Those danged ellipses. I wonder what the full context is/was in what Anderson said.
My guess is that he probably had good reason to distrust much of what Pomeroy said. At least to the point that he wasn’t able to take what he said ‘hook, line, and sinker’.
Regards,
MG
And your 'guess', which I highlighted, would be wrong. You may not have personal experience with this type of intellectually honest technique, but intellectually honest people use ellipses to shorten material to more briefly emphasize the author's point, NOT to change the meaning. You assumed dishonesty, but that's because your usual approach is coloring your (mis)understanding of honest research.
Tucker does relate much valuable information concerning the period of the publication of the Book of Mormon. He also claims knowledge of the Smiths “since their removal to Palmyra from Vermont in 1816, and during their continuance there and in the adjoining town of Manchester.” There is no reason to question this firsthand contact provided one is on guard not to take his western New York prejudice for fact. It is to his credit that he could at least distinguish between the two. He repeats tattered stories about Joseph Smith’s dishonesty only to admit in “common fairness” that such allegations were “not within the remembrance of the writer.” Although Tucker is content to repeat the armchair observations about the laziness of the Smiths, every one of his specific descriptions proves the opposite. Most of Tucker’s unattributed particulars of the Smith’s early Palmyra life are probably based on his observation.
The blue is the content removed by the ellipses. You'll notice the statement, "There is no reason to question this firsthand contact" highlighted within the blue.
Next time, do your own research before you guess with your prejudices.
Anderson is literally saying that:
There is no reason to question this firsthand contact provided one is on guard not to take his western New York prejudice for fact.
My point to Steuss was that the testimony of these two individuals that were mentioned along with the fact that Pomeroy was the one quoting them is not a very firm foundation to stand on in regards to the ‘brick story’.
Those danged ellipses. I wonder what the full context is/was in what Anderson said.
My guess is that he probably had good reason to distrust much of what Pomeroy said. At least to the point that he wasn’t able to take what he said ‘hook, line, and sinker’.
Regards,
MG
Most of Tucker’s unattributed particulars of the Smiths’ early Palmyra life are probably based on his observation” (quoted in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 3:87).
It’s the testimony of an independent eye witness. And your response is to “guess” something that isn’t there? You’re making things up because you don’t like the evidence. That’s the hallmark of a very closed mind.
I am hesitant to go ‘whole hog’ on this testimony by two witnesses (supposedly) that were quoted by someone that was not one to be believed factually in all cases. Especially when having a predisposition of antipathy towards Mormons.
Like I said, if you want to go with that, fine.
Tucker’s testimony of the Smith family being indolent and lazy is born out to be untrue by other associates and neighbors of the family. So who are you going to believe?
And your 'guess', which I highlighted, would be wrong. You may not have personal experience with this type of intellectually honest technique, but intellectually honest people use ellipses to shorten material to more briefly emphasize the author's point, NOT to change the meaning. You assumed dishonesty, but that's because your usual approach is coloring your (mis)understanding of honest research.
The blue is the content removed by the ellipses. You'll notice the statement, "There is no reason to question this firsthand contact" highlighted within the blue.
Next time, do your own research before you guess with your prejudices.
Anderson is literally saying that:
There is no reason to question this firsthand contact provided one is on guard not to take his western New York prejudice for fact.
My point to Steuss was that the testimony of these two individuals that were mentioned along with the fact that Pomeroy was the one quoting them is not a very firm foundation to stand on in regards to the ‘brick story’.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Then what was the point of your incorrect accusion about Vogel's use of ellipses follllowed by your incorrect assumption of the historians meaning, and now backed up with another misunderstanding of Anderson?
There is no reason to question this firsthand contact provided one is on guard not to take his western New York prejudice for fact. It is to his credit that he could at least distinguish between the two.
Anderson gave him measured credit for accuracy, and Vogel communicated his point accurately. Your opinion has been repeatedly refuted by at least two historians who have studied this but yea, sure, stand by your insupportable beliefs. You cannot do otherwise.
My point to Steuss was that the testimony of these two individuals that were mentioned along with the fact that Pomeroy was the one quoting them is not a very firm foundation to stand on in regards to the ‘brick story’.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Then what was the point of your incorrect accusion about Vogel's use of ellipses follllowed by your incorrect assumption of the historians meaning, and now backed up with another misunderstanding of Anderson?
There is no reason to question this firsthand contact provided one is on guard not to take his western New York prejudice for fact. It is to his credit that he could at least distinguish between the two.
Anderson gave him measured credit for accuracy, and Vogel communicated his point accurately. Your opinion has been repeatedly refuted by at least two historians who have studied this but yea, sure, stand by your insupportable beliefs. You cannot do otherwise.
As I’ve said a number of times now, if you’re comfortable in believing this account/story that’s fine.
Granted, it does fit in with your overall narrative that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The plates are a little harder to navigate.
Then what was the point of your incorrect accusion about Vogel's use of ellipses follllowed by your incorrect assumption of the historians meaning, and now backed up with another misunderstanding of Anderson?
Anderson gave him measured credit for accuracy, and Vogel communicated his point accurately. Your opinion has been repeatedly refuted by at least two historians who have studied this but yea, sure, stand by your insupportable beliefs. You cannot do otherwise.
As I’ve said a number of times now, if you’re comfortable in believing this account/story that’s fine.
Granted, it does fit in with your overall narrative that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The plates are a little harder to navigate....
There doesn't seem to be an answer in there....
"What was the point of your incorrect accusion about Vogel's use of ellipses followed by your incorrect assumption of the historians meaning, and now backed up with another misunderstanding of Anderson?"
I'm sure you won't answer or even retract your nonsensical accusations, as usual, so ....moving on.
MG 2.0 wrote:
[...] As far as your dependence on these two characters/individuals (that may or may have not even existed?) [...]
Hussey is buried in the Palmyra Cemetery. Based on when he passed (a few years after the Book of Mormon's publication), the account documented by McIntosh was either from a journal, affidavit, or from someone who had been told the story.
I can’t find where Vanduzer (whose name I misspelled before) was buried. I did find a transcription of the meeting minutes from a "special town meeting" of residents in Palmyra from January 20, 1818. Vanduzer was voted to serve as a Constable. It appears that Joseph Smith's grandfather may have been there too (small world moment), but it could have been another "Asa" Smith.
There's no reason to believe that they both didn't exist, and both weren't residents of Palmyra with Joseph Smith.
I agree, it's clear they were. I read a bit from grindael's old site which i ended up on while looking for the Anderson excerpt. He was a master at establishing the culture, the social scene, the lifestyle of the Smith family and neighborhood. His posts are as fascinating as ever.
As I’ve said a number of times now, if you’re comfortable in believing this account/story that’s fine.
Granted, it does fit in with your overall narrative that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The plates are a little harder to navigate....
There doesn't seem to be an answer in there....
"What was the point of your incorrect accusion about Vogel's use of ellipses followed by your incorrect assumption of the historians meaning, and now backed up with another misunderstanding of Anderson?"
I'm sure you won't answer or even retract your nonsensical accusations, as usual, so ....moving on.
Hussey is buried in the Palmyra Cemetery. Based on when he passed (a few years after the Book of Mormon's publication), the account documented by McIntosh was either from a journal, affidavit, or from someone who had been told the story.
I can’t find where Vanduzer (whose name I misspelled before) was buried. I did find a transcription of the meeting minutes from a "special town meeting" of residents in Palmyra from January 20, 1818. Vanduzer was voted to serve as a Constable. It appears that Joseph Smith's grandfather may have been there too (small world moment), but it could have been another "Asa" Smith.
There's no reason to believe that they both didn't exist, and both weren't residents of Palmyra with Joseph Smith.
I agree, it's clear they were. I read a bit from grindael's old site which i ended up on while looking for the Anderson excerpt. He was a master at establishing the culture, the social scene, the lifestyle of the Smith family and neighborhood. His posts are as fascinating as ever.
I think that whether they did or they didn’t it doesn’t lessen the fact that there may have been prejudicial priority given to whatever testimony they may have given. And if I’m not mistaken it came years after the fact.
I’m still having difficulty understanding why critics give undue credence and/or acceptance to this rather shaky story that has layers of prejudicial and chronological time related testimony issues involved.
But then again, maybe it’s rather simple. It fits a narrative.
I think that whether they did or they didn’t it doesn’t lessen the fact that there may have been prejudicial priority given to whatever testimony they may have given. And if I’m not mistaken it came years after the fact.
I’m still having difficulty understanding why critics give undue credence and/or acceptance to this rather shaky story that has layers of prejudicial and chronological time related testimony issues involved.
But then again, maybe it’s rather simple. It fits a narrative.
Regards,
MG
You could be talking about the First Vision accounts…
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
...I’m still having difficulty understanding why [Dan Vogel and LDS historian Anderson] give undue credence and/or acceptance to this rather shaky story that has layers of prejudicial and chronological time related testimony issues involved...
You could be talking about the First Vision accounts…
Indeed. I have a hard time believing he can't see how obviously hypocritical he's being. Maybe this is a new technique, stating upfront his bias.
It's also interesting that he defines an LDS historian and Dan Vogel as being 'critics' who believe in 'shaky, prejudicial' things, only because those things don't fit his foundationless opinions. In other comments, he has lauded Mormon historians and similar writers for agreeing with his favorite Mormon fables. I've never read such a biased approach, but, again, it may just be a new trolling technique.
You could be talking about the First Vision accounts…
Indeed. I have a hard time believing he can't see how obviously hypocritical he's being. Maybe this is a new technique, stating upfront his bias.
It's also interesting that he defines an LDS historian and Dan Vogel as being 'critics' who believe in 'shaky, prejudicial' things, only because those things don't fit his foundationless opinions. In other comments, he has lauded Mormon historians and similar writers for agreeing with his favorite Mormon fables. I've never read such a biased approach, but, again, it may just be a new trolling technique.
I think that whether they did or they didn’t it doesn’t lessen the fact that there may have been prejudicial priority given to whatever testimony they may have given. And if I’m not mistaken it came years after the fact.
I’m still having difficulty understanding why critics give undue credence and/or acceptance to this rather shaky story that has layers of prejudicial and chronological time related testimony issues involved.
But then again, maybe it’s rather simple. It fits a narrative.
Regards,
MG
You could be talking about the First Vision accounts…
So apparently you are steering away from the fact that Steuss may have given some pretty flimsy evidence for the ‘brick story’.
