Your Book Of Mormon Theory

[Tarski]

By the gift and power of God, The Dude. I already stated my view on it.

OK, then we think it came about by the gift and power of men.

[Tarski]

Or it could even read like this:

1 --- Oliver Cowdery --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

2 --- Martin Harris --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

3 --- David Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

4 --- Hiram Page --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

5 --- Jacob Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

6 --- Peter Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

7 --- John Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

8 --- Christian Whitmer --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

9 --- Joseph Smith, Sr. --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

10 --- Hyrum Smith --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

11 --- Samuel H. Smith --- Repeatedly affirmed testimony of the Book of Mormon thoughout his life.

Jee, there is a lot of Smiths and Whitmers there.

[Daniel Peterson]

Jee, there is a lot of Smiths and Whitmers there.

A response that, standing by itself, is little more than an exercise in the ad hominem fallacy, a bit of well-poisoning.

Their mere names are scarcely evidence that they were either insane or dishonest.

[captain-jack]

Jee, there is a lot of Smiths and Whitmers there.

If you felt you had the greatest thing in the world, who would you want to share it with first? Family and friends or randomly spouting it to anyone who'll hear?

[Uncle Dale]

...for all intents and purposes, these men never denied it...

True -- and in the cases of all but Oliver and Martin, we might offer an even stronger affirmation.

Martin was a nut-job -- and I invite anybody who says different to spend some time studying his

entire life -- what he did and what he is reported to have said -- the point worth our consideration,

however, is that he died as a witness (and is not remembered for his several un-faith-promoting

statements and activities).

The case of Oliver is rather different -- his days in Tiffin, Ohio and his family's association with the

Methodist Episcopal Church there raise several serious questions regarding what his LDS "testimony"

may have consisted of during the 1840s. His adopted daughter became a full-fledged member of the

congregation and his other family members attended the church -- I think regularly. Oliver himself

was an official in the congregation's auxiliary organization.

That does not mean that Oliver denied his testimony, nor that he was ever re-baptized a Methodist.

But it does make his case a special one -- and we can well understand why "Times & Seasons" poets

might have received the impression that he had "denied" the Book of Mormon.

UD

Jee, there is a lot of Smiths and Whitmers there.

"I could not feel more satisfied and at rest

if the entire Whitmer family had testified..." (Mark Twain)

UD

[JNclone]

Tarski:

Jee, there is a lot of Smiths and Whitmers there.

A response that, standing by itself, is little more than an exercise in the ad hominem fallacy, a bit of well-poisoning.

Their mere names are scarcely evidence that they were either insane or dishonest.

No but come on ... as a clever person versed in historical argument, you know just what Tarski meant: it would have been more impressive if the witnesses had all been from different families. Why? Because that would be an argument (though not a conclusive one) that their testimony was independent, and that there was no element of 'backing up uncle Joe' in it. Families do tend to back one another up, do they not? And that lessens the weight to be placed on the addition of one family member's testimony to that of others.

Saying that is not 'well-poisoning', but reasonable caution in evaluating the reliability and independence of witnesses. If you do not agree with this statement, please explain why.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Jee, there is a lot of Smiths and Whitmers there.

How many of Jesus' original 12 apostles were related?....

I guess that doesn't matter to you or your friend JNclone, as you both believe Jesus is also a fraud, but I make the point for the sake of those who believe in Christ that familial relations among witnesses is not as powerful an argument as Tarski advanced, though I believe even he would qualify his comment in retrospect.

[Uncle Dale]

it would have been more impressive if the witnesses had all been from different families.

Why? Because that would be an argument (though not a conclusive one) that their

testimony was independent...

Dr. Richard L. Anderson gives a somewhat parallel objection to the combined witnesse statements

solicited by D.P. Hurlbut, in Manchester and Palmyra, NY, in 1833.

The Hurlbut combined witness statements were offered by people who had NOT joined the Church,

and therefore must be considered to be biased. The testimony would have been more believeable

had there been loyal, active Mormons among those statement-givers.

Also, in a combined statement, we do not have the additional, personal evidence of what each

statement-giver experienced. Had the two Hurlbut documents been divided up, providing a single

affidavit, signed and dated by each deponent, the evidence would be far more compelling. When

we have such combined statements, with no writer identified, our suspicion that the recorded

testimony was not "independent" may be a problem.

The difference between the Hurlbut deponents and the Smith witnesses, is that the Smith witnesses

went on to risk their livelihoods, their reputations, and even their lives in support of their testimony.

That fact alone, is more potentially "convincing" than their words, as first published in 1830.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

How many of Jesus' original 12 apostles were related?....

I heard compelling arguments, while in graduate seminary, that the Jude of the NT was Jesus' brother,

and very likely even the "Judas" of the Gospel stories.

There is another strong tradition, that Thomas was Jesus' fraternal twin.

Interesting stuff...

Uncle "my favorite, as I have many times stated on this MB, was James, of course" Dale

[LifeOnaPlate]

I heard compelling arguments, while in graduate seminary, that the Jude of the NT was Jesus' brother,

and very likely even the "Judas" of the Gospel stories.

There is another strong tradition, that Thomas was Jesus' fraternal twin.

Interesting stuff...

Uncle "my favorite, as I have many times stated on this MB, was James, of course" Dale

Mary had other children???!

[Anijen]

There is another strong tradition, that Thomas was Jesus' fraternal twin.

CFR kind of hard for me to believe, fraternal twin?

[Uncle Dale]

CFR kind of hard for me to believe, fraternal twin?

Well, if "indentical twin" works better for you, you'll find some of that in the tradition as well.

Do a web-search on "Didymus Thomas"

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

No but come on ... as a clever person versed in historical argument, you know just what Tarski meant: it would have been more impressive if the witnesses had all been from different families. Why? Because that would be an argument (though not a conclusive one) that their testimony was independent, and that there was no element of 'backing up uncle Joe' in it. Families do tend to back one another up, do they not? And that lessens the weight to be placed on the addition of one family member's testimony to that of others.

Saying that is not 'well-poisoning', but reasonable caution in evaluating the reliability and independence of witnesses. If you do not agree with this statement, please explain why.

Yes, the Witness statements would have been more persuasive to some, at least, if the Witnesses had included a Chinese Taoist woman, an Arab Muslim man, an Inca shaman, a gay Viennese physician, an Italian priest, a British barrister, a tobacco farmer from the Carolinas, an early suffragette, a French sea captain, a Danish astronomer, and a samurai.

What we get, instead, are people from Joseph Smith's general environment and social class.

That said, however, their testimonies are extraordinarily impressive, and cannot simply be brushed aside as involving too many relatives. Doing so, without presenting any further evidence or analysis, is merely ad hominem. And it's ad hominem in the strictest and most plainly fallacious sense of that term.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, if "indentical twin" works better for you, you'll find some of that in the tradition as well.

Do a web-search on "Didymus Thomas"

UD

Do you have any newspaper reports from the era for your website?

[Uncle Dale]

Do you have any newspaper reports from the era for your website?

Letmeseehere --

hmmmm ---

Antioch Observer

March 15, 0064

"Emperor Proclaims Diana Feast Day"

"New Taxes Coming"

"Can We Trust the Parthian Empire?"

"Saul of Tarsus' Latest Missive"

"Thomas to Preach in the Public Square"

"Syrian Provincial FARMS Meeting Canceled..."

etc.

e-bay -- current bid: $140,011 (media mail, uninsured)

Uncle "just kidding about the the FARMS stuff" Dale

.

[LifeOnaPlate]

haha nice.

[SolarPowered]

March 15, 0064

...

"Syrian Provincial FARMS Meeting Canceled..."

etc.

Uncle "just kidding about the the FARMS stuff" Dale

You better be. No way FARMS cancelled the Ides of March, 64 meeting. Too much good "stuff" goin' on.

[JNclone]

JNClone:

No but come on ... as a clever person versed in historical argument, you know just what Tarski meant: it would have been more impressive if the witnesses had all been from different families. Why? Because that would be an argument (though not a conclusive one) that their testimony was independent, and that there was no element of 'backing up uncle Joe' in it. Families do tend to back one another up, do they not? And that lessens the weight to be placed on the addition of one family member's testimony to that of others.

Saying that is not 'well-poisoning', but reasonable caution in evaluating the reliability and independence of witnesses. If you do not agree with this statement, please explain why.

Yes, the Witness statements would have been more persuasive to some, at least, if the Witnesses had included a Chinese Taoist woman, an Arab Muslim man, an Inca shaman, a gay Viennese physician, an Italian priest, a British barrister, a tobacco farmer from the Carolinas, an early suffragette, a French sea captain, a Danish astronomer, and a samurai.

What we get, instead, are people from Joseph Smith's general environment and social class.

That said, however, their testimonies are extraordinarily impressive, and cannot simply be brushed aside as involving too many relatives. Doing so, without presenting any further evidence or analysis, is merely ad hominem. And it's ad hominem in the strictest and most plainly fallacious sense of that term.

Indeed, the testimonies are less persuasive to any rational person to the extent that they come from a group of people of whom quite a few are related to each other, as Tarski remarked. You don't dispute that point, though you try to make it sound ludicrous by exaggeration.

As I think you are well aware, the ad hominem fallacy is a mode of attacking an argument, not by addressing the argument itself, but by attacking the person putting forward the argument. Thus if I was to respond to your argument about the Smith/Whitmer testimonies by saying something like "Hey Dan'l! All them Krispy Kremes are cloggin' up your cerebrum so ya cain't think straight!", that would be an ad hominem argument. (It would also be most discourteous).

Here on the other hand the question is not about the validity of an argument, but about the reliability of testimony. In such a case it is entirely legitimate to examine whether there are facts about a group of witnesses (such as, that they have a family relationship), that may reduce the extent to which their testimony is independent. To the extent that the group of witnesses are not judged to be giving independent testimony, their evidence, as a group, will inevitably be less convincing.

Of course it may have other features that render it more convincing - you evidently think it has. But all you have offered in rebuttal of the specific point that Tarski pointed to, and which I set out in detail, is silly mockery and the misuse of a technical term. You can do better than that with the training you have had.

[Uncle Dale]

...You can do better...

We all can probably "do better" -- but what's the point?

This discussion has not moved forward much since 1830. We just hear the same old positions

stated and restated, (until many of us can recite them backwards while we're half-asleep).

Every fifty years or so, somebody digs out a hitherto unseen David Whitmer statement,

or some similar artifact of the restoration, and we all stand around breathless, waiting to see

if this "new discovery" tells us how big the Liahona was, or how tall the angel David saw was.

My point is, without somebody supplying some truly substantial new information, this old

discussion is going nowhere. One out of ten thousand disgruntled LDS will read it, and decide

it's the straw that breaks his own camel's back --- and one out of ten thousand new investigators

will read it, and decide that the old arguments against Mormonism aren't so bad after all --

Net change = zero.

I am embarassed that my fellow antis can do no better than beat this old dead horse once again.

How about something NEW for a change, eh?

d'Unk

[Alf O'Mega]

Your indictment is only logical if a single individual adheres simultaneously to both a "tight" and a "loose" translation -- depending on what part of the book s/he is trying to explain. In my experience, one is either one or the other: tight or loose. (A joke occurs to me right now, but I'll resist the evil urges within me.)

That one group of apologists leans towards a "tight" translation while another tends towards a "loose" is simply a difference of opinion in the camps, and not a contradiction. The "tight" translation advocates (like myself) advance different explanations for things like mention of horses than do the "loose" translation advocates.

You'll find Dr. Peterson and Kevin Barney defending what Kevin calls a "complex" translation, incorporating both loose and tight elements, on this thread.

[Uncle Dale]

the Ides of March, 64 meeting...

Yer just sharper than the proverbial thumbtack on the teacher's chair, now ain't you!

Yer Everlovin' Unk

[cdowis]

First in my little mind is this: Of the eleven original witnesses...didn't all but 3 subsequently leave the church for one reason or another?

For which reason the co-conspirator theory is unlikely.

And weren't the remaining 3 all related to JS in some way?

I think you will find that everyone is related to everyone else in a small town at that time. So, yes, they probably were related either directly or indirectly.

Does this strengthen the co-conspirator theory?

As for "translating with his face in hat" has been documented many times by multiple witnesses. I find it odd that NOBODY ever saw those plates.

The plates were not in his hat at this stage of translation, only the seer stone.

Half the time JS was "translating", the "plates" were in a different location all together. Just sounds fishy to me. Was he using his same "seer stone" that he used on many occassions to defraud farmers of monies in exchange for his ability to magically find lost treasures on their land by using the same technique he used to translate the plates?

[Uncle Dale]

For which reason the co-conspirator theory is unlikely.

Just for reference's sake, could somebody please say again just what the "co-conspirator theory" is?

Thank you,

UD

[cdowis]

Just for reference's sake, could somebody please say again just what the "co-conspirator theory" is?

Thank you,

UD

An agreement among the eleven witnesses to deceive the public to believe that the BOM was authentic -- falsely claiming that it was written on gold plates, and an appearance of a heavenly visitor, when they had knowledge that it was a fake.

[Kevin Christensen]

rhinomelon made this statement:

Wasn't the Urantia book also dictated in similar fashion?

The answer is no.

As Martin Gardner shows in Urantia: The Great Mystery Cult, the Urantia Book grew out the trance states of one Wilfred Kellog, and developed under the direction and editorship of Dr. William Sadler, a psychiatrist who wrote many books himself. Sadler was a devout Adventist who knew Ellen White. Troubled by problems he saw in some of her revelatory testimonies, he left the Adventist faith. (Gardner writes as one who had for a time considered himself an Adventist.) Sadler had spent a considerable amount of time investigating mediums and channelers, considering all but one or two to be frauds or self deceived. The one or two authentic revelations, according Sadler, were White, and Sadler's brother-in-law. In 1911 Sadler found that his brother-in-law, Wilfred Kellog, went into deep trance states every night. Sadler started questioning Kellog during these trance states, became intrigued by the claims of the trance personality, and over many years, after countless questioning sessions, and many cycles of revisions, and contributions by a committee of varied size and membership, Sadler printed the immense and bizarre Urantia Book.

One of the things that the committee did from time to time was to offer Kellog's writings to Kellog's trance personality and have them 'approved' for the book.

Do the translation/channeling techniques compare? Not really. The Urantia channeler was largely unconcious of what was going on and refused to be named during his lifetime. Joseph, according to the eye witness reports, was not disposessed of his own conciousness or personality. Anderson pointed out that none of the other modern pseudo gospels have anything to compare with the witnesses.

I find the contrast to be very enlightening. Indeed, the elaborate, decades long, group effort behind the Urantia volume illuminates for me the kind of book that various conspiracy theories of the Book of Mormon were much more likely to have produced. Wordy, dense, badly dated, contradicting the New Testament, and unable to attract a signficant community of believers.

I highly recommend Richard L. Anderson's discussion in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...ripts&id=15

Many years ago I reviewed Gardner's book here:

http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B199536.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA