Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

[_Tobin]

Samantabhadra, of course you are counter me. All false preachers teach against seeking and speaking with God directly. It is just in their nature and they can't help themselves. It is a clear sign of who and what they really are. After all, if people looked to God and listened to him instead, they wouldn't support you and your foolish ideas now would they?

[_vessr]

Thanks, Sam and Tobin.

But I'm asking all not to derail the original query with more advice for me other than to answer my questions re the Vogel vs. Chandler debate. I know you don't have the answers (and thanks for letting me know).

If anyone has any answers to my questions posed a few posts back I would welcome them.

Here they are (including background):

1. I found the posts I was asking about—over two hundred pages of posts in 2007 that were focused, in material part at least, on Dan’s disagreement with Ted’s alleged evidence that the original Book of Mormon manuscript was copied from another source and not dictated.

2. I now understand that Ted may have been seeking evidence to support the Spaulding theory, while Dan was countering that.

3. I now understand that Dan didn’t believe in the Book of Mormon’s divine origins just as Ted hadn’t; but his belief was based on a theory of Smith’s fraud separate from and unrelated to the Spaulding theory.

4. Why did it matter to Ted and Dan whether or not the manuscript was copied or dictated? Couldn’t reasonable minds conclude that the manuscript was fraudulent regardless?

5. As my original search was seeking to understand how so many New Testament passages ended up in the Book of Mormon, I also wondered whether Mormon apologists today have concluded that parts of the Bible were copied from the Bible (i.e. using the Bible during the transaltion process), rather than given to Smith by revelation. Originally, their position was that eyewitnesses to the translation process didn’t see Smith using any documents at all while looking into his hat and, therefore, he never did copy portions of the Bible into the Book of Mormon.

If I misunderstand any of the above, I would appreciate being corrected. If anyone has additional, current information on these subjects, I would appreciated that also.

Beyond the above, I'm not looking for advice on where to turn my focus next. This IS and will REMAIN my focus, until I determine that no one will address my questions. Then, I will simply and quietly leave this forum (or at least this thread).

THANKS

[_vessr]

Thanks, Sam and Tobin.

But I'm asking all not to derail the original query with more advice for me other than to answer my questions re the Vogel vs. Chandler debate. I know you don't have the answers (and thanks for letting me know).

If anyone has any answers to my questions posed a few posts back I would welcome them.

Here they are (including background):

1. I found the posts I was asking about—over two hundred pages of posts in 2007 that were focused, in material part at least, on Dan’s disagreement with Ted’s alleged evidence that the original Book of Mormon manuscript was copied from another source and not dictated.

2. I now understand that Ted may have been seeking evidence to support the Spaulding theory, while Dan was countering that.

3. I now understand that Dan didn’t believe in the Book of Mormon’s divine origins just as Ted hadn’t; but his belief was based on a theory of Smith’s fraud separate from and unrelated to the Spaulding theory.

4. Why did it matter to Ted and Dan whether or not the manuscript was copied or dictated? Couldn’t reasonable minds conclude that the manuscript was fraudulent regardless?

5. As my original search was seeking to understand how so many New Testament passages ended up in the Book of Mormon, I also wondered whether Mormon apologists today have concluded that parts of the Bible were copied from the Bible (i.e. using the Bible during the transaltion process), rather than given to Smith by revelation. Originally, their position was that eyewitnesses to the translation process didn’t see Smith using any documents at all while looking into his hat and, therefore, he never did copy portions of the Bible into the Book of Mormon.

If I misunderstand any of the above, I would appreciate being corrected. If anyone has additional, current information on these subjects, I would appreciated that also.

Beyond the above, I'm not looking for advice on where to turn my focus next. This IS and will REMAIN my focus, until I determine that no one will address my questions. Then, I will simply and quietly leave this forum (or at least this thread).

THANKS

Below is my attempt to digest the Dan/Ted "debate." I would welcome any corrections (especially from Dan):

I found the thread where Dan Vogel took on Ted Chandler: DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY. I can’t tell who “won,” so I don’t know if Dan was ever swayed by Chandler’s work. I tried to contact Dan via this forum, but haven’t got a response from him yet. Ted is on the other side and probably knows more than Dan and I know; but he’s not talking.

Below is my summary (including often the exact words of Dan) of over 200 pages of Dan and others discussing Chandler’s work and the Spaulding theory. Because of the volume of pages, I found myself not showing breaks between Dan’s quotes in all cases; therefore, many of the quotes below by Dan may be standalone or may be part of a series of paragraphs by Dan.

Dan thought Chandler's argument for copying involved too many people being in a conspiracy and afterwards lying about how the Book of Mormon was dictated. This is one of the reasons he couldn’t believe it.

Dan did a critique of Ted’s response to Royal Skousen’s THE Book of Mormon ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT.

Dan was always willing to support the eyewitness testimony of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was dictated. He found the witnesses credible:

“Smith could dictate the lengthy chapters from Isaiah. but that doesn't give us license to conclude that he could have also been reading from the Spalding-Rigdon MS, which is expressly denied by the witnesses.”

Dan also didn’t believe automatic writing explains what Joseph Smith did, but I don’t think he entirely ruled it out, either. But in Joseph Smith case, he believed that automatic writing was unconscious, and he believed Joseph’s writing was conscious and deliberate.

He wrote that he had, however, “no reason to doubt the phenomenon of automatic writing is real in some people.”

But Dan’s most consistent theory was that Smith was guilty of what Dan referred to as “pious fraud.”

“His mind was fully active in the creation and dictation of the Book of Mormon, but prayed for God to help him get the right words that would inspire people to convert to Jesus, repent of their sins, and be saved.”

Dan thought that “[m]any of the plots [in the Book of Mormon were] just plain silly fabrications that have no sense of realism--not the kind of thing I would expect from Spalding or Rigdon.” He called many of the plots “extremely unrealistic and implausible.”

Dan also believed that Joseph consciously fabricated the gold plates and visitation phenomenon. “He knew what he was doing when he made a set of fake plates and lied about the angel's visitations.”

Dan felt he had exposed Chandler’s responses to Skousen;s evidence as inadequate.

All witnesses stated that Smith dictated the text of the Book of Mormon. “This claim is supported by certain errors in the original manuscript which clearly resulted from the scribe mishearing what Joseph had dictated. These errors were not the result of the scribe misreading while visually copying from some other manuscript or even from a copy of the King James Bible.”

Dan's main purpose in contributing to the thread, according to one participant, “is to dissuade folks from further consideration (or investigation) of a Spalding-Rigdon-Smith Book of Mormon compilation . ...”

But he acknowledged that, “while most of the O-MS may have been dictated ... in some cases entire pages were re-written after a dictation session.”

“Chandler's argument for copying involves too many people being in a conspiracy and afterwards lying about how the Book of Mormon was dictated. It seems easier--if one is going to ignore the eyewitness testimony--to assert that Joseph Smith read the text from behind the curtain. But the eyewitness testimony is there, and Spalding advocates need to include it in their speculations.”

“I think O-MS is consistent with eyewitness testimony. But I also think there is plenty of evidence that Joseph Smith was editing as he was dictating, and even some evidence that the text was being adjusted even after dictation.”
“Mormons tell me that Solomon Spalding could not have written so much as a paragraph of the Book of Mormon, because the style and subject matter have nothing in common with his known writings. And, that since this point is well established in the minds of all objective investigators, the testimonial evidence can be [thrown] aside without the need of any close examination.”

Bottom line: it was an “unlikelihood that a MS was used during Joseph Smith dictation, and [Spaulding believers] have serious problems with your evidence.
Dan thought that “Spalding advocates (and Mormon apologists as well) grossly underestimate Joseph Smith, which is exactly how con men succeed.”

“Believe what you will, but the eyewitnesses would have seen Joseph Smith reading from any MS. They explicitly denied the possibility of Joseph Smith's use of a Spalding-Rigdon MS.”

“This would involve a wide conspiracy and a massive coverup, for which there is no evidence.”

“The facts of dictation are well attested to by both believer, non-believer, and former followers. To assume they were all lying because it contradicts your theory is to beg the question. You must find independent reasons for why so many would be untruthful. How can one hope to reconstruct the past if one is willing to set aside more certain evidence for less certain evidence?”

“The witnesses in this case are very credible, which makes your attempt to categorically dismiss them rather desperate.”

“[I]t seems to me that Spalding advocates are too preoccupied with countering Mormon apologists, rather than establishing Spalding on its own legs.”
Dan “was amazed that so many non-Evangelical ex-Mormons adhere to the Spalding/Rigdon Theory. He considers the theory ‘a waste of time’” and gave reasons why.

Smith had “plenty of time to think about what to dictate next. ... There was no MS to read from, according to all the witnesses.”

“[T]he Spaulding theory becomes the unnecessary hypothesis. The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith wrote the entire book. If Joseph Smith has the ability to rewrite Spaulding and make the story his own, then obviously the Spaulding theory is no longer needed.”

Initially, Dan conceded, Smith dictated from behind a curtain. But “from then on, all the testimony is uniform in stating that Joseph Smith was in the open with his head in the hat. That's why the Spaulding theory never made sense to those who knew the circumstances of dictation, and why the myth flourished among the less informed. With all the sources and information we have today, I'm at a loss to explain its appeal.”

“If there is no way Joseph Smith could have used a MS, then the only alternative is that he DID write it.”

“I don't see Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon on paper. There was no MS from which he read, not Spaulding's and not his own. The process was more working it out in his mind until he felt good about it, and then he dictated it. With only a few hours of dictation each day, he had plenty of time to work it out in his mind.”

“It is my opinion and experience that many (not all) advocates of the Spaulding theory are similarly uninformed about both early Mormon history and the contents of the Book of Mormon. This also includes a lot of Mormons. And when Mormons become former Mormons, it does not necessarily mean they have gained a good understanding of their former faith. So, I did not intend for my general comments to apply to every particular circumstance--that would be a fallacy.”

“The Spaulding theory needs substance--some "plain facts" as you call them, or at least some probable (not just possible) evidence--if it is to sustain the many possible proofs and speculations.”

“Critics of the Spaulding theory? So you proved them wrong, but did you prove the Spaulding theory? I know how satisfying it can be to discover new evidence. That's what makes field work so much fun. But I somewhat agree with Roper when he states: ‘But while the authors must be commended for a good piece of detective work, they greatly exaggerate the implications of the find’”

“The Spaulding theory needs substance--some "plain facts" as you call them, or at least some probable (not just possible) evidence--if it is to sustain the many possible proofs and speculations.”

Dan believed “that Joseph's own life is mirrored in the Book of Mormon . ...”.

“I have no problem imaging someone memorizing portions of a pre-written text - no matter WHO the author was, because even if the author was Joseph, he still had four years to write the darn thing - and then impressively reciting them while his head was stuck in a hat the next day.”

“Chandler’s response to Skousen’s evidence for hearing was inadequate.”

One participant summarized the “debate” as follows: “I think Dan has made a good case for at least part of the extant O-MS pages having been dictated, and I think Ted has made a good case for a few scattered copyist's corrections/errors.”

Dan conceded that “there may be some places where an entire signature (four pages of a folded sheet) had to be copied/re-written after dictation.”

“Anyone who doubts Joseph Smith had a powerful command of language should read the letters he dictated in Liberty Jail.”

“[I]t seems to me that Spalding advocates are too preoccupied with countering Mormon apologists, rather than establishing Spalding on its own legs.”

“Unfortunately, Chandler's response to Skousen is based on a very poor understanding of O-MS, as well as the mechanics of Skousen's transcription. ... His evidence for visual copying is almost exclusively from misspelled words, or rather malformed letters and slips of the pen, which were later corrected."

“Chandler has a bad habit of just listing undigested material, which forces his respondent to do the analyzing for him. I'll probably post it tomorrow.”

“This a lengthy response, but Chandler's method of making lists without analysis forces his respondent to unpack his assumptions and misapprehensions. Hopefully, if Chandler wishes to respond to this, or even if he plans to publish more of his research on the internet, this critique will motivate him to expend more effort in his presentation of arguments and evidence.”

“I showed that Chandler's response to Skousen's evidence for hearing mistakes was inadequate. Chandler's response to this part of my critique is still inadequate. Chandler focused on my discussion of dittography and haplography instead.”

“I will show that Chandler's evidence from malformed letters and nonsensical words does not prove the scribes were copying from a proto-BOM MS, but rather they were rushed to keep up with dictation.”

“I will show that Chandler's conclusions based on malformed letters and nonsensical words are incorrect.”

“I will show that Chandler's reply to his critics is inadequate.”

“Chandler's logic doesn't make sense. Technically, these are not misspelled words. A misspelled word would be something like "verry" or "Citty". These are nonsensical words. Chandler has an odd notion of what a scribe does when copying from another MS. What scribe copies letter by letter nonsensical words? Typically, a scribe reads the text and writes down what he reads, not what he sees, unless it is an unfamiliar word like Zarahamla, curelom, or Cumorah. So, a scribe copies word for word, not letter for letter. If a word is difficult to read, the scribe will use the context to decipher the word. If an error is made, it would involve substituting the right word for an incorrect similar-looking word, examples of which Skousen has given (see my previous post dealing with Skousen's evidence for dictation).”

“Rather than imagining scribes mindlessly copying letter for letter in a badly written Spalding-Rigdon text, even words they knew how to spell, a more reasonable explanation is that Cowdery's malformed "n" looks like an "r", so Skousen transcribed it as an "r". Of course, Chandler has no idea what the postulated proto-BOM MS looked like, but we do know that some of Cowdery's letters--even under ideal conditions--look very similar to one another, which Chandler himself admited. So, it would seem an obvious place to look for problems in O-MS is with Cowdery's penmanship. Besides, the presence of nonsensical words cannot tell us that the scribes were copying from another MS. Hence, Chandler's argument is a non sequitur . He doesn't take the time to show readers what the evidence means and how exactly his evidence from "misspellings" is supposed to demonstrate what he is trying to prove. If he had, perhaps he would have realized the weakness of his evidence before publishing it on the internet. (I will return to this matter in Part 3 of my critique of Chandler's methodology.)”

“[i]t was Chandler who was opining and speculating some far fetched scenarios to explain away Skousen's evidence, and ignoring one argument altogether. He seems to think that any alternative explanation is equally likely simply because he can make one up while at the same time ignoring eyewitness testimony. His alternate explanations require us to also accept the unlikely, less parsimonious, and unfounded assertion that not only Oliver Cowdery, but two other unidentified scribes, as well as Martin Harris and Emma Smith were involved in a conspiracy with Joseph Smith. It would also mean that those who testified to Joseph Smith's method of dictation were either lying, or Joseph Smith and his scribes in Fayette managed to keep the true method hidden from the Whitmer family. So, Skousen's evidence is consistent with eyewitness testimony, and Chandler's is not.”

“Moreover, Skousen's examples of hearing problems are typical source-critical methodology, whereas Chandler's evidence from malformed letters is not, which is why I brought up dittography and haplography. Chandler believes his ad hoc rationalizations are equally likely as Skousen's evidence for dictation, but he neglects to defend them or to respond to my criticisms. Simply asserting that I'm "opining" won't cut it. It's not enough to come up with imaginative alternative explanations for Skousen's evidence, Chandler must come up with equal or better explanations. Otherwise, how can he disagree with my criticisms of his work if he has such a low standard for evidence?”

“Dittoggraphic evidence is certainly a much better approach than the appearance of nonsensical words. But the mere presence of repetition is not automatic evidence of visual copying of a MS. While it is correct to refer to unintentional repetition as dittography, the kind that's used to demonstrate visual copying has to be more definitive and less ambiguous than those listed by Chandler. It is to this latter type of dittography that I referred. This is clear from the context of the above statement, which Chandler neglected to quote.”

“The explanation Chandler here gives is what he now calls a dittograph. If it is a dittograph, the scribe caught himself immediately before copying the next word or words--thus, "him a comeing". That would better evidence for a dittograph. Also, in a dittograph, one looks for a reason the scribe's eye jumped back to the first "him" like the same word appearing before both occurrences of "him", which it doesn't. So, this is not an example of a definitive dittograph; in fact, it is not likely. Thus, Skousen's explanation seems more likely. But the main point here is that Chandler should have learned something from this statement, but evidently he chose to ignore it and present other similar situations a dittographic evidence.”

“It is certainly possible to have dittographs in dictation. When the person dictating stops to think, and recommences by repeating the last word or words. Of the two kinds of dittographs I describe, it is the latter that I claim is absent from O-MS. Admittedly, I haven't read every page of Skousen's transcription, but of the kinds of evidence Chandler could bring forward to prove O-MS was copied and not dictated, the latter type dittograph would be the best. However, Chandler might have been confused when I included both types of dittographs in my examples from P-MS. I did this because we know it was visually copied. So we know all dittographs are the result of the scribe's eye skipping to the wrong place in O-MS. However, when one is looking for proof, the standards are higher.”

“Although dittography is better evidence than Chandler's evidence from malformed letters and nonsensical words, it is not without problems. Most dittographs are not ideal and pose interpretive challenges of their own. For those who remember the exchange between Brent Metcalfe and Brian Hauglid and Wil Schryver, the issue of dittographic evidence was hotly debated, with Schryver using the weakest examples of dittography to counter Brent's evidence for dictation. There, too, Schryver overstated his dittographic evidence and ignored the strength of hearing problems. Needless to say, none of Chandler's examples fall into the category of definitive dittograph.”

“Half [of Chandler’s examples of dittography] are simple immediate repetitions ...which can happen in dictation and are therefore ambiguous. With one possible exception ... none are preceded by similar words that can cause the scribe's eye to skip back. Several are one or two words, or even part of a word, which Chandler assumes were near-dittographs due the scribe's eye skipping back (for no apparent reason) but catching the mistake on the first word or two or partial word. ... This isn't at all apparent.”

“None of Chandler's examples follow this pattern [of haplography]. Just because the scribe appears to jump ahead of what is eventually written doesn't mean he is copying from a proto-BOM MS. He may have simply fallen behind in the dictation.”

“[T]here is no evidence for haplography in O-MS.

“Evidence from scribal anticipations (caused by the scribe accidentally skipping ahead while writing down dictation) suggests that Joseph Smith sometimes dictated up to thirty words at a time. ...”

“This is a far more likely reason, than Chandler's belief that they are haplography due to the scribe's eye skipping ahead. Another reason for the apparent skipping ahead is that Joseph Smith apparently changed direction in his dictation. In other words, he sometimes got ahead of himself in the dictation. Skousen also hinted at this in his introduction—“

“I hope I have shown that Chandler doesn't understand Skousen's editorial procedure. Chandler hasn't responded to either me or Skousen on the hearing evidence, so he loses by default. Chandler hasn't produced definitive dittography or haplography from O-MS. When Chandler produces evidence from O-MS similar to Newel Knight's shifts in perspective, then he can say that I ignore such evidence. It is Chandler's position that is in serious trouble. It has been since he received his first criticisms, which he didn't take seriously. Hopefully, we have got his attention now.”

“Chandler hasn't responded to either me or Skousen on the hearing evidence, so he loses by default. Chandler hasn't produced definitive dittography or haplography from O-MS... It is Chandler's position that is in serious trouble.”

[_palerobber]

after reading some of Chandler's original criticism of Skousen, and some of Vogel's criticism of Chandler that you posted above, i think Vogel's position is more likely to be correct.

also, speaking as a layman not trained in textual criticism, it seems pretty obvious that just about any kind of error can occur when writing a manuscript (or typing a message board post), regardless of whether the words were dictated, copied, or directly authored. so even leaving aside Vogel's response to Chandler's analysis, it would be very hard for Chandler to convince me that errors in the text alone so strongly indicate copying that it should outweigh what witnesses to the translation reported. similarly, i would not be convinced by Skousen's evidence for mishearing if all witnesses to the translation had reported that it was done by copying. it just seems that evidence from textual analysis is always going to be ambiguous and therefore weak.

by the way, thanks for introducing the topic, as i've learned some interesting things from it.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I agree with Dan, though explaining why would take a lot more words than I have time to write at the moment. But I'm fascinated by your story, vessr. Thanks for sharing.

[_vessr]

I agree with Dan, though explaining why would take a lot more words than I have time to write at the moment. But I'm fascinated by your story, vessr. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks palerobber and California kid.

I did not provide the other side of the story, re those who disagreed with Dan. A couple of gentlemen had done research and papers or books on the Spaulding theory and presented their reasons why they believed the theory was true, even if the Book of Mormon was dictated rather than copied from another source.

One lady, “Marg,” replied in a lengthy rebuttle to Dan, which I’d like to quote below. I show where I have shortened her rebuttal with [....] (can't remember what they're called):

There is a significant point I’d like to mention before commenting on your post. The Spalding theory does not assume that only Spalding’s manuscript was used. It also does not assume that Smith did not dictate or read from sources be it Spalding’s, Ridgon, the Bible or his ownwords to the scribe. I get the impression you assume that the Spalding theory suggests one and only one possible method, that the scribe sat and copied from a source. That’s an incorrect assumption. It is quite conceivable that Smith worked with the scribe and read to the scribe for parts and other parts the scribe may have copied straight from the source.
....

I might be wrong but I get the impression that you are assuming the source document would have had to have had an ampersand. Let’s assume it didn’t but that the scribe chose to use it to shorten his work. So the scribe focusing on copying shortens their work and uses the ampersand, but as they are copying they aren’t focusing on content or context of words within the sentences and quickly looks at the cursively written “an” and assumes in haste it’s also an “and” If the scribe slowed down and focused on context and content, they’d realize it should be an “an” but likely with the extent of writing they had to do, content became of less significance than getting the majority of the words downs. Later corrections could always be made. Skousen and you for that matter are incorrect to assume this error can only indicate a hearing error. It is just as likely a function of the copier hurrying and not focusing on the meaning of the sentence and words within and attempting to take short cuts.

....

There is a significant problem here with this analysis. The source document if there was one is not available for comparison purposes. My handwriting is very messy ( I developed the messiness from notetaking in previous years) I just wrote out for myself weed ..it’s too bad I can’t show it on here but not only is it difficult to read but the loops in my w could be interpreted as an r then another letter possibly an i maybe a u following the 'r' . My first “e” is one line/stroke going up with no loop while my second e has a slight loop. If that was in a sentence and someone was trying to figure out the word from the context..weed or reed could be interpreted. Dan it is just as plausible that the person reading the script, couldn’t decifer the word, perhaps the “e” and “d” at the end were clear as in my own example for myself and they then assumed the word was “weed”. As for this being an example of a “hearing” error only I disagree. While that is a possibility it is no more likely than a copying error. Here is why, if someone was dictating to me, I think I wouldn’t have any problem telling the difference between weed or reed unless they had a lisp. Of course if someone was dictating I'd could easily ask what word they meant if their words weren't clear.
....

Contrary to your claim, there is no closeness in sound between “m” and “b”. One is a soft sound and the other a hard sound. It is more plausible that a scribe rushing and not paying much attention to context thought ..”no it can’t be saying “beat” the Lamanites, it must be "meet" the Lamanites.
....

I agree with Chandler. The person copying is likely not focused on what he’s writing but much more focused on speed, getting the words down quickly and in doing so is not thinking. This mistake of 'him' versus 'them', could be based on hearing but it can also be based on assuming incorrectly that another “him” followed the other two previous him(s). Our perspective in analysis is much different than someone who would be concentrating on quickly copying words which often times would be difficult to read and at which point in copying they may have been tired and careless.
....

What you don’t appear to be considering Dan is that the words if being copied were not necessarily easily decipherable. It can become frustrating and tiring deciphering long texts of messy cursive writing. If the copiest is trying speed things up, he may attempt to take short cuts, one being to read the whole sentence or at least a group of words ..commit those to memory and then write them down. Consequently mistakes such as in this particular example ..as others previously above can easily be made.
....

Adding an extra “s” is an easy mistake which can be attributed to simple sloppiness. If Cowdery were paying attention to context he would have realized as he did the second time around in the Printer’s manuscript that it was 'son' not 'sons'. But perhaps the first time around he wasn’t paying attention to context and just attempting to get words down quickly, while making plenty of spelling mistakes along the way as pointed out by chandler in his list of spelling mistakes in the O manuscript. If Smith were to have dictated as you assume and didn’t use a source document to read off of, it can be argued that he would have understood well what he was saying. And given that, he would have paused i.e. he would have said “therefore my Son…taken a pause and cont’d …see that ye are merciful unto your brethren.” If reading from a source he is less likely to pause.
....

You’ve not demonstrated there is anything wrong with Chandler's reasoning. If one observes evidence that Cowdery substituted entirely different words when copying from the O manuscript to the P (printer’s manuscript), one can assume he could have done so when copying from a source text to the O manuscript…such as weed for reed. There is little value that I can see of attempting to show Cowdery made visual errors going from the O Ms to the Printer’s Manuscript. I’m not sure why you are bothering with that. There is no question that the original manuscript was copied so to look for evidence of that is not necessary.

However what Chandler was suggesting is that all sort of changes to spelling were made in the O manuscript, which could quite conceivably have been made as copy errors while rushing and later corrected upon reading it back again or even comparing it to the source. I’ll explain this with an example later.

Chandler: "Skousen's explanation for the pressing/feeling example is especially interesting. He says that scribe 3's "p" looks like an "f" and his elongated "s" looks like an "l." But there are literally hundreds of examples of this type of error in the original manuscript, none of which are ever mentioned by Skousen."

Dan: Again, the problem with Chandler's reasoning here is that his examples do not lead to misreadings of real words--they are simply malformed letters or an obviously wrong letter within the same word.

....

The above you point out were initially miscopied from O to P manuscript as totally different words but then corrected later either above or immediately following the word. Of course, comparison of the 2 texts the O and the P manuscript allows one to determine for a fact when a word has been completely changed. But we don’t have a source document to compare to with the O manuscript so there is no way to know with certainty which words may have been changed completely. But just the same if there are lots of examples of incorrect letters..resulting in misspellings in the O manuscript and no reason to misspell upon hearing the word..then it would seem those are copy mistakes. For example look at the first 2 which Chandler lists

1. there was also writher=writhen [written] upon them a new writeing (135:35)
2. be hated amorg=among all Nations (152:7)

If someone is dictating and says “written” why would the scribe write “writher” that appears to be a copy error. The same applies to #2. And so on with the rest of the errors Chandler lists. Yet these errors were corrected in the O manuscript. Inother words those sorts of spelling errors would be more likely in copying while a scribe is not focusied on making sense or using a valid word. If someone says to you “among” you aren’t likely to write “amorg. So all those spelling mistakes Chandler lists as being in the O manuscript and corrected are indicative of someone copying text not making the mistakes because of hearing wrong.
....

What Chandler was showing is the errors are likely copy errors from a source document. But if someone is copying and not paying attention to context and being rather careless and rushing..they are quite likely to make lots of spelling errors especially when what they are copying from may be difficult to decipher which cursive often is.
marg

*******

I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who agrees with marg and others that the Spaulding theory of the Spaulding-Rigdon theory is not dead, but very much alive; on the other hand, I would be interested in hearing from those who can rebut Marg's rebuttle.

[_Dan Vogel]

vessr,

I found the thread where Dan Vogel took on Ted Chandler: DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY. I can’t tell who “won,” so I don’t know if Dan was ever swayed by Chandler’s work. I tried to contact Dan via this forum, but haven’t got a response from him yet. Ted is on the other side and probably knows more than Dan and I know; but he’s not talking.

I won, although Chandler didn't acknowledge it. Chandler's evidence was based on his misunderstanding of Skousen's symbol system and what I think is a shortcoming of Skousen's method of transcription.

[_Dan Vogel]

vessr,

5. As my original search was seeking to understand how so many New Testament passages ended up in the Book of Mormon, I also wondered whether Mormon apologists today have concluded that parts of the Bible were copied from the Bible (i.e. using the Bible during the transaltion process), rather than given to Smith by revelation. Originally, their position was that eyewitnesses to the translation process didn’t see Smith using any documents at all while looking into his hat and, therefore, he never did copy portions of the Bible into the Book of Mormon.

Eyewitness testimony as to Joseph Smith’s method of translation doesn’t preclude the use of a Bible. If a Bible was used for the long Isaiah sections as a translation aid, it doesn’t necessarily mean the witnesses would have mentioned it (assuming they saw it) since their statements were usually given to counter the Spalding theory and the use of a manuscript. Shorter passages undoubtedly came from Joseph Smith’s (or God’s) mind just as they were produced in the revelations. The KJV language, including errors of the KJV, and the anachronistic use would suggest Joseph Smith’s mind.

[_Dan Vogel]

vessr,
One of Chandler’s weaknesses was that he relied solely on Skousen’s transcription, which he misunderstood, and wasn’t at all familiar with either the original documents or the handwritings of Cowdery and the other scribes. He would have benefited if he was at least familiar with 19th century penmanship. The problem with Skousen’s transcription is that if an “a” was malformed and looked like an “o” due to either the idiosyncratic habit of the scribe or haste in writing from dictation, Skousen’s transcription reads “o”. He was trying to go on visual observation without try to ascertain the scribe’s intent. Intent can lead to mistakes, but it produces a more readable text. Any way, Chandler didn’t know Skousen’s intent and so made too much of these variant readings. Chandler tried to argue that these malformed characters were evidence of visual errors committed by Cowdery and others as they copied from a Rigdon-Spalding manuscript. Who copies bad handwriting as bad handwriting? Chander’s theory was wacky to say the least.

[_vessr]

Thank you, Dan, for all three of your responses, above. I really appeciate the time you took, and the depth you undertook, to respond. It may be that Marg may want to respond in rebuttal to your rebuttal. If so, or if you've had a chance to look at her rebuttal, above, I would welcome your comments re Marg's take. I assume, based on your responses above, that you would say that Marg misunderstood Skousen as well; but I don't want to put words in your mouth, or hers.