Book of Mormon Borrowings from the New Testament

[_Res Ipsa]

Brad:

Absolutely. Although you do raise an interesting question about the burden of proof. In fraud claims, we actually use the standard "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." But, as I said, I'm perfectly happy with preponderance of the evidence.

You mentioned you are an ex-Mormon, and I think I remember you saying you are an attorney... specifically fraud? If you don't mind sharing, what was it that caused you to leave Mormonism and would you now characterize Joseph Smith as a "fraud" or a con-man?

It's been a long time. Once I shifted from "I want the church to be true" to "I want to know if the church is true," I started asking more and different questions than I ever had before. I used to have a list of the issues that I felt were most important, but I lost it years ago. The issue that started my shift in perception was the Book of Abraham. I think it would be fair to say that the second biggest was the temple ceremony.

[_Res Ipsa]

What studies are you talking about that deal with an individual claiming to be a prophet, who is translating ancient plates via divine guidance with scribes ... and all the rest that Smith claimed...and followers such as wife family and friends..all with a vested interest. All I'm saying is that given the claims Smith made and what he was doing..under those particular unique claims and circumstances.. that a Bible present would indicate he might be copying from it. But this is all moot anyhow. Other than Oliver ...they aren't important witnesses. They aren't reliable witnesses.

This sounds like special pleading. Why would any of these factual differences change the way we would expect a true believer to respond to seeing a Bible in the vicinity of Smith? One the hand, your saying these folks were true believers, on the other, you're expecting them to think like rational skeptics. If I truly believed Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, why would seeing God's book in his presence seem odd to me in the slightest?

Both you and I are taking general observations about human behavior and applying them to the witnesses. If your response is: "these circumstances are different," that cuts against your arguments based on how you think honest and dishonest people behave. The difference between what we're doing is that I'm relying on research that tells us how people behave and you are relying on your personal expectation of how a rational skeptic would behave.

You're reaching another conclusion that I don't think you've supported with evidence-- that anything other than 2 Nephi involved Smith dictating from a physical Bible. It might be time to look at all 500 of vessr's parallels now to see how difficult it would be to dictate those parallels without reading from the Bible in front of witnesses. If we have no good reason to believe a witness saw Smith dictate from a Bible, then there is no basis to accuse them of deliberately lying because they didn't say anything about a Bible.

I'm not sure but I think you've misread what I've said. To keep it short, I'm saying Cowdery is the important witness..the others aren't reliable. If you think the position to hold is that they (all the Smith witnesses including Oliver) are honest trustworthy reliable witnesses ..then please explain why.

This sounds like false dilemma (either a witness is either generally credible or she is not). Given what we know about human behavior, we can't divide people into these two categories. Human behavior is a mishmash from absolute truth telling to outright lying and everywhere in between. Credibility has to be examined in the context of the issue we are trying to investigate. Suppose we are asking "Did Smith ever purport to translate the Book of Mormon by burying his face in a hat?" Would you say that none of the people who describe the process have any credibility?

If you think about it, the notion that Joseph dictated from a Bible out in the open in front of witnesses is completely contrary what you've described as Joseph's secretiveness. If dictating from the Bible was as devastating to Smith's credibility as you think it is, why in the world would Joseph do it? Why, under your scenario, would every other witness recognize the significance of this problem other than Smith?

I think you might be confusing some of what Roger may have written versus myself. If Smith dictated from a Bible to Cowdery out in the open..then he's not translating from plates under divine guidance.

It's very possible I've confused your view with Roger's. What's not been established is that Smith dictated from the Bible "out in the open."

You're taking true believers and holding them to how you think a perfect skeptic would behave. Here's what would be consistent with what we know about confirmation bias, backfire effect, etc: none of these folks would even think it odd in the slightest that a prophet of God, translating a book for God, would have God's other book (the Bible) with him at all times. Why wouldn't a prophet of God have and read from the Bible frequently? To a true believer, it's going to be the most natural thing in the world. He could carry it with him, read it during breaks in the translation process. It would be really kind of clever -- just like a good magic trick or con. As long as he has his head in his hat while dictating to his scribe, why would anyone who thinks he's a prophet acting on god's orders question the presence of a Bible?

That's a response for Roger.

I'm confused. Are you arguing that the witnesses other than Cowdrey are not trustworthy because a Bible was in the vicinity of the translation? If no, disregard the above. If so, that's my response.

I agree that Oliver is in a significantly different position from the others who describe the translation process. But I don't agree with your reasoning from how the witnesses phrased their descriptions. With the exception of Whitmer, I don't think any of those descriptions were any sort of attempt to give a detailed account of the translation process. I've interviewed lots of witnesses and read lots of witness testimony. When you ask people a question about an event, they will tell you what they believe happened without identifying how they know. You have to specifically ask them "how do you know?" Did you see it happen?" "Did someone tell you?" "Is it just something you concluded based on what you did see and hear?" The fact that these snippets don't distinguish between what they saw, what they heard, what they were told, and what they concluded tells me nothing about whether these witnesses were "in on it."

I'll await your response on why you think these witnesses should be assumed trustworthy and reliable.

I've never claimed they were. Does your argument about who wrote the Book of Mormon require these witnesses to have intentionally lied about the translation process? If so, you carry the burden of proving that's what they they did. If it doesn't, then it sounds like a difference between your argument and Roger's.

It's not that important to the case (in my opinion) whether they observed a Bible or not. But it is important to the case if a Bible was likely present at times and copied from because it's another piece of data supporting the hypothesis that Cowdery was in on it with Smith.

I'm not sure which "case" you mean. It seems very important to the case Roger was making about the witnesses who described the translation process.

The case on who wrote the Book of Mormon.

OK, how does the very likely fact that Smith dictated the Isaiah portion of the Book of Mormon from the Bible to Cowdery affect the case for who wrote the Book of Mormon?

That would give us a good reason to look for signs of plagiarism. But, if we did a methodical analysis of parallels and the results were what we should expect as a result of chance (in parallel quantity and quality), the parallels themselves do not support the existence of plagiarism. We may find other evidence that makes the case for plagiarism as a whole better, but that would not make the evidence from the text stronger.

I think the key factor in determining parallel copying/plagiarism is uniqueness in wording along with context/theme.

I agree with uniqueness, because we can rely on some objective factors, i.e., the extent to which the phrasing was commonly in use at the time. Theme is very problematic because it can be entirely subjective -- it's finding and using parallels to establish the existence of other parallels. It is not that difficult to find parallel themes in almost anything, let alone between two books that address the same or similar subject matters.

As the data accumulates and supports the spalding hypothesis, each bit of data becomes stronger. One piece of data might be questionable but as more data accumulates, questionable data can become much stronger.

I couldn't disagree more. It's like putting weights on a balance scale. Weak evidence is light, strong is heavy. The overall balance will change as we add evidence to either side of the scale. But as the scale tips in one direction, we don't change the size of the other weights. If we do, that's confirmation bias and increases the chance of misconstruing the data.

ok

Anytime you have randomness as part of a measurement process, you have to identify, estimate, and hopefully remove, the randomness from the "real" data. If you don't, you're inevitably going to interpret chance as meaningful. In contrast to the above, I agree with how you described the reasoning process with Isaiah -- the italics data strengthened the total weight of evidence in favor of dictating 2 Nephi from the Bible. But, the italics evidence does not change the likelihood that Smith could have recited 2 Nephi from memory.

If "italics data strengthened the total weight of evidence in favor of dictating 2 Nephi from the Bible"..then the probability of Smith reciting from memory decreased.

I agree, but only for 2 Nephi, as that's all the study covered.

[_marg]

I'm not sure but I think you've misread what I've said. To keep it short, I'm saying Cowdery is the important witness..the others aren't reliable. If you think the position to hold is that they (all the Smith witnesses including Oliver) are honest trustworthy reliable witnesses ..then please explain why.

This sounds like false dilemma (either a witness is either generally credible or she is not). Given what we know about human behavior, we can't divide people into these two categories. Human behavior is a mishmash from absolute truth telling to outright lying and everywhere in between. Credibility has to be examined in the context of the issue we are trying to investigate. Suppose we are asking "Did Smith ever purport to translate the Book of Mormon by burying his face in a hat?" Would you say that none of the people who describe the process have any credibility?

Brad, a number of times previously (If I recall correctly) I've asked you to comment on whether you think the sort of claims made by Oliver..indicate he's a reliable witnesses, and you've not answered that. Again in above I've asked you to give a critical evaluation of the Smith witnesses including Oliver and you've ignored that question.

At this point I'm dropping out of the discussion. Indications to me are that it is not going to be productive. I've spent my time looking into this issue and I've given both sides a fair hearing. I've listened carefully to the Smith alone argument and fairly. I'm not interested in trying to prove to you anything but I am interested in a productive and interesting discussion at a minimum. I don't have the patience that Roger has.

[_Res Ipsa]

Brad, a number of times previously (If I recall correctly) I've asked you to comment on whether you think the sort of claims made by Oliver..indicate he's a reliable witnesses, and you've not answered that. Again in above I've asked you to give a critical evaluation of the Smith witnesses including Oliver and you've ignored that question.

At this point I'm dropping out of the discussion. Indications to me are that it is not going to be productive. I've spent my time looking into this issue and I've given both sides a fair hearing. I've listened carefully to the Smith alone argument and fairly. I'm not interested in trying to prove to you anything but I am interested in a productive and interesting discussion at a minimum. I don't have the patience that Roger has.

marg, I'm not making a claim that Oliver is a reliable witness. You keep saying that I am, but I'm not. I don't slap a label on a person and assume that the label tells me what I need to know about them in all contexts. I do my best to evaluate the trustworthiness of evidence and the degree to which evidence supports a conclusion.

I can't evaluate "the sort of claims made by Oliver," because the answer depends on which claims, what he said, and the context in which he said it. And I've spent pages now explaining what I think are reasonable conclusions we can draw from what the translation witnesses said. If you want me to evaluate a particular witness statement, tell me what it is and where the statement came from.

If you want to drop out, that's cool. I've enjoyed the back and forth and learned some new things. Thanks.

[_Roger]

Hi Brad:

I'm skipping over some early things I wanted to comment on to answer your most recent post. If time permits I will go back and respond to some of the earlier posts.

I have good reasons to expect everyone lies and every one's story changes over time. It's what humans do.

Then I have to ask, why does it bother you so much that I suspect David W. and Emma and Oliver of lying? It's what humans do. And these were humans with an interest in the success of the Book of Mormon.

Instead of using specific events to label people and reason from there, which is prone to fundamental category errors, I think it's more helpful to focus on the reliability of specific pieces of information or statements.

But that's a subjective process, no?

Reliability of evidence is much broader than whether a given witness has ever lied.

But if a given witness has lied about something relevant to the question at hand, then their credibility on the question at hand is weakened. Jodi Arias is a prime, contemporary example. We're not talking about some lie that David or Emma or Oliver made in their youth about stealing cookies from a cookie jar.

if that were the criteria, given sufficient information, I'd be able to show you some lie every witness you rely on for the S/R theory has lied.

Let's see them. To my way of thinking the statements of the S/R witnesses are so specific, then they either are lying or telling the truth as best as they understood it. I don't see a lot of wiggle room.

There is a difference between "God was not involved in the translation process" and "Oliver Cowdery" was not involved in the translation process." When I say I'm leaving God out of the process, I'm saying the former, not the latter. I''m rejecting the former because there is no god to be involved in the translation process. The fact that a particular witness believes something that is false is not a ground for simply ignoring everything that witnesses says. If that were the standard, I'd have to accuse every Christian of being a liar. That would be nonsensical.

There's a difference between claiming to believe in the God of Bible and that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and claiming that Jesus appeared to you and you and he had a great conversation about whether the Book of Mormon is true. What I'm trying to say, is that I'm willing to leave God out of the discussion as a factor because I have reasons for believing God was not a part of the process. You, on the other hand, think God was not a part of the process because there is no such thing. If you are correct, then the statements of the witnesses can not possibly be true. And the point I'm emphasizing is that they make God such an integral part of their claims that it's difficult for me to see how you are going to separate the "reliable" elements out of their statements from the "fictional" elements when God plays such a prominent role. How can you do that, and still see them as reliable witnesses? I am sincerely baffled by that.

I'm not saying these early TBM's were evil people. I'm saying they wanted to believe in Joseph Smith. They wanted to believe the Book of Mormon is true and so they interpreted everything from that mentality. I think David Whitmer is a classic example of this. So when I say they "lie" by omission, I'm not saying they are terrible people. I'm saying I think they are willing to exaggerate and to leave out potentially harmful details in order to promote the cause. It's what humans who are invested in a cause do.

Because we don't have evidence that witnesses other than Oliver witnessed Smith dictating from the Bible.

I suppose that's true. A blanket was used during the early "translation" process to separate Joseph from Martin Harris. I think Harris was probably a dupe. A blanket was not necessary for Oliver, but I'm not sure about Whitmer. His claims make it seem like he was there for a lot of the process, but, so far as I can tell we just don't know. And he also mentions a blanket.

Of course not. What you shouldn't do is accuse them of deliberately concealing copying from the Bible.

Not even Oliver?

And why not? They make specific claims about how the Book of Mormon came to be. I'm not the one making the claims, they are. Which is more reasonable to believe.... ?

None of them mention a Bible because:

1. they never saw one being used
2. they asked Smith and he gave them a satisfactory answer
3. they didn't think it was a big deal
4. they knew that mentioning a Bible would not be a faith-promoting testimony

If the answer is 1, then we have to explain why Oliver never saw a Bible being used.

If the answer is 2, then why not openly admit that a Bible was used when they are giving testimony about how the Book of Mormon came to be?

If the answer is 3, I simply beg to differ. I think it goes against the strong implications of their testimony. If this is your answer, we just disagree.

4. To me, this is the most likely answer, given their devotion to the cause.

Do you believe that Smith pretended to translate by putting his face in the hat? If you do, then you believe that some of what these witnesses said was true.

Yes. I'm not suggesting that everything they say is a lie. I'm saying that since they were devoted to the cause, we should expect testimony that is consistent with someone who is devoted to the success of the cause.

What good would ratting out Smith have served them? Would it have been in their interest, after their deep involvement in Mormonism to have come clean in front of the world because they have disagreements with Joseph Smith? And if they did, would they have reason to fear for their lives?

You're asking me to substitute judgment here. The fact is, a number of people "ratted out" Smith at various times and for various reasons. Sometimes people rat out the leader or the con man, even if it doesn't create a flattering picture of themselves. I don't put a great weight on the fact that no one ratted him out, but I think it is a piece of evidence that points against the witnesses knowing that Smith dictated from the Bible.

Even the notion that no one went back on their Book of Mormon testimony is debatable. There is a story that Cowdery confessed to Lang, his business partner. Whether that testimony is reliable is debatable. There is a story that Rigdon confessed to a guy in St. Louis (I think - like I said, I'm rusty on some of this). How reliable these "confessions" are is debatable, but Rigdon went on to claim he knew what was on the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. He attempted to gain followers on the notion that the Book of Mormon was true and he was receiving revelation from God. Rigdon had an interest in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Cowdery had a similar interest given all that he had claimed and written about the Book of Mormon and his involvement in early Mormonism.

Are Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones and David Koresh's followers willing to lie for them? Or are they simply deluded enough to convince themselves they're not lying? I believe that a cult-like devotion and peer pressure was operating among early Mormons.

I do, too. I also think cult leaders are deceptive with their own followers, and so I'm careful not to accuse people of lying without carefully scrutinizing the evidence. That's also why I'm not making any sort of blanket statement that the witnesses can or can't be trusted.

It might be that the force of the word "lie" is causing friction for you. I'm not sure why, though, when you acknowledge that people lie. I'm saying, given that, why is it unreasonable to expect unreliable testimony when people are invested in a cause? If they claim God was a key part of the process and you've ruled that out as a possibility, then the main element of their testimony can't be true.

This is Dan Vogel's position. I think it's weak. So let's assume you're right. How would they have responded if someone had asked them about a Bible?

Asked them what about the Bible? And what are we assuming the witnesses knew? The specifics are very important.

Okay, if someone would have asked: Brother Oliver, tell me the truth, was a Bible used in any way to produce some of the text of the Book of Mormon? How would Oliver have responded?

I'm having some trouble because you keep lumping people together into categories when there are materials differences in what we know about them.

Yes, you're right. I have a tendency to do that. Plus I haven't looked at this in about 2 years.

For example, I believe only Whitmer's description can be characterized as "testimony."

Okay... why is that? Maybe I should use the word "claim" instead.

Some of the recollections are decades old. Only three people described the part about words appearing in the hat.

Whitmer, Harris & Knight?

Who gave the Badger's Tavern testimony? Slips my mind.

Before we can infer that any given witnesses was lying by omission, we have to establish that (1) the witnesses were aware of the information allegedly being omitted;

I think we agree that Oliver, at least, would have been aware of the Bible. Yes?

(2) Given the context, we can fairly expect that the witness would have understood that the information was important; and (3) the witness intended to deceive by not disclosing the information.

Okay, maybe "lie" and "deceive" are too harsh. How about "intended to give faith-promoting testimony"?

I'm not sure what Smith being closed-mouth has to do with the translation witnesses. It certainly would lead me to wanting to take a look at all the evidence. But, if he's hiding things, why would you assume he's not hiding them from his followers?

I'm not assuming that. I'm saying there is likely a willingness on the part of the followers to overlook what might not be faith-promoting and to emphasize whatever is faith-promoting.

Roger, you keep glossing over the critical step: providing evidence that any witness other than Cowdery knew that "some Book of Mormon material" was being produced in a way other than what the witnesses actually saw and reported.

Because to my knowledge there is no such evidence. All I have to go by is what they tell me vs. what we find in the Book of Mormon text. And the point they unanimously emphasize is that God did it.

And if, as you say, the translation witnesses were devoted to Smith and highly invested, they would be likely to rationalize, minimize, or explain away any information that conflicts with those beliefs.

Correct. This is why, in my opinion, no one mentions that a Bible was used. Can you at least agree that is one possible explanation?

I have to ask you, is it important to the S/R theory that the translation witnesses intentionally lied when describing the process?

Not if Smith was thoroughly duping them all. The thing is, I would expect them to deny that a Spalding ms was used either way.

I don't have an opinion as to which of my three is closest to the mark. I think they are more likely than yours because yours assumes all the translation witnesses observed Smith dictating from the Bible when there is no evidence supporting that assumption.

It does? How so? I don't think I claimed that.

Lying in other contexts isn't going to help because everyone tells lies in some context-- even the witnesses you'll cite in support of the S/R theory.

Well if we go on the notion that everyone lies, then... everyone lies including S/R witnesses and Book of Mormon witnesses. What I'm saying is that the Book of Mormon witnesses were invested in the success of the Book of Mormon. So we should expect testimony that emphasizes whatever is necessary to ensure it's success. The S/R witnesses were not so invested. All they had on the line was their reputation and the reputation of their old pal Solomon Spalding. They were not trying to promote a religion based on the writings of Spalding on top of that.

Ok, I think I see where you're going here, and I suspect we're at a fatal impasse. If you and marg are going to argue that Smith copying or borrowing passages from the Bible is evidence that he copied from other books, we're not going anywhere.

It may not be direct evidence, but it's evidence that shows that a method was used to produce some Book of Mormon text that was never acknowledged by any witness. If we've established that a book was used to produce the Book of Mormon when no Book of Mormon witness acknowledges that a book was used (and in fact they claim/imply that every word came from God in the stone - Knight made that claim, I argue that the others implied it) then it opens the door to other material being used to produce other portions of the text that no one acknowledged.

We've already established a clear motive for Smith to do so: a desire to make the Book of Mormon sound like scripture by imitating the voice of existing scripture.

And this is exactly what the Conneaut witnesses claim about Spalding's ms.

Unless you can establish a similar motive with respect to other books, I think your argument takes a huge leap at this point that is not supported by evidence.

Have you read Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic Word View?

No, you didn't. The baseline due to chance is always there. You have to account for it. Any actual "borrowing" would be in addition to the chance parallels. What will happen is that you will fool yourself into thinking the evidence for meaningful parallels is stronger than it really is by assuming that parallels due to chance are actually due to "borrowing."

Okay. So? Whether some or all of vesser's parallels can be attributed to chance is irrelevant to me since we've already agreed that a Bible was used for at least some of the text and no witness ever acknowledged it. Also, it works both ways. Some or all of vessr's parallels can also be attributed to a definite correlation. If the answer is "we don't have enough evidence to conclude" then it works both ways, regardless of the tendency of my brain to see patterns when there are no patterns.

I appreciate the sentiment, but agreeing on the parallel most likely to be due to chance won't make me happy. Acknowledging that evidence of some copying or borrowing does not remove the parallels due to chance would make me happy.

Acknowledged. Happy?

All the best.

[_marg]

marg, I'm not making a claim that Oliver is a reliable witness. You keep saying that I am, but I'm not. I don't slap a label on a person and assume that the label tells me what I need to know about them in all contexts. I do my best to evaluate the trustworthiness of evidence and the degree to which evidence supports a conclusion.

Given that you are an attorney dealing with fraud cases I would think that you would be able to do some evaluation generally pertaining to witnesses. When I asked specifically about specific claims Cowdery has made over the years along with his involvements and I quoted those claims you didn't address my question of how you'd evaluate him.

I can't evaluate "the sort of claims made by Oliver," because the answer depends on which claims, what he said, and the context in which he said it.

I gave you that information.

And I've spent pages now explaining what I think are reasonable conclusions we can draw from what the translation witnesses said. If you want me to evaluate a particular witness statement, tell me what it is and where the statement came from.

It wasn't just once that you ignored my question evaluating Cowdery..but with the latest time ..the indications are this is going nowhere.

If you want to drop out, that's cool. I've enjoyed the back and forth and learned some new things. Thanks.

Roger has lots of patience, a very good memory for facts, a better communicator than I...and he was also the one to show interest in this thread. So I'll leave it to him to carry on.

[_Res Ipsa]

marg, when you said I wasn't answering your questions, I was surprised because I've been trying to respond to everything you posted. When I went back over the posts, I discovered that I missed this one. I apologize.

So do you think given Cowdery was delusional and actually saw angels, God, Jesus, Moses, Moroni, John the Baptist at various times over an extended period of time? Does he have a vested interest/motivation for claiming these visions?

Why is he only delusional at particular times such that those delusional claims are useful as support for Mormonism? If delusional why not at times when it has nothing to do with Mormonism?

First, I don't think he saw God, Jesus, Moses, Moroni, JtB at all. Did he believe he really saw them or did he have his fingers crossed? I don't honestly know. It sounds like you've read more about him than I have. I think you make a good point that the timing of his "visions" seems pretty convenient. I don't recall him having any that didn't fit in with Smith's founding of the church. Like I said, if I actually knew more about the guy, I might very well agree that he knew Smith wasn't what he claimed to be but went along with him.

Also while I think the backfire effect is of some interest, I agree for many perhaps most it's very difficult to change their deeply ingrained patterned thinking..and the more it's challenge the more they may seek reasons to reinforce it..it is only an idea, not a law of human nature that is applicable to all or in every circumstance.

It generally is true in my opinion for deeply ingrained religious beliefs..for people to change those beliefs and patterned thinking. And especially when those beliefs are fundamental to an individuals worldview. The mark of a high critical thinker is that they are open and willing to change beliefs upon new information which justifies it...so this backfire effect is not applicable all the time.

I see no reason to assume Cowdery's world view about Smith being a prophet was deeply ingrained over time. I see this religous venture as something very new in Cowdery's life, ...and it was a business venture with potential personal and financial benefits..so he's motivated to promote it.

in my opinion you are placing too much emphasis on this back fire effect as if it is a law applicable to all under all circumstance and assuming it applies to Cowdery for this instance of belief in Smith as prophet and Book of Mormon has true history and of God, when there is little justification to do so.

I injected the backfire effect into the discussion in response to a specific hypothetical you posed to me:

imagine you are Joseph's scribe when he is dictating to you the sections in the Book of Mormon in which he is supposed to be translating what Nephi 2 has translated from Hebrew Isaiah into Reformed Egyptian. And you truly believe God is helping him do this, that Smith is writing a new scripture with God's guidance. You believe the storyline that all other religions have become corrupted and even the Bible is corrupted. But Smith open up a King James Bible in order to dictate to you and he even makes some changes where the KJB has some italicized words. Would this not raise a red flag for you? Wouldn't you wonder what on earth he's using the Bible for when he's supposed to be translating some plates written by prophets in Reformed Egyptian whether it is by studying it out in his mind or a head in the hat method.

I'm not sure whether it's known which scribe wrote this portion, apparently Oliver Cowdery was the main scribe for the majority of the Book of Mormon. Never mind the issue that no one mentioned a Bible was used, but if you were a scribe..and for argument sake assume you truly believe what Smith claimed to be doing...wouldn't you immediate think there's a problem if he's reading to you from the Bible when he's supposed to be translating an ancient scribe's writing with the help of a God?

My comments about the backfire effect flowed entirely from the assumption in blue you gave me. Now you're asking a different question: was Oliver a true believer or did he act out of other motives? Based on the little I know about Oliver, I see good reason to investigate the existence of other motives.

I didn't introduce the backfire effect to explain Cowdery. I introduced to examine the question of how a true-believing scribe would react. If Cowdery involved himself for, say, money, then the backfire effect would be a poor explanation for his behavior.

The notion that the backfire effect applies only to long held beliefs doesn't match what I recall from my own reading. It's the strength of the belief, not the longevity. And I think the evidence we have about cults shows that people can develop very deeply held beliefs in a relatively short period of time. If you got this from a source, I'd really be interested in reading it.

Again, I apologize for missing this post. I'm not trying to dodge questions. If I have, I'm sorry, and I'll be happy to answer any that you think I haven't answered satisfactorily.

[_Res Ipsa]

Roger, I tried to respond line by line, but the conversation is broken up into so many piece it just doesn't work. I think part of the problem is that we're on a piece of an entire argument you've constructed that supports the S/R. I'm not familiar enough with S/R to understand why you think some of these issues are relevant.

Here's my chain of reasoning so far:

A: There is no god, so we do not have to consider the possibility that Smith actually received revelation from a Supreme Being.

E1: Several chapters of Isaiah are repeated in the Book of Mormon with minor changes.
E2: We have no evidence of Smith having something like a photographic memory that would enable him to memorize and recite these chapters of text.

C1: It is very likely that the Isaiah chapters were copied from the Bible.

E3: The OM of the Isaiah chapters is in Oliver's handwriting.
E4: The accounts of Smith dictating the Book of Mormon to Oliver do not include Oliver being out of Smith's sight.

C2: It is more likely than not that Oliver knew that Smith dictated the Isaiah chapters from the Bible, but we can't rule out Smith dictating them to Oliver without being in his line of sight.

E5: There are also at least 500 of word phrases in the Book of Mormon that are identical, or nearly identical to, phrases in the Bible.
E6: vessr's first 150 parallels.

C3: The presence of these parallels would not require Smith to dictate from the text of the Bible.

E7: Joseph Smith's past treasure hunting.
E8: Information known about how con men operate, especially how they are able to misdirect attention and conceal important information about the con from others.

C4: Smith's behavior exhibits the characteristics of a con-man.

E9: All other things being equal, the more people that are aware of a secret, the greater the chance of exposure.

C5: Smith has a strong motive to keep "inside information" to as few people as possible.

C5: Before we conclude that any given witness was aware of any relevant "inside" information, we should carefully consider the possibility that the information was concealed from them.

E7: There is no evidence that someone was present at all times throughout the entire process of Smith dictating to Oliver.
E8: Although several witnesses described how the Book of Mormon was produced, none ever said that Smith dictated to Oliver from the Bible.

C6: It is more likely than not that the Isaiah dictation did not occur in the presence of anyone other than Smith and Oliver.

E7: The witness descriptions of the translation process are relatively brief.
E8: The witness descriptions do not specify the source of the information each witness relied upon. (eyewitness, earwitness, hearsay)
E9: There is no record of the witnesses being asked detailed questions about the translation process.
E10: Due to the backfire effect and confirmation bias, the holder of a strong belief will interpret new information in a way that strengthens pre-exsing belief.
E11: The witnesses did not describe what occurred in the hat -- they described what Joseph saw in the hat.
E12: All witnesses to translation of the Book of Mormon (not the 116 pages) except Cowdrey reported that Smith put his face in the hat and dictated to a scribe.
E13: Cowdrey simply said that translation was done through the Urim & Thummin.
E14: Smith responded to an invitation to tell believers about the translation process by declining to provide any information.

C7: With the exception of Cowdery, we have no evidence that the witnesses intentionally provided false information or intentionally withheld relevant information. Witness testimony can be credible only to the extent it is based on accuracy of the witness's perception and recall. Although the recollections were made at diverse times and under diverse circumstances, they were in agreement on the basic details of what they saw and heard: Smith dictating to a scribe while his head was buried in hat that contained a seer stone. Thus, if the question is whether Smith translated by sticking his head in a hat with a magic rock, the witnesses are credible.

We can't rely on the witnesses when it comes to what Smith saw inside the hat. They were not in a position to see what Smith saw. Thus, their credibility depends, in part, on the credibility of their source. Ultimately, the only source in a position to know what Smith saw was Smith himself. Because the description of what Smith saw is contrary to the known laws of nature, Smith isn't credible.

There is not sufficient evidence to infer anything from the fact that none of the witness descriptions mentioned dictation from the Bible. Their descriptions do not make it more or less likely that the Bible was used in the translation. Although we can conclude that Smith dictated from Isaiah, there is no reason to believe the witnesses were in a position to observe that part of the translation. Given that intentional omission of that information assumes that the witnesses were aware of the information, and we have no evidence to show that the witnesses were aware, intentional omission is an unlikely explanation.

Oliver, on the other hand, knew of the dictation. His reaction to the information would depend heavily on whether he truly believed Smith was a prophet. There is evidence not discussed here that would indicate that Oliver was an "insider" rather than an "outsider." His description of the translation omitted the hat, and was generally a more faith-promoting summary. I don't know enough about Oliver to reach any kind of firm conclusion, but I think there is reason to investigate his motives further.

Roger, this summary is really loosey goosey, and I haven't indicated which evidence I think is strong v. weak, etc. And I'm sure I could identify assumptions behind some of the conclusions. But this should be a general roadmap to let you know where I am.

[_Roger]

Hi Brad:

Roger, this summary is really loosey goosey, and I haven't indicated which evidence I think is strong v. weak, etc. And I'm sure I could identify assumptions behind some of the conclusions. But this should be a general roadmap to let you know where I am.

It's a very good summary. I think we're on the same page for most of it.

All the best.

[_Roger]

Brad:

I'll comment on some of the points you made and I'll throw in some S/R reasoning to see what you think.

E7: Joseph Smith's past treasure hunting.
E8: Information known about how con men operate, especially how they are able to misdirect attention and conceal important information about the con from others.

This would have been even easier if Oliver had been in on the con. Either way, if Smith was a good con-man and could conceal the use of a Bible to produce a substantial portion of the Book of Mormon text, then why couldn't he have concealed a Spalding ms?

C4: Smith's behavior exhibits the characteristics of a con-man.

E9: All other things being equal, the more people that are aware of a secret, the greater the chance of exposure.

C5: Smith has a strong motive to keep "inside information" to as few people as possible.

Agreed.

C5: Before we conclude that any given witness was aware of any relevant "inside" information, we should carefully consider the possibility that the information was concealed from them.

I think we agree that if there is a likely exception to this, it is Oliver Cowdery.

E12: All witnesses to translation of the Book of Mormon (not the 116 pages) except Cowdrey reported that Smith put his face in the hat and dictated to a scribe.
E13: Cowdrey simply said that translation was done through the Urim & Thummin.
E14: Smith responded to an invitation to tell believers about the translation process by declining to provide any information.

There is not sufficient evidence to infer anything from the fact that none of the witness descriptions mentioned dictation from the Bible. Their descriptions do not make it more or less likely that the Bible was used in the translation. Although we can conclude that Smith dictated from Isaiah, there is no reason to believe the witnesses were in a position to observe that part of the translation. Given that intentional omission of that information assumes that the witnesses were aware of the information, and we have no evidence to show that the witnesses were aware, intentional omission is an unlikely explanation.

I still disagree. The way you lay it out above is a possibility. It requires that Emma Smith and David Whitmer were completely duped by Joseph Smith when their statements imply they were present for much of the dictation. I acknowledge the above scenario as a possibility, but I think it's equally possible that they knew more than they let on. Probably not that they sat in on secret meetings, but that they may have seen a Bible being used or other materials and not mentioned them because doing so would have been detrimental to Mormonism and to the Book of Mormon.

Oliver, on the other hand, knew of the dictation. His reaction to the information would depend heavily on whether he truly believed Smith was a prophet. There is evidence not discussed here that would indicate that Oliver was an "insider" rather than an "outsider." His description of the translation omitted the hat, and was generally a more faith-promoting summary. I don't know enough about Oliver to reach any kind of firm conclusion, but I think there is reason to investigate his motives further.

I agree. Dan Vogel posted this quote from Abram Benton a couple years ago [bold mine]:

During the trial it was shown that the Book of Mormon was brought to light by the same magic power by which he pretended to tell fortunes, discover hidden treasures, &c. Oliver Cowdry, one of the three witnesses to the book, testified under oath, that said Smith found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraved on the plates.

--[Abram W. Benton], “Mormonites,” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica, New York) 2 (9 April 1831): 120.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16575&hilit=Jocker&start=2226

In addition to the fact that this testimony was given under oath (at Smith's 1830 Bainbridge trial for glass-looking), I find it interesting that, as stated here, Oliver's testimony has a similar implication to those of the other witnesses. By looking through these "two transparent stones" Joseph was able "to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters." This doesn't give any indication that Joseph had to "study" anything out in his mind. On the contrary, he simply appears to be reading in English.

On the same thread, Vogel also noted that:

When Joseph Smith decided to give an account in 1832, he said “the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the book” (EMD 1:30), but provided few details. In his 1834-35 history, Cowdery gave a similar statement that was very similar to his 1848 statement at Council Bluffs: “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated, with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history, or record, called ‘The Book of Mormon’” (Messenger and Advocate 1 [October 1834]: 14).

I find it very interesting that on the same thread, Dan writes, and emphasizes by underlining:

None of this means OC was a coconspirator with Joseph Smith, only that he was willing to lie to promote the Book of Mormon and God’s church.

Dan notes that Cowdery's story differs from the others; that Cowdery never mentions a seer stone; that he might have been "playing a verbal game to avoid talking about the stone in hat" [because of it's treasure-hunting connotations] and that it’s "also possible that he simply distorted the truth as he did for other parts of the story."

Dan admits all this, even concluding that Cowdery: "was willing to lie to promote the Book of Mormon and God’s church" but then emphasizes that this doesn't make him a co-conspirator. I have to ask myself: Why is it so important to keep Cowdery out of a "conspiracy"? The conversation on that thread went on for many pages and it became clear that Dan is committed to Smith acting alone; that one of the reasons he rejects S/R is the notion of a "conspiracy" between Rigdon, Smith and Cowdery seems ridiculous to him and that there's no evidence for it. I find it very interesting that Dan is willing to acknowledge that Oliver "was willing to lie to promote the Book of Mormon and God’s church" and I agree with that conclusion. Once we agree with that conclusion, how much of a leap is it to think that Cowdery purposely avoided mentioning the use of a Bible? If Cowdery is "willing to lie to promote the Book of Mormon and God’s church," not much. But Dan is adamantly opposed to that notion.

Another problem on that thread was Dan's attempt to force his concept of "conspiracy" onto the S/R theory. I don't necessarily think it had to be a "conspiracy" in the way it is generally thought of and certainly not as Dan was suggesting. You are correct, Brad, to note that the more people that are in on a secret, the greater the chances of someone revealing the secret. A "conspiracy" of three people is hardly a huge conspiracy. And I also don't think it was like Rigdon, Smith and Cowdery sat down to plot out how they could pull off a religious fraud. I doubt if any of them would have seen it as "fraud" and even if they did, they would have never admitted it. It is quite possible that Rigdon truly believed the Spalding manuscript had been placed in his care by God; that Spalding had not lived to publish it for a divine reason; and that the reason was that Sidney was to add additional, valuable revelation to it; that this revelation was necessary in order to settle various religious disputes and bring forth "the fullness of the everlasting gospel." He may have believed that Spalding had truly translated the text to produce the manuscript up to that point. (The extant Spalding story has Spalding translating the story from Latin into English). Rigdon may have believed that Nephites were real people. Spalding writes his extant story as though it were history and admonishes his readers as follows:

Now, Gentle Reader, the Translator who wishes well to thy present and thy future existence entreats thee to peruse this volume with a clear head, a pure heart, and a candid mind.

Of course, it must be kept in mind that Spalding's extant story is not the manuscript that was alleged to be the basis for the Book of Mormon by the Conneaut witnesses. They instead claimed that Spalding went further back in time and wrote in a Scriptural style in that manuscript. If Rigdon, Smith and Cowdery used it to create the Book of Mormon, then there is good reason why it is no longer in existence. But it's interesting to note that even in this story, Spalding presents himself as discovering an ancient manuscript and translating it into English. So it's quite possible that if Rigdon came across this manuscript, he might well have believed that Spalding had indeed discovered and translated a real history of "the ancient inhabitants of this continent."

Uncle Dale has also pointed out that printing new "scripture" was not unfamiliar to Rigdon, as it is likely he produced all or at least helped to compose the "Third Epistle of Peter" which was published in 1824.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Scot.htm

That work was a sarcastic diatribe against the clergy with whom Alexander Campbell (and Rigdon) disagreed, and it was produced in emulation of the King James Bible.

Turning a corner here, you mentioned earlier that:

given sufficient information, I'd be able to show you some lie every witness you rely on for the S/R theory has lied

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Do you think the Conneaut witnesses were lying about Spalding's ms?

All the best.