Smith making changes after Cowdery makes the transcriptions--which is, again, into S/R territory.

Could you direct me to the Parley Pratt quote you mentioned?

Of course not, but it is a viable conclusion and at least one witness explicitly tells us exactly that! Why am I not allowed to overrule Whitmer, yet you are allowed to overrule Aron Wright?

“Spalding had many other manuscripts” [Howe,284]. I didn’t say Spalding didn’t have other writings, but you are trying to tell us what was in them. One of those other writings was apparently his “Romance of the Celes.” He was also a minister and undoubtedly had MS sermons and who knows what?

No. That was not what I was referring to. You said you were familiar with the Spalding/Rigdon theory and still reject it. I therefore assumed you knew that I was referring to this:

Dear Sir

Whereas I have been informed
that you have been appointed with others
to investigate the subject of Mormonism and a
resolution has been past to ascertain the real
orrigin of the sd Book this is therefore to
inform you that I have made a statement
to D P Hurlbut relative to writings of S Spalding
Esq sd Hurlbut is now at my store I have
examined the writings which he has obtained
from sd Spaldings widowe I recognise them to
be the writings hand writing of sd Spalding but not
the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement
before alluded to as he informed me he wrote 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 the
particulars you will find in my testimony Dated
Sept 1833 August 1833 -- for years before he
left this place I was quite intimate with sd S
Spalding we had many private interviews the history
he was writing was the topic of his conversation relating
his progress and Contemplating the avails of the same
I also contemplated reading his history but never saw
it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon
where I find much of the history and the names
verbatim the Book of Mormon does not contain all
the writings sd Spladings I expect to see them if

[reverse of same page]

Smith is permitted to go on and as he says get
his other plates the first time that Mr Hyde
a Mormon Preacher from Kirtland preached in
the centre School house in this place the Hon
Nehmiah King attended as soon as Hyde had
got through King left the house and said that
Hide had preached from the writings of S Spalding

In conclusion I will observe that the names and
most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon
is as familiar to me as Most modern history
if if is not Spaldings writings copied it is the same
as he wrote and if Smith was inspired I think
it was by the same Spirit that Spalding possessed
which he confessed to be the love of money __

[the following five lines are written upside down at bottom of this page]

Coneaut Dec 31 1833 Ashtabula Co NY

Due the bearer on demand one hundred
and fifty dollars in good merchantable
[lotte?] [upon?] the first day of Oct next
[witness?] Ro[gar] Mill[ar]

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/As ... m#1833text

You have what is called anecdotal evidence. Memory theory has been extensively tested. You should really give it more respect.

I do not believe that my own experience conflicts with memory theory. Only that much more is made of "memory theory" than is reasonable in the specific case of the Spalding witnesses in order to further the objective of dismissing their testimony.

MS found is in the same genre. Similar stories with made-up names. That’s all you need for false memories. You seem to be insisting that both books have to be the same in order for the witnesses to have false/true memories. You keep denying that false memories are possible. You really need to read up on this.

No I'm not. I'm saying the claims of S/R critics are selective according to polemical necessities when it comes to this. I quoted Brodie as the quintessential example. On the one hand, when it serves the purpose of alleging that the witnesses were tricked into sincerely thinking the Book of Mormon and MSCC were one and the same, emphasis is placed on the similarities. And on the other hand, when the objective is to emphasize the notion that there is no connection between the two works we are then asked to focus on the differences. It has more to do with keeping the idea of one manuscript alive, in my opinion, than with the logistics of false memories.

You acknowledged that the witnesses were making the connection before Hurlbut talked to them. What prompted them to make that connection?

But again, memory substitution simply does not account for the specific claims about "and it came to pass" and nicknaming the fellow "old came to pass" as a result. This sort of claim goes beyond honestly thinking you're telling the truth. This goes beyond the mind playing tricks on you about what you did or did not hear read to you from a book. Either they called Spalding "old came to pass" or they did not, and if the only ms on the topic he ever wrote was MSCC then there is no reason for them to be calling him "old came to pass."

You don’t see a problem here? Where are those “came to pass” in MS found? Why would they call him “old came to pass” based on one MS?

Yes, the problem seems to be that you don't understand the argument. So let's break it down:

Where are those “came to pass” in MS found?

First of all there is no "MS found." Manuscript Found, is not extant. You think it never existed, I think it did. What there is instead is a manuscript referred to erroneously as Manuscript Found by Mormon polemicists who wish to maintain the assertion that there was only one manuscript. That manuscript is more properly known as Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek (which I shorten to MSCC) or "the Roman story" or The Oberlin Manuscript.

Second, there is no overuse of the phrase "and it came to pass" in that manuscript. THAT is my point.

Why would they call him “old came to pass” based on one MS?

Because they allege that he overused the phrase in that manuscript that they were repeatedly exposed to. I'm not convinced you have actually familiarized yourself with the facts and allegations of the Spalding/Rigdon theory. It seems you have simply dismissed it without giving it much legitimate consideration.

This doesn’t respond to my statement that I’m not trying to overturn the Spalding witnesses with false memory theory, only explain how it’s possible the first witnesses could have been mistaken. The whole body of testimony, particularly later statements, is a different matter.

Then how do you respond to Aron Wright's claim that MSCC is:

not the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement
before alluded to as he informed me he wrote 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 the
particulars you will find in my testimony Dated
Sept 1833 August 1833

Wright's testimony is as blatant a denial of what you are alleging as Whitmer's is of what I am alleging.

So now YOU are going to have to deal with Wright's denial. False memory doesn't cut it, because he flatly denies it after seeing the manuscript you allege was the only one he could have been exposed to. And if you can't come up with an answer that is not based on a polemical desire to maintain your one-manuscript theory, you lose.

It is becoming clear to me that in order to maintain the position you hold, one must place a lot of faith in the testimony of early Book of Mormon witnesses despite the inconsistencies in their testimonies. In my opinion you give them an inordinate amount of trust they have not otherwise earned. Simultaneously you apply an inordinate amount of skepticism to the testimonies of the S/R witnesses when they have not otherwise demonstrated themselves to be untrustworthy.

All the best.

[_MCB]

MCB:

No doubt you are familiar with this from Edward Hunter:

"I asked him if he was acquainted with the Sweadenburgers. His answer I verially believe. 'Emanuel Sweadenburg had a view of the world to come but for daily food he perished.'"

more here:

http://rsc.BYU.edu/pubJHawsBibleImportance.php

No, not familiar with that. I can identify with Hunter's quote about ES. LOL. Even down to my mental status when I began this project.

My list of quotes is getting quite long. The correspondences are quite interesting, as well as what they rejected of ES's teachings.

For example, he believed in eternal marriage, yet was extremely opposed to polygyny. He thought men were the intellectual powerhouses, while women were only for loving. Never married, loved women as a whole, but abstractly. For him, the very thought of re-marriage after widow(er)hood would have been anathema. His desire for a woman was to possess her in all ways and probably control. Even in those days, that kind of obsessive exclusive possession would have been intolerable for nearly all women. His belief in eternal marriage came from the opposite end of the spectrum as the early Mormons, although both were sexist.

Rigdon, and perhaps Spalding may have been indirectly familiar with ES's teachings, but then bought into a lot after the Book of Mormon was written. I have seen a few strong textual resemblances between his writings and the Book of Mormon, will just have to wait and see what emerges from this whole new direction.

Of course, it is impossible to have access to all his writings. And mind-numbing to read it all even if I had access to it all.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
So now YOU are going to have to deal with Wright's denial.
...

I presume that Dan has already looked over the donations to the
New York Public Library from Conneaut, of which the Wright letter
is the major item of interest to students of Mormon history.

However, since its time period is largely limited to after Joseph Smith
left New York -- and since it deals with Spalding authorship -- I further
suppose that Dan had no real place for it in his compilation of early
sources. It probably falls outside the scope of his historical interest.

Nevertheless, Dan would be the logical researcher to track down the
details surrounding that document and its likely writer, Aron Wright.
Now and then Dan makes passing reference to E.D. Howe, Hurlbut,
the 1833 Conneaut witnesses, etc. If the 1833 Wright letter has any
relevance in such discussions, I would hope that he could at least share
his expertise on how such a source (and its probable author) should be
properly researched.

Or -- perhaps unknown persons have already conducted that investigation.
It seems that Richard L. Anderson conducted inquiries into these sorts of
peripheral historical sources as far back as the 1960s. If Dan has ties to
other experts in historical research and documents investigation (particularly
from the early Kirtland period) we should invite him to share such information.

I was pleasantly surprised to see how much in the way of new research
information Mark L. Staker brought to readers' attention in his recent book
on the Kirtland period. He even taught me some things about Sidney Rigdon
I did not know. Can Dan do the same?

UD