A Challenge to Critics

[ttribe]

Hi Antley,

You may want to bite off something a little more manageable for MB discussion. The OP isn't fishing for a post but for a book proposal.

Don

And yet, 3 pages into it, the most we have is a bunch of gold-medal mental gymnastic attempts to explain away the testimony of witnesses, conjecture on how JS could have committed fraud, and a laundry list of faulty assumptions about what we supposedly believe.

[DrW]

There are so many faulty assumptions which are foundational to the way you have formulated your hypotheses that they are rendered substantially useless. I'd suggest you spend some more time on the FAIR website and see what some of the actual claims of believers are at this point and then go from there. Furthermore, it is interesting the degree to which you strain to ignore contradictory evidence and yet call any particular hypothesis a winner just because it's the shortest path.

Rather than make general unsupported statements regarding the post, why do you not provide evidence to refute the conclusions, or provide alternative sets of hypotheses that directly address the main question at issue, and show how they lead to a different conclusion?

[ttribe]

Rather than make general unsupported statements regarding the post, why do you not provide evidence to refute the conclusions, or provide alternative sets of hypotheses that directly address the main question at issue, and show how they lead to a different conclusion?

Because the first problem is in the assumptions underlying the hypothesis. Arguing against the conclusions is pointless when the hypthoses themselves are flawed. Fix the hypothesis (as I already suggested) and then come back with something to discuss.

[Theseus]

Please. The room they were in was barely bigger than my bathroom. Where'd he put that Bible and "other text" when they weren't translating? Still behind the sheet you say? Well, I'm guessing they would still be pretty visible as light went through the room. Not to mention the fact that at least one of his scribes LIVED WITH HIM - you know her name - Emma. Her testimony of the translation rebukes most of this conjecture...unless you're going to hop on the "Emma was lying" bandwagon.

The Bible I'm sure was always in the house, not really something that needed to be hidden. Remember that Emma was only scribe for the first 116 pages. After that I believe she did very little, if any scribe work (correct me if I'm wrong). So Emma's testimony about there being no other text is absolutely true, but only for when she was scribing. Do you think Martin Harris was lying about the sheet and Joseph being out of sight?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

MRSM,

Since you seem interested in all of this, why don't you have a go at refuting the conclusions in the post?

(I assume that by "unmagical thinking" you mean "fact-based and logical thinking".)

No I mean from what I gather, is that your way of thinking is superior. Not that it requires logic, but that any thing that may require God is some how faulty. You have thrown around a few buzz words, I thought I would return the favor. It feels so good to do hat doesn't it? I do not think you have any more facts than I do. Your theology requires hypothisis and specultaion, and the so called theories you espouse, are looked at as fact.

[Anijen]

According to interviews with Martin Harris, Joseph often dictated from "behind a curtain," or "sheet" or that he "would sit in a different room, or up stairs." He could easily have an open bible in front of him or any other text as the scribes could not even see him.

I read the curtain was for the window to keep people from looking into the cabin. It was not set up as a divider.

[Mike Reed]

The Bible I'm sure was always in the house, not really something that needed to be hidden. Remember that Emma was only scribe for the first 116 pages. After that I believe she did very little, if any scribe work (correct me if I'm wrong). So Emma's testimony about there being no other text is absolutely true, but only for when she was scribing. Do you think Martin Harris was lying about the sheet and Joseph being out of sight?

Since Emma wasn't able to see the plates, it seems quite possible (in my mind) that the "other text" could have existed as loose pages placed between the metal sheets. Or an entire bound book could have been hidden inside the plates (perhaps hidden within a compartment of false pages--ie. the "sealed" portion). Joseph Smith could have, at other times when he didn't even use the plates, had portions of the BoM text within his hat. You'll remember Whitmer's statement that what Joseph Smith saw while staring into the seerstone(s) was an inscription on parchment. Maybe this is because Joseph Smith was actually reading from parchment in his hat (you should know that a hat with secret compartments was a standard prop for stage magicians). While sitting at a table, Joseph Smith could have also hidden a book in his lap and read it through a hole in the hat. All sorts of possibilities exist... many of which would have been rather easy to pull off. And as explained by Uncle Dale, Joseph Smith could have also memorized certain passages that he had dictated.

[DrW]

No I mean from what I gather, is that your way of thinking is superior. Not that it requires logic, but that any thing that may require God is some how faulty. You have thrown around a few buzz words, I thought I would return the favor. It feels so good to do hat doesn't it? I do not think you have any more facts than I do. Your theology requires hypothisis and specultaion, and the so called theories you espouse, are looked at as fact.

MRSR,

I note that you have not taken me up on my invitation to logically refute the conclusions in my earlier post.

As for "unmagical thinking" vs "magical thinking"; as I have stated many times on this board, I have absolutely no problem with folks who elect to engage in magical thinking. In my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own worldview so long as it does not advocate harm to others.

As a scientist, I do take some offense when supernatural-based thinkers attempt to invoke logic, (formal or informal) or science, in support of their beliefs. Just as supernatural-based worldview cannot call upon logic for its support, it also cannot invoke science to verify its claims.

Instead of describing my theology for me, why not try to refute the conclusions in my earlier post using verifiable, reproducible, physical evidence generated by disinterested third parties. Such evidence should be comprised mainly of relevant research findings by qualified non-Mormon scientists and researchers.

[ttribe]

Since Emma wasn't able to see the plates, it seems quite possible (in my mind) that the "other text" could have existed as loose pages placed between the metal sheets. Or an entire bound book could have been hidden inside the plates (perhaps hidden within a compartment of false pages--ie. the "sealed" portion). Joseph Smith could have, at other times when he didn't even use the plates, had portions of the BoM text within his hat. You'll remember Whitmer's statement that what Joseph Smith saw while staring into the seerstone(s) was an inscription on parchment. Maybe this is because Joseph Smith was actually reading from parchment in his hat (you should know that a hat with secret compartments was a standard prop for stage magicians). While sitting at a table, Joseph Smith could have also hidden a book in his lap and read it through a hole in the hat. All sorts of possibilities exist... many of which would have been rather easy to pull off. And as explained by Uncle Dale, Joseph Smith could have also memorized certain passages that he had dictated.

And the gymnastics continue....

[Mike Reed]

And the gymnastics continue....

As do your dismissive remarks and cowardice refusals to engage the proposals that I presented to you.

I take it that you aren't familiar of the many hoaxes in Joseph Smith's day that magicians/ventriloquists/etc. pulled off.

[Theseus]

And the gymnastics continue....

I would like to point out that since we weren't there, we can only guess about how it was done. What is clear to me, however, is that the Book of Mormon comes right out of the early 1800's and is in no way an ancient document. This being said, the specifics of how the trick was pulled off is really irrelevant. I don't know how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, but I don't need to know how he did it to know that it was a deception.

[ttribe]

As do your dismissive remarks and cowardice refusals to engage the proposals that I presented to you.

When did I refuse to engage in something you proposed (in a cowardly fashion, no less)?

I take it that you aren't familiar of the many hoaxes in Joseph Smith's day that magicians/ventriloquists/etc. pulled off.

I take it that you aren't familiar with the difficulties in maintaining a fraud into perpetuity.

[Uncle Dale]

I would like to point out that since we weren't there, we can only guess about how it was done.

...

Our "guesses" may be of some practical use, in discovering the truth, however.

If "mental gymnastics" are limited to MB arguments, back and forth, then I must

agree with ttribe, that nothing useful is being accomplished here.

But if our "guesses" spur us (or others) to conduct additional research in historical sources,

then they may be of some value.

For Example, the Rev. Ariel McMaster alleges that Joseph Smith was reciting parts of

the Book of Mormon, down in the Susquehannah area, at an early date -- in the family

gatherings of Reuben Bridgeman (and, evidently, also those of Newell Robinson).

If Smith's tellings of such Nephite stuff predates his "translation" efforts in that same

area, then McMaster's allegations (and our "mental gymnastics") may lead us to discover

some actual documentation of these unusual assertions.

The same goes for Lucy Smith's allegations, that her son was telling about the ancient

inhabitants of the Americas, the animals they rode about on, etc., even before Alvin

died. What if we were to use that information to help uncover a long-forgotten letter

of a Smith neighbor who overheard some of those same story tellings from young

Joseph, and who subsequently wrote them down?

Wouldn't we all agree that such a discovery was a useful outcome of "mental gymnastics?"

The late Rev. Wesley Walters accomplished this sort of a task when he uncovered

the 1826 Albert Neeley "glass-looker" bill and the 1842 J. K. Noble letter.

Should we stop looking for any more such useful historical documentation and

just waste our time with MB "mental gymnastics?"

UD

[ttribe]

Should we stop looking for any more such useful historical documentation and

just waste our time with MB "mental gymnastics?"

UD

That's clearly not what I was talking about.

[Mike Reed]

When did I refuse to engage in something you proposed (in a cowardly fashion, no less)?

See your post above.

I take it that you aren't familiar with the difficulties in maintaining a fraud into perpetuity.

Nah... I don't think it would have been difficult at all, especially when we are talking about only a couple people involved, who were willing (at times) to swear penalty-oaths. Besides... Joyce Heth--an elderly black woman whom Phineas T. Barnum (during the 1830s) claimed was a 161 year-old slave who had raised George Washington as a young boy--never revealed the hoax. Why do you think that is?

[DrW]

And the gymnastics continue....

ttribe,

Regarding the gymnastics over largely irrelevant points about how the Book of Mormon was generated, I agree with you. The minute details are beside the point, and since the authors of the Book of Mormon have chosen not to actually tell us how this was done, speculation is of little value.

The relevant points are these:

There is credible, peer reviewed and published evidence that Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery were the primary authors of substantial portions of the Book of Mormon text. Yet, in the surviving accounts of the process used, we are not told specifically how this authorship was accomplished.

And why would we expect otherwise? These three individuals, and possibly others, were (to be very kind) being less than honest regarding the provenance of the Book of Mormon.

And yet this hypothesis is consistent with, and supported by, a great deal of objective physical evidence.

For example, there is no objective evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith could even recognize, let alone translate, ancient languages. There is ample evidence that he tried to deceitfully convince others that he could.

In the above mentioned paper, we find Solomon Spaulding as a high probability author of portions of the text, another peer physical peer reviewed piece of evidence supporting the claim of deceit by Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery.

I won't go into the laundry list of objective evidence that support the claim that the Book of Mormon is not as represented by the Church and Joseph Smith. It is long indeed, and we have both seen it.

At the end of the day, we have situation wherein the overwhelming weight of relevant, objective, evidence generated by qualified and disinterested third parties, supports the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is not as claimed by Joseph Smith and the Church.

In light of this fact, I can agree with UD and others who have indicated that the details of exactly how this fraud was perpetrated can only be matters of speculation and are therefore of relatively little interest.

[Mike Reed]

ttribe,

Regarding the gymnastics over largely irrelevant points about how the Book of Mormon was generated, I agree with you. The ... speculation is of little value.

Then speculations are indeed of value when debunking the claim that it would have been extremely difficult (if not impossible) for Joseph Smith to have pulled off the hoax (ie. because Emma claimed there was no other text in the room). As I have explained, there are several ways that Joseph Smith could have pulled such a hoax off, without the knowledge of Emma.

Understand that my "sepculations" were in response to this remark from ttribe:

Please. The room they were in was barely bigger than my bathroom. Where'd he put that Bible and "other text" when they weren't translating? Still behind the sheet you say? Well, I'm guessing they would still be pretty visible as light went through the room. Not to mention the fact that at least one of his scribes LIVED WITH HIM - you know her name - Emma. Her testimony of the translation rebukes most of this conjecture...unless you're going to hop on the "Emma was lying" bandwagon.

[ttribe]

See your post above.

Your response wasn't to me. You quoted a poster named "Theus". How was I to know you were talking to me?

Nah... I don't think it would have been difficult at all, especially when we are talking about only a couple people involved, who were willing (at times) to swear penalty-oaths. Besides... Joyce Heth--an elderly black woman whom Phineas T. Barnum (during the 1830s) claimed was a 161 year-old slave who had raised George Washington as a young boy--never revealed the hoax. Why do you think that is?

Probably because she had a vested interest to continue it (most likely money or celebrity). Tell you what, since you are so dismissive of my point (at least as much as you accuse me of being), why don't you find me an example of a conspiratorial fraud (i.e. must include at least two people) which: 1) lasted for at least 15 years; 2) the vested interest to maintain the fraud significantly decreased through the disintegration of the relationships between/among the conspirators; and 3) outlived each and every one of its original founders. Why didn't just one of the conspirators ever point the finger at another?

[Uncle Dale]

...without the knowledge of Emma.

It is also possible that Emma lied about some early events, just as she later lied

to us Reorganized LDS, assuring us that there was no polygamy at Nauvoo and

that her son Joseph III was justified in reorganizing the Church, to save us from

Brigham Young and his evil, polygamous apostates.

William Law knew Emma well and did not speak highly of her honesty.

Brigham Young asserted from the podium that there were witnesses present

at the time who could verify his claim that Emma tried to poison Joseph.

The letter sent from Nauvoo to the NY Sun, after Joseph's assassination.

documents Emma's disaffection from her husband's religion, even if she

was not its sender.

All in all, I truly believe that we need to question Emma's reliability -- to about

the same degree we might question that of D.P. Hurlbut or E.D. Howe.

Mormons have spent too many decades separated from the Emma tradition

and the preserved Emma documents, to comprehend her possible unreliability.

UD

[ttribe]

ttribe,

Regarding the gymnastics over largely irrelevant points about how the Book of Mormon was generated, I agree with you. The minute details are beside the point, and since the authors of the Book of Mormon have chosen not to actually tell us how this was done, speculation is of little value.

The relevant points are these:

There is credible, peer reviewed and published evidence that Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery were the primary authors of substantial portions of the Book of Mormon text. Yet, in the surviving accounts of the process used, we are not told specifically how this authorship was accomplished.

Correlation DNE causation. Day one - beginning stats.

And why would we expect otherwise? These three individuals, and possibly others, were (to be very kind) being less than honest regarding the provenance of the Book of Mormon.

How do you know these three individuals were less than honest?

And yet this hypothesis is consistent with, and supported by, a great deal of objective physical evidence.

Perhaps...perhaps not. Metholodigical tampering happens all the time in research.

For example, there is no objective evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith could even recognize, let alone translate, ancient languages. There is ample evidence that he tried to deceitfully convince others that he could.

I suspect you are referring to the Kinderhook Plates and the BoA. Clearly, there is still a great deal of debate on these issues...enough for me to not take your absolute claims as verified fact.

In the above mentioned paper, we find Solomon Spaulding as a high probability author of portions of the text, another peer physical peer reviewed piece of evidence supporting the claim of deceit by Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery.

Seriously...have you read the Spaulding manuscript?

I won't go into the laundry list of objective evidence that support the claim that the Book of Mormon is not as represented by the Church and Joseph Smith. It is long indeed, and we have both seen it.

Much of which is speculative.

At the end of the day, we have situation wherein the overwhelming weight of relevant, objective, evidence generated by qualified and disinterested third parties, supports the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is not as claimed by Joseph Smith and the Church.

At the end of the day, I went asked God about it...He answered...whom shall I listen to? God, or an arrogant anonymous poster on the Internet?

Additionally, how do you know all the parties you cite are, in fact, disinterested?

In light of this fact, I can agree with

UD

and others who have indicated that the details of exactly how this fraud was perpetrated can only be matters of speculation and are therefore of relatively little interest.

Actually you've missed two points entirely:

1) My reference to mental gymnastics has nothing to do with the process of investigation. Rather, it has to do with the use of speculation as EVIDENCE in support of a conclusion. Something critics go nuts on us about if an apologist does anything like that. I was pointing out hypocrisy.

2) The "how" of the fraud is, indeed, important to the question at hand insofar as we attempt to evaluate the plausibilty of all possible explanations. That you are dismissive of this factor shows one of two things: 1. you don't understand fraud; and/or 2. you don't like addressing contrary evidence.

[DrW]

Then speculations are indeed of value when debunking the claim that it would have been extremely difficult (if not impossible) for Joseph Smith to have pulled off the hoax (ie. because Emma claimed there was no other text in the room). As I have explained, there are several ways that Joseph Smith could have pulled such a hoax off, without the knowledge of Emma.

Okay. I agree. What I should have said is that, without further evidence, all such speculation remains just that.

On the other hand, it is possible to address the central question of "fraud or magic " by looking at relevant, objective, physical evidence generated by qualified, disinterested third parties.

[Mike Reed]

It is also possible that Emma lied about some early events, just as she later lied

to us Reorganized LDS, assuring us that there was no polygamy at Nauvoo and

that her son Joseph III was justified in reorganizing the Church, to save us from

Brigham Young and his evil, polygamous apostates.

Good point. I agree.

[DrW]

ttribe said: "At the end of the day, I went asked God about it...He answered...whom shall I listen to? God, or an arrogant anonymous poster on the Internet?"

Given God's track record, I would probably go with the arrogant poster, but that's just me.

[ttribe]

It is also possible that Emma lied about some early events, just as she later lied

to us Reorganized LDS, assuring us that there was no polygamy at Nauvoo and

that her son Joseph III was justified in reorganizing the Church, to save us from

Brigham Young and his evil, polygamous apostates.

William Law knew Emma well and did not speak highly of her honesty.

Brigham Young asserted from the podium that there were witnesses present

at the time who could verify his claim that Emma tried to poison Joseph.

The letter sent from Nauvoo to the NY Sun, after Joseph's assassination.

documents Emma's disaffection from her husband's religion, even if she

was not its sender.

All in all, I truly believe that we need to question Emma's reliability -- to about

the same degree we might question that of D.P. Hurlbut or E.D. Howe.

Mormons have spent too many decades separated from the Emma tradition

and the preserved Emma documents, to comprehend her possible unreliability.

UD

At least you are honest and will come out and call her a liar. I'm not saying I agree with you, but at least you don't try to dodge the issue on this one.

[ttribe]

ttribe said: "At the end of the day, I went asked God about it...He answered...whom shall I listen to? God, or an arrogant anonymous poster on the Internet?"

Given God's track record, I would probably go with the arrogant poster, but that's just me.

That was substantive.