A Challenge to Critics

[ttribe]

You are accusing someone of fraud, and cannot offer any logical method in how that fraud was committed. Critics throw out a few possible explanations, then retire thinking the mystery is solved. But those explanations just don't work.

That's funny I think I said something very similar here: Post Link

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.

Don't hold your breath Brenda.

[ttribe]

As to science discrediting the BoM and PoGP, I have been asked for the evidence and am preparing a post. It will be long and ugly.

Suggestion - don't do you like you did with the Ether/boat thing and so badly distort our beliefs that they become unrecognizable straw men.

[DrW]

Suggestion - don't do you like you did with the Ether/boat thing and so badly distort our beliefs that they become unrecognizable straw men.

ttribe,

How did I distort your beliefs (Mormon beliefs) when posting about the Jaredite journey? I will admit that my initial post on that thread was long, but every statement I made in the long post was fact and could be backed with data.

I would guess that it made you uncomfortable because you had never seen many of the issues raised before. It was not how you were accostomed to seeing the "data" presented.

There may well have been challenges to your (Mormon) beliefs, but there were no distortions of fact or factual errors in that post. That post resulted from hundreds of hours of work, including a couple of trips to the purported launch area, two years in the GCC, a trip to Iran, many months in Israel, and some two weeks time along the coast and on the waters of the Gulf of Oman. I would guess that the post represented less than half of the notes I have on the subject. None of them support the Jaredite trip as described in Book of Ether.

I seriously doubt that anyone else on this board, or indeed anyone else in the Church, has spent the time, study, current and drift calculations, ocean sailing time, and onsite research that went into that post.

You might claim that the whole enterprise was a waste of time. An as it turned out, I would have to agree to a large extent. It was like chasing ghosts. There was not one single aspect of the whole story that could be correlated with ground truth, including academic research on Mesopotamian shipbuilding in the relevant time period.

If you are going to accuse me of distorting of your religion or the facts, the least you could do would be to provide an example or two.

[DrW]

You are accusing someone of fraud, and cannot offer any logical method in how that fraud was committed. Critics throw out a few possible explanations, then retire thinking the mystery is solved. But those explanations just don't work.

Example: He has secret compartments hidden his hat in which he keeps written material from which he reads to the scribe. And this is so that the scribe will be fooled into thinking the words are coming from a rock?

He painstakingly and secretly builds a metal breastplate, to pass off as some kind of ancient device, then hardly shows it to anyone for fear they'll discover it's a fake.

He also secretly creates tin plates complete with engravings, passes them off as gold, and fools 11 men who each saw and "hefted" them.

He, unschooled, age 21-22, writes the 500+-page BoM in a few months (possibly with the help of others, none of whom ever spoke up and admitted anything, even though some left the Church).

None of these make any sense to me.

Brenda,

Don't know where you are getting your information. The witnesses who initially claimed to have actually "seen" the plates later admitted that they had seen them with "spiritual eyes" not with physical eyes. Nobody saw any gold plates, because there were none.

[Uncle Dale]

You are accusing someone of fraud

...

I think that "accusing someone of fraud" is a little different than coming to

the personal conclusion that the person engaged in fraud.

If I say that Benedict Arnold was a traitor to the U.S.A., I'd better

be able to cite some reliable evidence for that claim. And, if I make

the claim to General Arnold's descendants or latter day supporters,

I'd better be able to provide considerable compelling evidence of that fact.

Same thing goes for Joseph Smith.

If I say that he was a fraud in his religious assertions, I'd better be able

to cite some reliable evidence for my claim. In my case I compile entire

web-sites containing transcriptions & images of many historical sources;

so, I generally am able to back up my claims, if I state them carefully.

However, if I merely give my opinion, that Smith was dishonest in some

of his activities and/or statements, I need not produce a great stack of

evidence, just to back up that opinion. You might ask me to do so, and

I might try and comply --- but stating an opinion is something requiring

less back-up evidence, than stating what is meant to be taken as a fact.

Let's try another example. Among the Reorganized LDS it is practically

heresy or apostasy to claim that Joseph Smith, Jr. had sexual relations

with any other woman than Emma. Such "evidence" is very difficult to

obtain, authenticate and present to Smith monogamy-defenders.

Therefore, when arguing this matter with my Reorganized brethren, I

usually "aim a little lower" and merely attempt to provide them with

evidence that Smith was "sealed" to many women. After accomplishing

THAT task, I state my opinion, that Smith was a practicing polygamist.

The RLDS still call me a terrible defamer of Joseph the Seer's reputation,

but they generally do not question the evidence I present, and thus I'm

able to walk away from such confrontations with my own reputation for

careful scholarship intact.

Make any sense?

UD

[Joseph Antley]

Brenda,

Don't know where you are getting your information. The witnesses who initially claimed to have actually "seen" the plates later admitted that they had seen them with "spiritual eyes" not with physical eyes. Nobody saw any gold plates, because there were none.

The Witnesses didn't later "admit" to anything; such phrasing is a gross misrepresentation.

And as far as I know, the only witness who is reported to have used the phrase "spiritual eyes" was Martin Harris. None of which we have in his own words, only second-hand reports. Obviously the appearance of the angel, plates, and artifacts was a spiritual vision so I am confused why people draw such objections to the Witnesses using spiritual language to describe it. After all, the original published statement said, "[the plates] have been shewn unto us by the power of God, and not of man".

The draw the conclusion that no plates existed because Harris and Whitmer described the event in spiritual terms is, well, silly--especially considering the many others who claimed to have seen or felt them. If Joseph didn't have an actual ancient book, he definitely had something that could pass as a Nephite record.

"No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" (David Whitmer, Interview with Joseph Smith III et al. (Richmond, Missouri, July 1884))

[Abulafia]

Just a few questions, because I have become intrigued by references in the reading I have been doing over the last couple of days to:

1) The possible use of entheogens in the creation and utilisation of religious experience

2) The use of hypnotic techniques (yes I havn't given that one up yet)

as they refer to the questions that Joseph posed above.

Have any apologists looked into the lives of people like Luman Walters, Black Pete and some of the Indian chiefs in order to explore the possible influence they had on Joseph and his family?

What evidence is there that Joseph's parents Lucy and Joseph Sr, were aware of/and used entheogens?

What evidence is there that Joseph's parents or family were familiar with the use of the Datura Plant, Peyote, or Amanita Muscari?

How available were these substances? Is there a tradition of their use in occult practices such as the ones that Joseph and his family were engaged in with regard to treasure digging and looking into peep stones?

What evidence is there that Lucy and Joseph were familiar with herbs and their uses for 'medicinal' purposes such as pain relief?

We know that Joseph Sr, was cultivating ginseng. What was ginseng used for in this period?

Were there any pain relief medications used in child birth at this time, if so what? Did it have other applications?

We are told that Alvin died of an overdose of calomel. Who administered this? Was he/she a reputable doctor?

What infact did Alvin die of?

I'm taking it for granted that unlike today, there were no laws against the use of entheogens and other drugs, and that in a time when the medical profession was still developing, people would look to a variety of sources for the cure and management of illness, mental disease, and pain. Has any apologist looked into this as it applies to Joseph's family?

Has any apologist seriously responded to Beckstead's article on the possible use of hallucinogens, other than just call it out as completely ridiculous?

Sorry if the questions are muddled.

Mary

[DrW]

Nope, can't have it both ways. He either is a deluded genious, or a clumsy fool. A fool can't produce the BoM. A genious wouldn't have made such a clumsy mistake.

Brenda,

Which of these two alternatives would apply to Joseph Smith's revelation (or teachings if you wish) regarding Adam ondi Ahman?

About Adam ondi Ahmen from FAIRS:

Introduction

As the official LDS church website points out, "The doctrinal tenets of any religion are best understood within a broad context and thoughtful analysis is required to understand them. ... Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. ...

A common mistake is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Churchâ??s purpose and placing it at the very center. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."[1]

LDS concepts and perspectives

It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradisiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden*.

____________________________

*Since Adam ondi Ahmen is located only about 6000 miles and an ocean away from the biblical setting for Genesis, who could have any real doubts about this teaching?

[ttribe]

ttribe,

How did I distort your beliefs (Mormon beliefs) when posting about the Jaredite journey? I will admit that my initial post on that thread was long, but every statement I made in the long post was fact and could be backed with data.

Oh quit playing coy...it doesn't become you. How many times did I point out that you were basing your analysis on strict interpretations of wording that were rooted more in LDS folklore than in real doctrine? For that matter, I managed to come up with proof that your strict use of the term "barges" was incorrect, even in the 19th century, let alone earlier.

"Buried in the depths of the sea" DNE "submarine"

"Barge" DNE "Unpowered"

"344 days" DNE "Never stopped"

"Tight like unto a dish" DNE "Shaped like a flying saucer"

I would guess that it made you uncomfortable because you had never seen many of the issues raised before. It was not how you were accostomed to seeing the "data" presented.

And you would be guessing wrong.

There may well have been challenges to your (Mormon) beliefs, but there were no distortions of fact or factual errors in that post.

Quit with your patronizing attitude. You love to apply the strictest interpretations possible to words and then build your arguments based on misrepresentation of what we actually believe. It's your pattern.

That post resulted from hundreds of hours of work, including a couple of trips to the purported launch area, two years in the GCC, a trip to Iran, many months in Israel, and some two weeks time along the coast and on the waters of the Gulf of Oman. I would guess that the post represented less than half of the notes I have on the subject. None of them support the Jaredite trip as described in Book of Ether.

I'm sure it was all very interesting. Too bad your "research" was based on a boat-load (pun intended) of false premises.

I seriously doubt that anyone else on this board, or indeed anyone else in the Church, has spent the time, study, current and drift calculations, ocean sailing time, and onsite research that went into that post.

Are you hoping we all stand up and chear now?

You might claim that the whole enterprise was a waste of time. An as it turned out, I would have to agree to a large extent. It was like chasing ghosts. There was not one single aspect of the whole story that could be correlated with ground truth, including academic research on Mesopotamian shipbuilding in the relevant time period.

How can traveling around the world and seeing some of the most interesting sights in history ever be considered a "waste of time"? I wouldn't say that.

If you are going to accuse me of distorting of your religion or the facts, the least you could do would be to provide an example or two.

Done, multiple times already. You seem to have a short memory.

[Joseph Antley]

Too bad your "research" was based on a boat-load (pun intended) of false premises.

[DrW]

Oh quit playing coy...it doesn't become you. How many times did I point out that you were basing your analysis on strict interpretations of wording that were rooted more in LDS folklore than in real doctrine? For that matter, I managed to come up with proof that your strict use of the term "barges" was incorrect, even in the 19th century, let alone earlier.

"Buried in the depths of the sea" DNE "submarine"

"Barge" DNE "Unpowered"

"344 days" DNE "Never stopped"

"Tight like unto a dish" DNE "Shaped like a flying saucer"

And you would be guessing wrong.

Quit with your patronizing attitude. You love to apply the strictest interpretations possible to words and then build your arguments based on misrepresentation of what we actually believe. It's your pattern.

I'm sure it was all very interesting. Too bad your "research" was based on a boat-load (pun intended) of false premises.

Are you hoping we all stand up and chear now?

How can traveling around the world and seeing some of the most interesting cites in history ever be considered a "waste of time"? I wouldn't say that.

Done, multiple times already. You seem to have a short memory.

ttribe,

You must be thinking of someone else or another discussion. Here are the facts:

"Buried in the depths of the sea" DNE "submarine" => The term used was semi-submersible, which means that it was designed to be capable of having water wash completely over the decks to some depth without swamping (i.e.)sloped decks with no open ports or hatches, thus allowing it to be buried in the depths of the sea.

"Barge" DNE "Unpowered" => Correct. No power was mentioned and as I have explained, the other design features of the barge precluded sail or oar power, and you did not apparently did not like the nuclear option.

"344 days" DNE "Never stopped" => As even your believing sailing expert acknowledged, stop-overs would require power. These vessels had none. So yes, no stops.

"Tight like unto a dish" DNE "Shaped like a flying saucer" => Come on. I never said "flying saucer" and you know it. Tight like unto a dish means water-tight hull and decks. That is all I said and I am sure you can agree.

[ttribe]

ttribe,

You must be thinking of someone else or another discussion. Here are the facts:

"Buried in the depths of the sea" DNE "submarine" => The term used was semi-submersible, which means that it was designed to be capable of having water wash completely over the decks to some depth without swamping (i.e.)sloped decks with no open ports or hatches, thus allowing it to be buried in the depths of the sea.

"Barge" DNE "Unpowered" => Correct. No power was mentioned and as I have explained, the other design features of the barge precluded sail or oar power, and you did not apparently did not like the nuclear option.

"344 days" DNE "Never stopped" => As even your believing sailing expert acknowledged, stop-overs would require power. These vessels had none. So yes, no stops.

"Tight like unto a dish" DNE "Shaped like a flying saucer" => Come on. I never said "flying saucer" and you know it. Tight like unto a dish means water-tight hull and decks. That is all I said and I am sure you can agree.

I'm not going to have these same arguments with you over and over again. I don't subscribe to your interpretation of the text, and only the strictest possible reading even could.

[Tchild2]

I'm not going to have these same arguments with you over and over again. I don't subscribe to your interpretation of the text, and only the strictest possible reading even could.

I don't get it. DrW has interpreted the text exactly as it is written. Can you show where DrW has strayed from the text...or do you just not like the obvious conclusions?

[ttribe]

I don't get it. DrW has interpreted the text exactly as it is written. Can you show where DrW has strayed from the text...or do you just not like the obvious conclusions?

Read again what I said - it is the strictest possible interpretation of the reading, not "straying" that I object to.

Please don't accuse me of selective acceptance of conclusions just based on what I do or don't "like". I should hope you know me better than that.

[DrW]

I'm not going to have these same arguments with you over and over again. I don't subscribe to your interpretation of the text, and only the strictest possible reading even could.

As long as you are not going to go by the text as revealed and written, why not just embrace the nuclear power option? It solves any number of other problems with the story.

[ttribe]

As long as you are not going to go by the text as revealed and written, why not just embrace the nuclear power option? It solves any number of other problems with the story.

Strawman via reductio absurdum (Link), but nice try.

[DrW]

Strawman via reductio absurdum (Link), but nice try.

ttribe,

I was simply suggesting that since you seem to want to assume features of the story not in evidence, why not just assume nuclear power? This was meant for your benefit. As you already noted, I tend to go with a strict interpretation of the text.

And by the way, does it not seem a bit disingenuous to accuse me of a boatlaod of false premises while characterizing my interpretation of the text as too strict? Which is it?

Anyway, why don't we get back to the thread subject?

There are several unanswered posts from yesterday and earlier today.

These include JSJ and magic mushrooms and JSJ and Adam ondi Ahman.

I am particularly interested in finding out from Brenda (or anyone) whether it was the genius or the fool (Brenda's characterization, not mine) who came up with Adam ondi Ahman. In fact, any reasonable explanation for Adam ondi Ahmen would be useful.

According to FAIRS, it is just one of those pesky revelations to which we should pay little or attention.

What say you?

[Joseph Antley]

According to FAIRS, it is just one of those pesky revelations to which we should pay little or attention.

Call for reference.

[ttribe]

ttribe,

I was simply suggesting that since you seem to want to assume features of the story not in evidence, why not just assume nuclear power?

Why would I need to assume features not in evidence and resort to the nuclear power option when the scriptures state plainly that the boats were wind powered - Ether 6: 5-8?

This was meant for your benefit.

More patronizing...what fun.

As you already noted, I tend to go with a strict interpretation of the text.

And by the way, does it not seem a bit disingenuous to accuse me of a boatlaod of false premises while characterizing my interpretation of the text as too strict? Which is it?

It is BY your strictness that you create false premises - barge MUST BE un-powered; "buried in the depths of the sea" MUST mean below the general surface of the ocean and not large waves, etc. Not one of those things is a requirement of the story.

Anyway, why don't we get back to the thread subject?

There are several unanswered posts from yesterday and earlier today.

These include JSJ and magic mushrooms and JSJ and Adam ondi Ahman.

I am particularly interested in finding out from Brenda (or anyone) whether it was the genius or the fool (Brenda's characterization, not mine) who came up with Adam ondi Ahman. In fact, any reasonable explanation for Adam ondi Ahmen would be useful.

According to FAIRS, it is just one of those pesky revelations to which we should pay little or attention.

What say you?

Frankly, I would have to research both issues to answer your questions. If someone else doesn't do it in the next day or so, I'll give it a shot.

[Mike Reed]

You're not getting my point. Joseph's claims are hard to believe. Anybody can see that. So IF he made it all up, why would he purposely make it hard to believe by adding all that stuff to it? Why not make up a story that is MORE believable, by leaving out the angels, plates, etc.?

I am afraid that it is you who is missing the point. My point (by pointing our your double-talk) is that some gullible people have a tendency to believe hoaxes, simply because of the elaborate (and unnecessary) details existing in a story. Frauds have sometimes taken advantage of such tendencies. If you'd like to learn more about this, I'd suggest that you read The Arts of Deception: Playing with Fraud in the Age of Barnum, by James W. Cook.

Then there is also the possibility that Joseph Smith's story may have actually evolved from a secret quasi-Masonic ritual (which included a breastplate, sword, digging for a sacred record/treasure, and a person who played the role of an angel). This could explain the exotic props that Smith had in his posession. When I get around to it, I will explore this possibility further.

2. He DID make it up, but is extreming stupid for make it LESS believable by adding the angels, plates, etc.

I don't think that it would have been stupid at all. After all... the extra details (by your own admission) makes the story more believable to you.

[DrW]

Call for reference.

Already provided in post #183 above in this thread.

Text was copied and pasted from FAIRS as indicated.

[DrW]

Why would I need to assume features not in evidence and resort to the nuclear power option when the scriptures state plainly that the boats were wind powered - Ether 6: 5-8?

More patronizing...what fun.

It BY your strictness that you create false premises - barge MUST BE un-powered; "buried in the depths of the sea" MUST mean below the general surface of the ocean and not large waves, etc. Not one of those things is a requirement of the story.

Frankly, I would have to research both issues to answer your questions. If someone else doesn't do it in the next day or so, I'll give it a shot.

ttribe,

I would not recommend that you try to convince anyone who knows anything about sailing that the wind against the hull or freeboard of a vessel makes that vessel powered. In order to be wind-powered, a vessel must have some type of sail or other airfoil.

[ttribe]

ttribe,

I would not recommend that you try to convince anyone who knows anything about sailing that the wind against the hull or freeboard of a vessel makes that vessel powered. In order to be wind-powered, a vessel must have some type of sail or other airfoil.

Why must you be so repetitive? I know your position on the general shape of the vessels and the whys - all of which rely on your strictness. I've already told you I've seen a functional model with a sail. Is it really that hard for you to remember where I am coming from on the subject?

[Brenda]

I am afraid that it is you who is missing the point. My point (by pointing our your double-talk) is that some gullible people have a tendency to believe hoaxes, simply because of the elaborate (and unnecessary) details existing in a story. Frauds have sometimes taken advantage of such tendencies. If you'd like to learn more about this, I'd suggest that you read The Arts of Deception: Playing with Fraud in the Age of Barnum, by James W. Cook.

Then there is also the possibility that Joseph Smith's story may have actually evolved from a secret quasi-Masonic ritual (which included a breastplate, sword, digging for a sacred record/treasure, and a person who played the role of an angel). This could explain the exotic props that Smith had in his posession. When I get around to it, I will explore this possibility further.

I don't think that it would have been stupid at all. After all... the extra details (by your own admission) makes the story more believable to you.

But it doesn't make it more believable for me. Your logic is what I'm struggling with. I just don't see any reason in adding that stuff to an already fantastic story. It just made a lot more work for him--when he had to spend all his time just getting by, and made it harder to sell.

And don't you think those men knew the difference between tin and gold? We've often heard the argument that it was all too convenient that the plates disappeared from public scrutiny. Okay, I can see that. But why have them in the first place? Too risky. Joseph had been betrayed a number of times by "friends". He knew that a friend's loyalty can come and go. So why put himself in such a vulnerable position by passing off phony plates. All it would take would be someone getting ahold of them and he'd be ruined.

[Mike Reed]

But it doesn't make it more believable for me.

Yes it does. Which is why you said, "The only thing that makes sense is that he didn't make it up, OR his whole concoction would have been a whole lot less fantastic."

Your logic is what I'm struggling with. I just don't see any reason in adding that stuff to an already fantastic story. It just made a lot more work for him--when he had to spend all his time just getting by, and made it harder to sell.

Like I said... some people have a tendency to believe elaborate hoaxes, simply because of the existence of elaborate (unnecessary) details contained therein. Emmanuel Sweedenborg (although I wouldn't necessary identify him as a fraud), for example, gave extremely detailed explanations of the visions he reportedly had. His reports were so extremely detailed about things that were seemingly unnecessary, that the inclusion of such details (to the minds of some) actually added to his credibility. Consider also that Phineas T. Barnum had a public autopsy of Joyce Heth (whom he claimed to be a 161 year-old slave woman who had raised George Washington as a young boy) inviting physicians and students to verify her age. It you want to talk about the unnecessary risks that frauds are willing to take, I think this example trumps Smith's (having a few props).

Again... I highly suggest that you read The Arts of Deception: Playing with Fraud in the Age of Barnum, by James W. Cook.

And don't you think those men knew the difference between tin and gold?

I don't think they had a chance to look at the plates very closely.

We've often heard the argument that it was all too convenient that the plates disappeared from public scrutiny. Okay, I can see that. But why have them in the first place? Too risky.

I don't agree. See my previous explanation, including my current theory (which I hope to later develop) about Smith's story evolving from his involvement in a quasi-Masonic ritual.

All it would take would be someone getting ahold of them and he'd be ruined.

Which is perhaps why he guarded them so closely... and even told people that if he allowed people to see the plates, God would strike him dead. A little suspicious, don't you think?