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

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

3. Assuming the Con. witnesses actually were suffering from false memories, does that mean that none of what they said was accurate? If not, how do you separate accurate memories from false ones in what they stated?

When it doesn’t match up with either the physical evidence or more reliable testimony.

I'll grant that it could be, although I don't think it is. What I don't understand is your seeming hostility to the mere possibility that anything more than a KJVB was used. Why is that notion met with such resistance? And why the need to turn Book of Mormon witnesses into infallible saints?

“Hostile” is too strong a word. I get irritated by the distraction that Spalding advocates cause to better approaches to the Book of Mormon. Use of the Bible by Joseph Smith has evidence, but presently there is nothing like that for other sources being used. I have written extensively using parallels between the Book of Mormon and pre-1830 sources, but I have never said that Joseph Smith had to have read any of them. Why? There is no evidence of plagiarism. I have not turned them into infallible saints. That would be your strawman. Rather, these witnesses are easier to believe than the baseless conspiracy you tout.

[_mikwut]

Hello Roger,

I hope your well. I wanted to briefly address your previous post. Sorry if its curt, but its honest and that should count for something.

There is such a thing as making a case with tact and grace.

Yes and as your aware that is my usual modus operandi. But, there is also something to be said for simply calling nonsense nonsense. And, before you begin typing rhetoric back, if it is indeed nonsense that isn't an ad hominem it is simply descriptive no matter how personally you take it.

This, however, is just reckless, pointless, even malicious rhetoric that deeply overshadows whatever point you might have otherwise made. It reveals that you cannot assess this matter objectively despite your attempts to make it appear as though you are doing so with what marg correctly identifies as "lambasting the reader with excessive non essential words and the citing of numerous studies..which don't actually apply to the conneaut situation..."

I want to address this. Your the one using rhetoric to ignore substance - I didn't do that and haven't, "just reckless, pointless, even malicious rhetoric that deeply overshadows whatever point you might have otherwise made", That is rhetoric Roger, that ignores a very substantive post I made. Plain and simple. And so is marg's, "lambasting the reader with excessive non essential words and the citing of numerous studies..which don't actually apply to the conneaut situation.." That is rhetoric that avoids the substance of my post and is absolutely false. She has made two lengthy posts in response that don't at all address the substance and science of what I posted but hide and dodge. You guys do this all the time, actual evidence, empirical reality, science, problems in the theory that are unassailable, hyper-necessary speculation and unsubstantiated guesswork is presented and you guys don't blink at it, don't even humbly accept it as real but rather lambast with the lengthiest of posts that dodge the core and claim your critics are the ones doing it. I am happy letting my post and the science stand.

Apparently you did not bother to read the thread enough to pick up on the fact that marg did not bring up the studies you mention, she was merely responding to those who did and what she believes to be their misapplication--for which, I might add, she made a rational, reasonable case.

I read the thread Roger, this doesn't matter at all.

If you disagree with her assessment on that, by all means, feel free to express your disagreement, but hollow attempts to paint her as a fanatic out to promote her cause at any cost (as if she has anything to lose one way or the other!) merely backfire.

It isn't for marg, or you or MCB. And it isn't ad hominem either. You have all demonstrated that you are incorrigible regarding this issue. Reason, historical professionals, science, and evidence have no sway with you guys. It is remarkable. The S/R theory is not even close to being evidentially sustainable in any way historically! That is not a personal attack that is empirical fact. And just because the topic interests you guys and gets a lot play on this board that doesn't put it into that conversation and tact and grace is telling you that - matter of factly, and objectively. A professional historian that specializes in early Mormon history can't persuade any of you in the least, that is telling of the mindsets you have. That is not personally attacking you, it is descriptive of you all. I'm sorry you take it personally.

Anyone can attach excessive rhetoric to any number of irrelevant studies as though doing so makes his case,

That isn't what I did. Address the science Roger.

but of course if identifying who is responsible for the content of the Book of Mormon was that simple, LDS apologists would have settled the matter long ago.

There is a difference a big one, between a metaphysical and natural debate about Book of Mormon origins and two natural explanations. Regarding the natural explanation for the Book of Mormon it is pretty much settled who is responsible for the content of the Book of Mormon.

I am, quite frankly, out of patience with the low-level polemical tactics, ad homs and egos at play here.

So am I, address the substance then. And at least take correction where it is obvious to show that you are objective about this, Dan clearly showed the misapplication of your logic several times and you didn't even blink. That is very telling.

We are allegedly here in an effort to answer one simple question: who is responsible for the content of the Book of Mormon?

It doesn't appear that way Roger. It appears you and others are simply arguing for the S/R theory to be accepted against enormous evidence otherwise. If you and marg don't have a stake in it you don't seemingly write that way. It comes across as stubborn and silly. Sorry.

All of the main participants on this thread know where Dale, marg, MCB and myself stand and, in my opinion, we've stood for more than our share of verbal abuse without complaining while still attempting to explain and defend our own answer with civility. But enough is enough.

Oh stop it. You haven't been verbally abused. Your defending a at best fringe theory that is simply supported by speculation. Your gonna have to accept that. A few zingers come with the territory, believe me I attempted to defend Mormonism for many years I know.

"If you disagree with her assessment on that, by all means, feel free to express your disagreement,"

Good grief Roger, I did. Talk about projection it hasn't been responded to in the least except painting it as not relevant to the conn. witnesses - dear goodness it is directly relevant.

"attempts to paint her as a fanatic out to promote her cause at any cost (as if she has anything to lose one way or the other!) merely backfire."

Look Roger, your the one that cries I am no scientist when it comes to the Jocker's study the only previously possible scientific basis for taking the theory at all seriously and now defunct, and it is you who is avoiding the false memory science which isn't rocket science. This isn't PHD necessary stuff to understand, in fact it is quite readily accessible. And if you can't get those two scientific facts clear you don't have any business blustering for the S/R theory at all because you don't understand how little evidence it doesn't even have - and the rest is mere speculation. Sorry. There also is nothing to backfire with marg, she is simply and plainly unpersuadable by any amount of logic, reason, evidence or otherwise. She has scientifically demonstrated that for a long time.

my best grace and tact, mikwut

[_Uncle Dale]

...
3. Assuming the Con. witnesses actually were suffering from false memories, does that mean that none of what they said was accurate? If not, how do you separate accurate memories from false ones in what they stated?
...

This is the question I began considering back in the mid-1970s,
before I met Vernal Holley and before I began comparing Book of
Mormon passages with Spalding's preserved writings. In other
words, my starting point was an attempt at historical analysis
and specifically an attempt to sort out false testimony from that
which is reliable.

I had recourse to public records, and that is one place I looked
for confirmation that such people as John Rudd, Sr., Lyman
Jackson and William Leffingwell really existed and had crossed
paths with Solomon Spalding.

Later on I was able to inspect documents preserved in libraries.
These included the materials at Oberlin, the Spalding documents
in the New York Public Library and Library of Congress, along
with lesser items at Dartmouth College, Connecticut historical
societies, a museum in Cherry Valley, New York, etc.

Lastly I inspected old newspaper files in Erie Co., Pennsylvania,
Ashtabula Co., Ohio, the Pittsburgh area, etc.

My conclusion -- after several years of such investigation -- is
that witnesses such as Redick McKee, Robert Patterson, Sr.,
Dency Thompson, Rebecca Eichbaum, George Wilbur, Isaac Butts,
Aron Wright, Abner Jackson, Henry Lake, etc. were indeed real
people, who were actually living where they said they were living,
when they said they were living there.

So, I say that it is possible to begin to verify large portions of
these old witnesses' testimony -- and with each historical fact
thus demonstrated, the remainder of their testimony becomes
more reasonable and probable.

However, it is indeed possible that some of the testimony is
wrong -- due to careless reporting, incorrect memories, etc.

It would be very helpful if the Mormons and their Smith-alone
allies would go through the old testimony and superimpose
cross-outs upon all the professions known to be false, and
upon all the professions that they consider to be very likely
false, due to incorrect memory. That is, IF such incorrect
or unreliable assertions do exist in the compiled testimony.

Then, each time they make their contra arguments, they can
point to the crossed-out portion of Matilda Spalding's testimony;
or to the crossed-out portion of John Dowen's testimony; etc.

We would at least then all know what the consensus agreement
was regarding the accepted, factual information.

But -- as I keep saying -- this S-R advocacy is footnote stuff.

When I originally set up my research web-sites, I created three:
SolomonSpalding.com, SidneyRigdon.com, and OliverCowdery.com.
The latter has a sizable Joseph Smith sub-section, as well.

Unless some new information can be brought forth, bolstering
the S-R claims and testimony, I say it is time to fill in the
missing pieces at OliverCowdery.com. There is a good ten years'
worth of work to be done there. With every piece of the puzzle
we can put in place, for Smith and Cowdery, the easier it will be
to discern the textual/historical areas not attributable to their
authorship, manipulations and cover-up.

Those areas not attributable to Smith and Cowdery will be the
grounds upon which the Spalding-Rigdon claims will be established.

UD

[_MCB]

But -- as I keep saying -- this S-R advocacy is footnote stuff

True. With the larger picture I have gathered of sources which were available to them at the time, S/R becomes less important, yet more likely.

[_Uncle Dale]

But -- as I keep saying -- this S-R advocacy is footnote stuff

True. With the larger picture I have gathered of sources which were available to them at the time, S/R becomes less important, yet more likely.

The S-R claims supply a plausible story outline for the Book of Mormon,
its chronology, main characters, and pseudo-PreColumbian history --
however, that over-view need not have come from Spalding and Rigdon;
so I think it is currently useless to argue about its origin.

A little more important is the theological development of the book. If
Rigdon did not contribute to it, then some explanation must be set forth
to explain how the book so closely matches c. 1828-29 Rigdonite (and not
"Campbellite") religious doctrines and innovations. But even that part of
the S-R claims can be shelved, in the interest of conducting new and
productive investigations, unhindered by LDS and Smith-alone heckling.

For example -- it would be very useful for us to determine just when it
was that each section of the Book of Mormon was finalized, as Cowdery
set down the wording in the "dictated manuscript."

I would very much appreciate a detailed chronology, documenting the
date, place, and circumstances of textual "finalization" for each paragraph
of the 1830 Book of Mormon.

I would very much appreciate knowing whether or not the transcription
was set down sequentially (beginning with the preserved portion of Mosiah),
or whether Smith and Cowdery finalized some of the Book of Mormon
sections, out-of-sequence.

We know that the "dictated manuscript" was constructed by folding large
sheets of paper in half, lengthwise, and then gathering several of those
folded sheets into sewn folios. Were these folios created all at one time;
or is there evidence supporting an on-the-fly creation of the folios?

If Smith and Cowdery had before them a table full of pre-made, blank
manuscript folios ---- then, did they fill up their contents sequentially?
Or did they, perhaps, finalize a few chapters in Alma; then skip ahead
to work on Helaman; and then return to finish up Alma?

There is a good reason for my asking such questions, I believe. My theory is
that several of the Book of Commandments chapters were written down during
the 1828-29 process of finalizing the Book of Mormon text, and can be
linked to certain parts of that same text, thematically and chronologically.

If it can be shown that Joseph Smith left his "word-print" in a few of those
Book of Commandments texts, written down at the same time as Book of Mormon
sections also attributed to his authorship, then that would be useful to know.
It would be even more useful to know whether Book of Mormon sections
being finalized at the same time that Book of Commandments chapters were
written down, contain the same vocabulary -- same phraseology -- same
grammar -- and same religious matter.

That is only one area I am interested in exploring.

I predict that the Smith-alone advocates will either ignore or attempt to
discredit any such textual research. --- But it would be a happy event, if my
prediction in that regard turns out to be wrong.

UD

[Guest]

marg, the witnesses did not "overwhelmingly" describe exposure over time. Only a couple of them indicated repeated exposure.

What was described through witnesses who knew Spalding intimately either they were neighbours, family, business associates, employee, .. of whom most either he lived with them for a time at their place, or they with him at his, or they visited him for a time...what they said was that he was working on a manuscript, it was a work in progress and he would discuss it with them, would read to them and in some cases they had the opportunity to read it themselves but certainly in the context of their statements as well as what was known about spalding it was not a one time occurrence where they met Spalding one day..and that day he read the uncompleted book to them or they read it themselves. This is not a situation comparable to the studies for flashbulb memories..which are one time events in a day.



This is a def'n from a study I took off the net called "Confidence, not consitency, characterized flashbulb memories by J. Talmarico & D. Rubin, in Psychology Today, Vol 14, #5 Sept 2003. Their def'n of a flashbulb memory: "an extremely vivid, long-lasting memory for unexpected, emotionally laden and consequential events." For brevity I won't list the historical events considered for this categoricory. They used Sept 11 attacks for their study.

They compared memories of students for the Sept 1 attack with their memory of a recent to that day (within 3 days) common event such as a party, sporting event or studying.

No one is saying that everyday one time common events are memorable..what the studies are trying to do is differentiate if there is a difference and why between a one time on one day common events known to be fallible and fa lashbulb memory thought to be highly accurately memorable. So the question includes ..is there a difference in these memories, and if so why? The point is not and has never been that one time common events are highly accurately memorable.

So we all know common events are not generally all that memorable. People get confused about details of common one time events, who they were with, where they were, what the weather was like and other details. So the point of these studies is not to show that long term memory in general is fallible ..yes long term memory of a one time, short term common event is very fallible. But what the conneaut witnesses describe is not a one time common event..equivalent for example to this study of .. a day in the life of a student who went to a party that day and what they later remember about that party..how theyheard about it, who was there etc. , or studied that day or went to a sports event. The conneaut witnesses were not talking about who they were with, when they first heard spalding read, what they were doing on one particular day.

Instead they talked about a story that they had discussed more than once, with someone they knew well, who was writing the story, who was passionate about it, believed in it that it would one day sell and do well profit wise. It apparently was very important to spalding. And in their descriptions of what they remembered it was not information accumulated from a one time sit down with Spalding or a one time pick up and read of a book. There is no comparision to the sort of experience they describe versus what "flashbulb memory" studies are looking at.

Two aspects of the flashbulb memory studies that are pertinent to the Conneaut witnesses is the fact that vivid recollections are not an indicator of accuracy and that once the false information is inserted via whatever method, it is believed as strongly as correct information. This effect has been borne out by other studies testing other types of memory also.

Flashbulb memory has been believed to be better more vivid than common one time memory experiences. And that's what these studies are about..are flashbook memories different than one time every day memories or not and if so why. Yes one time everyday memory experiences are poor. So that's what a flashbulb memory is ..a one time occurrence for a short time. Can people remember how they first heard of the event and who they were with and what they were doing at the time for a flashbulb event better than a one time common event. These experiences being studied are not about memories developed from repeated exposure over time..as what the conneaut witnesses experienced.

Long term memory can be modified by leading or suggestive questions.

Give me a study that says that. It is short term brief exposure to event memory such as a witness of a crime scene..which is easily modified by leading and suggestive questions.

Roger has admitted that the reason the witnesses looked into the story at all was because they were trying to find out if the Book of Mormon was the same as Spalding's story.

Well that was the point, to determine is the spalding book had anything to do with the Book of Mormon.

There is Josiah Spalding who described the Oberlin manuscript when Spalding was supposedly working on the "second manuscript".

I guess Josiah didn't get his family's memo that he was supposed to lie for Hurlbut. Or could it be that he was only exposed to the earlier manuscript which Aron Wright mentions MSCC that spalding was working on previous to Manuscript Found.

[_marg]

"If you disagree with her assessment on that, by all means, feel free to express your disagreement,"

Good grief Roger, I did. Talk about projection it hasn't been responded to in the least except painting it as not relevant to the conn. witnesses - dear goodness it is directly relevant.

Good grief yourself Mikwut. You have NOT explained what study and why it correlates to the Conneaut witnesses's experiences with any sort of display of depth of knowledge what that study entails.

I told you I'd address each study one by one, so that we could examine them with intellectual honesty. I addressed the youtube as the first one and explained why there was NO correlation between it and the experiences of the conneaut witnesses and you've not responded to that.

[_Roger]

mikwut:

I hope your well. I wanted to briefly address your previous post. Sorry if its curt, but its honest and that should count for something.

I mean this in all sincerity: I am not convinced honesty is actually what you intend. The jury is still out on that one.

Yes and as your aware that is my usual modus operandi. But, there is also something to be said for simply calling nonsense nonsense. And, before you begin typing rhetoric back, if it is indeed nonsense that isn't an ad hominem it is simply descriptive no matter how personally you take it.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone calling nonsense, nonsense, especially when those assertions can be rationally demonstrated. But that is not what you were doing here:

I find the Spalding advocates interesting in their need for the theory to be rational (which it isn't). It is truly an interesting phenomena. But, for example marg's naïve understanding of false memory and silly attempts to focus on a couple of research tests and then eliminate it because it is different for the Conn. witnesses is a fanatical attempt to hold on to this theory at all costs.

If you can acknowledge that the above was simply an attempt to paint marg as some sort of irrational zealot, then I will have more confidence in your desire to be honest from this point forward.

I want to address this. Your the one using rhetoric to ignore substance - I didn't do that and haven't, "just reckless, pointless, even malicious rhetoric that deeply overshadows whatever point you might have otherwise made", That is rhetoric Roger, that ignores a very substantive post I made. Plain and simple. And so is marg's, "lambasting the reader with excessive non essential words and the citing of numerous studies..which don't actually apply to the conneaut situation.." That is rhetoric that avoids the substance of my post and is absolutely false.

She has and is addressing the substance. I was addressing the attitude in which you posted it.

She has made two lengthy posts in response that don't at all address the substance and science of what I posted but hide and dodge.

Come on mikwut. marg is not hiding and dodging! She's addressing your post. This is game playing on your part. This is why I often refuse to take the bait when something like this comes up. YOU are the one alleging that YOUR superior knowledge demonstrates how ignorant the rest of us are. Fine. Prove it. Cite the facts of the study YOU think BEST applies to the Conneaut witnesses and explain why that is. Don't just throw out names and then give us homework assignments. YOU claim to know ALL about how these studies apply. So then it should be a simple matter indeed for you to cite THE BEST EXAMPLE you can find, present the facts of that study here and then explain why you think those facts make YOUR case.

I am happy letting my post and the science stand.

Of course you are, because not once did you specifically tie the details of a memory study to this conversation in any meaningful way. You simply listed them accompanied by your authoritarian rhetoric and then pronounce us irrational for not immediately seeing the wisdom in your case. It's an effective tactic when you can get others to agree with your "valuable contribution": claim superior knowledge, cite science that allegedly backs you up and then ridicule whatever response is forthcoming unless your opponents convert to your way of thinking.

It isn't for marg, or you or MCB. And it isn't ad hominem either. You have all demonstrated that you are incorrigible regarding this issue.

We may be. Or it could also be that we simply refuse to be swayed by arguments that rest on the trustworthiness of the Book of Mormon witnesses or the misapplication of science.

Reason, historical professionals, science, and evidence have no sway with you guys. It is remarkable.

Meaningless rhetoric, hollow appeals to authority capped with an additional attempt to reinforce the irrational picture you are attempting to paint of S/R advocates--in two short sentences, no less! Remarkable. One begins to wonder why our suspicion that Rigdon and/or Spalding may have had a part in Book of Mormon production is such a big deal to you? Why do you feel the need to characterize us as loons for entertaining that notion?

The S/R theory is not even close to being evidentially sustainable in any way historically!

And Dan's theory is by contrast?

Please tell me exactly how Dan's theory (which I presume you have adopted) DIFFERS from S/R and then explain why those differences make all the difference.

That is not a personal attack that is empirical fact.

Then it should be a simple matter to explain the mechanics of how the Bible was used in Book of Mormon production.

And just because the topic interests you guys and gets a lot play on this board that doesn't put it into that conversation and tact and grace is telling you that - matter of factly, and objectively.

I can't make heads or tails out of this. Are you attempting to tell us what should interest us?

A professional historian that specializes in early Mormon history can't persuade any of you in the least,

Correct. Not when his case rests mainly on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon witnesses.

that is telling of the mindsets you have.

and telling of the "logic" in rejecting S/R.

That is not personally attacking you, it is descriptive of you all. I'm sorry you take it personally.

Let me just give you a couple examples. These are only from this thread:

I feel that I’m explaining the obvious, and I can’t believe you can’t see these things yourself. Embarrassing is the word that comes to mind.

This is an attempt to paint us (in this case me) as so stupid that I can't even understand "the obvious."

As illogical as it is, I still understand your argument perfectly.

The irony here is that Dan was misrepresenting my argument under the excuse that he was merely trying not to be longwinded.

Yes, you are being silly

You are really getting desperate here

Like I said--desperate!

I know how the game is played. I understand what Dan is attempting to do here. I did not complain when he not so subtly implied that I am embarrassingly stupid or paints me as silly and desperate.

I'm not complaining now. I'm merely showing that your attempts to jump on board that bandwagon and paint us as irrational loons simply because we suspect more than just Joseph Smith contributed content to the Book of Mormon is an avoidance tactic and an unnecessary one. THAT is why I am now asking for the details of YOUR theory.

You can demonstrate that honesty is indeed your aim by providing some simple answers:

Much of its content came from the KJV with minor alterations.

We agree on that, but specifically, how did that transfer occur?

Much is autobiographical of J.S. (i.e the obvious example of his father's dream among many others).

Again, we agree. How did the autobiographical material get onto the page? Give me the mechanics.

So then, mikwut, did everything we find in the Book of Mormon come off the top of Joseph Smith's head as he dictated with his head in the hat?

1. isn't it possible, for rational people to come to a different conclusion [than yours]? Or is your's the only possible rational alternative? And if another alternative point of view is possible, then does it follow that people who hold to and/or argue for that point of view are necessarily irrational fanatics, merely attempting to hold on to their theory at any cost?

2. isn't it true that regardless of whatever position one takes with regard to how the Book of Mormon came to be, a certain level of speculation is required?

All the best

[_Uncle Dale]

...
One begins to wonder why our suspicion that Rigdon and/or Spalding may have had a part in Book of Mormon production is such a big deal
...

In a word: Conspiracy.

If Mormonism began with anyone more than just Joseph Smith
himself, then there was a secret conspiracy and a cover-up.

Even if the conspiracy went no further than Alvin and Joseph,
that would still amount to a great condemnation for the LDS.

If the origins of the fraud can be limited to the mind of Joe Smith
alone, then there was no conspiracy and no cover-up.

In that case, every single convert was a Christ-loving, honest
dupe, who simply never knew of Smith's secret schemes.

If you were running the Mormon Church today, how would you
hope that outsiders viewed you? As a political-religious fraud,
conceived with the goal of vast domination -- or, as the
creation of a single man, who was an admitted genius, able
to compose numerous lengthy texts of modern scripture and
to convince great multitudes of the righteousness of his
theological innovations?

Mormons obviously wish that their non-LDS opponents (their
Standard Works call them "enemies") hold to the most benign
view possible of the CofJCofLDS -- and that is the one put
forth by Latter Day Saint Fawn Brodie.

Spalding-Rigdon claims are a stake in the heart of the fraud, no
matter whether they be true or false. If as great a percentage
of the non-LDS public were to believe those claims, as did back
in the late 1880s, the Church would be doomed.

UD

[_MCB]

I predict that the Smith-alone advocates will either ignore or attempt to
discredit any such textual research. --- But it would be a happy event, if my
prediction in that regard turns out to be wrong.

Your approach and mine, however different, all add up to the same thing-- the plausibility of S/R even though they are roundabout methods. I honestly think mine is more interesting. But then I prefer to look at the forest, you prefer to look at leaves.

I think the evolution of religion in America is a very interesting topic-- and the evolution of Mormonism is a very important aspect of it.