Jockers et al

[maklelan]

Craig Criddle's presentation at the 2009 ex mormon conference, as available on video, is more convincing and succinct than all of the apologist's theories and rationalizations combined regarding the provenance of the BoM.

By all means, please elaborate.

[canterdogs]

This could not be any more irrelevant. We're discussing the 11 witnesses here. As I predicted, you only tried to make something else stick to the wall. I don't appreciate taking the time to explain things only to have my comments ignored. If you can't even show me enough respect to acknowledge my concerns with your points, then we're done here.

Although some witnesses, like Whitmer, were excommunicated from the mainline church, they joined other groups that relied on the BoM. What would recanting their testimonies profit them? The fact that they became disaffected with the Utah church is not evidence that their testimonies are valid. Especially when you realize that they joined other groups that held to the BoM. You wouldn't expect them to recant their testimonies. The fact remains that the witnesses include Joseph's family and associates. These are hardly objective witnesses. I don't know how this is irrelevant.

Why couldn't Joseph show the plates to objective witnesses? This is completely unexplainable. The fact that it could only be shown to his family and close associates smacks fraud. I'm sorry but that's the only obvious and reasonable conclusion one can reach.

[44Foxtrot]

Until the majority of them became disenchanted and fought against the church, going so far as to aid his imprisonment. In spite of this, not a one of them ever recanted, despite being vehemently urged to do so by their own family and associates. Whether or not this supports the veracity of their testimony, it certainly complicates your notion that their relationship to Smith undermines their testimony. Care to respond, or are you just going to throw something else at the wall in the hopes that it will stick?

Honesty, I never understood why this fact is supposed to support the LDS narrative of the BoM. If the witnesses had actually seen the Book of Mormon, and believed in its supernatural origin, why would they ever leave the Church?

The more likely reason why none ever denied their testimony (if in fact they did not) is as follows:

Nobody wants to admit that they have lied or been duped, especially when they believe that it is still possible to maintain what is left of their reputation or make a buck by sticking with the original story.

[canterdogs]

canterdos is obviously behind on the history behind the spalding manuscript, which isn't a surprise since he's following Criddle, who completely fumbles the historical aspect of the study (because getting it right would destroy the enterprise from the very start of course.)

To be clear I haven't taken a position on spalding manuscript. And i have made it clear that I look forward to reading the published reply.

I have stated that I do find Craig Criddle to be convincing. I think he's an honest person, very intelligent, a good scholar. I do find some of the FARMS scholars very hard to swallow - e.g. Sperry. Many of the ex Mormons also believe Hugh Nibley was intellectually dishonest. I don't know whether this is true. But, to be honest, I'm inclined to believe them.

[maklelan]

Although some witnesses, like Whitmer, were excommunicated from the mainline church, they joined other groups that relied on the BoM. What would recanting their testimonies profit them?

Which other witnesses, specifically, adhered to Book of Mormon-based churches, and how do you respond to all the others that did not adhere to Book of Mormon-based churches? Citing Whitmer does not make the other 10 go away.

The fact that they became disaffected with the Utah church is not evidence that their testimonies are valid.

Which is why I stated that I brought it up not to address the validity of their testimony, but to address only your claims. Pay better attention.

Especially when you realize that they joined other groups that held to the BoM.

Who is "they"? Be specific, please.

You wouldn't expect them to recant their testimonies.

We wouldn't expect any of them to recant their testimonies?

The fact remains that the witnesses include Joseph's family and associates. These are hardly objective witnesses. I don't know how this is irrelevant.

I've explained it, and you've used vagaries to try to extend your argument over more of the 11 than it actually covers. Then you've just ignored the other witnesses that don't fit into your paradigm.

Why couldn't Joseph show the plates to objective witnesses?

There were no disinterested third parties at this point in time, and their relationship to Joseph in no way impugns their objectivity. It may give cause for further consideration, but it does not undermine their testimony.

This is completely unexplainable. The fact that it could only be shown to his family and close associates smacks fraud. I'm sorry but that's the only obvious and reasonable conclusion one can reach.

Only if one doesn't know much about Mormon history.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The more likely reason why none ever denied their testimony (if in fact they did not) is as follows:

Nobody wants to admit that they have lied or been duped, especially when they believe that it is still possible to maintain what is left of their reputation or make a buck by sticking with the original story.

I would love for you to actually demonstrate this.

As I recall most fraud readly admit that it is a fraud when the going gets tough.

And you would need to ask them why the left the church. There are numerous reason that poeple do it.

[44Foxtrot]

By all means, please elaborate.

First of all, I would ask if you have seen Craig's presentation. Assuming that you have, you have seen several features of the overall model that are important to scientists and are conspicuously absent from the LDS and LDS apologist narrative regarding the provenance of the BoM. These include:

Explanatory power with available data on the specific subject: As you would have seen in the video, the model accounts for the known facts regarding the BoM. They were able to put together author attribution that matched very well with the known chronology and personalities involved in production of the book. They were able to show that, indeed, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding did cross paths before the BoM was written, and that Rigdon would have had access to the Spaulding work Manuscript Found.

Occam's razor or parsimony: With this simple model, all of the requirements for magic, suppositions and rationalizations of apologists, and seemingly inexplicable behaviors of Joseph Smith and his associates becomes suddenly and simply clear. That is, the model that Criddle presented in terms of authorship attribution is not only simple, it explains with one logical assumption, what is unexplainable by apologists.

Consistency with data in a wider context: With the Criddle / Jockers model, the reason for not even having the "gold plates" in the house while "translation" was going on, and why Joseph Smith engaged in polygamy, and why the copyright in Canada was sought for the book all become clear.

Predictive power: Once the Criddle Group understood what was going on, they were able to use their model to successfully predict the outcome of other statistical analyses of their data set.

[canterdogs]

no disinterest third parties? As if they couldn't have been taken to the appropriate authorities and their authenticity as ancient documents verified. Surely the writing on plates could be have been taken down by scribes to be later verified by scholarship. (I am aware a Columbia university academic looked at something that was purported to be copied from the plates) If one were to make such a discovery today, this is exactly what we would expect. I agree that this would not compel anyone to join the church, but at least then the church could claim the document has its origin in antiquity. Right now no one can be sure of its origin. there is absolutely no textual support for the plates' existence.

But now what of the Book of Jaraneck, written on plates and purporting to be a history of the ancient Britons? The plates are the the possession of prophet Matthew Gill, and he is not allowed to show these to anyone but his family and close associates. Sound familiar? How credible is this?

[maklelan]

Honesty, I never understood why this fact is supposed to support the LDS narrative of the BoM. If the witnesses had actually seen the Book of Mormon, and believed in its supernatural origin, why would they ever leave the Church?

I tried to be clear about this, but I did worry that I wasn't quite explicit enough. Please look this over again and tell me exactly why your comment is off-topic. I'll bold the relevant portion so no further confusion arises. Please let me know if I need to be any more clear:

Whether or not this supports the veracity of their testimony, it certainly complicates your notion that their relationship to Smith undermines their testimony.

The more likely reason why none ever denied their testimony (if in fact they did not) is as follows:

Nobody wants to admit that they have lied or been duped, especially when they believe that it is still possible to maintain what is left of their reputation or make a buck by sticking with the original story.

Cowdery lost multiple elections to public office because of his association with Mormonism and refusal to recant his testimony, even though he is said to have expressed regret and shame for his involvement in the movement. That doesn't seem like someone more concerned with their reputation than with the truth. Whitmer became quite prominent and wealthy on his own, independent of his church. Your argument seems more like a guess than an informed conclusion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Poor 44Fox. Hitching his wagon to a star that never really rose. I really can't wait for the full response to be published.

[Pahoran]

its good to be informed about both sides of the argument and then make a judgment. I don't think any statistical analyses will settle the issue of authorship. But it can shed some important light on the topic.

It would be good if Spalding's Manuscript Found could, well, be found. That would go some ways to settling the issue I believe. It may yet turn up somewhere.

It has been found; you don't have to wait for it to "turn up somewhere."

It is held by Oberlin College. The original title page is missing, and someone -- not Spaulding -- scrawled "Manuscript story - Conneaut Creek" on it in pencil; but it's Manuscript Found all right. No doubt about it.

There is not a shred of evidence that any other such manuscript ever existed, anywhere. The "second manuscript" is an ad hoc hypothetical artifact, conjured up to account for the fact that the real manuscript does not resemble the Book of Mormon.

At all.

But these studies are interesting nevertheless.

Oh yes. As an illustration of the lengths people will go to in their desperation to explain away the Book of Mormon, they are downright fascinating.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Oh yes. As an illustration of the lengths people will go to in their desperation to explain away the Book of Mormon, they are downright fascinating.

Regards,

Pahoran

All you have to do to win an argument is call the other person an "apologist." Then point out that you heard from someone out there that Hugh Nibley was dishonest. If you're lucky another confidently ignorant person will join in along side you in a chorus of ear-plugging tongue wagging. Neener neener.

[44Foxtrot]

Poor 44Fox. Hitching his wagon to a star that never really rose. I really can't wait for the full response to be published.

Here is the problem. For the scientific community to accept the LDS and LDS apologist narrative regarding the provenance of the BoM, they would have to accept that the book came about by supernatural means. We both know (I trust) that will never happen. Science does not play well with magic.

Unless the response that is published provides an alternative model or hypothesis that does not involve magic, the scientific community (at least the small minority who know or care about the BoM) is going to remain unimpressed. The rest will remain oblivious.

So, in the court of science and public opinion, Bruce has a real uphill battle. It is impossible that this will turn out well for the Book of Mormon. The best the Church could have done would have been to discourage any response in the peer reviewed literature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And the Church does not have it. Not even close.

[Pahoran]

Here is the problem. For the scientific community to accept the LDS and LDS apologist narrative regarding the provenance of the BoM, they would have to accept that the book came about by supernatural means. We both know (I trust) that will never happen.

You're right. We do.

That's because supernatural events cannot be tested in the lab.

Science does not play well with magic.

"Magic" is nowhere in view. "Magic" in this context is a meaningless pejorative. Anti-Mormons throw the "magic" epithet around to show that they are incapable of entering into a good faith discussion about LDS truth claims.

So now we know.

Unless the response that is published provides an alternative model or hypothesis that does not involve magic, the scientific community (at least the small minority who know or care about the BoM) is going to remain unimpressed.

You mean -- those who are determined to swallow any naturalistic camel, however far-fetched, will remain unimpressed?

Yes, we knew that too.

The rest will remain oblivious.

True.

So, in the court of science and public opinion, Bruce has a real uphill battle. It is impossible that this will turn out well for the Book of Mormon.

Oh, I don't know. The last failed attempt by this same little gang (with a slight change in personnel) to resuscitate the Spaulding zombie "theory" by playing fast and loose with handwriting analysis turned out rather well for the Book of Mormon.

The best the Church could have done would have been to discourage any response in the peer reviewed literature.

The best from your point of view, you mean. Because let's face it: the only way this attempt is going to turn out any differently from any of the others is if it doesn't get challenged.

You know that, and so do I.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And the Church does not have it. Not even close.

Are you really this dense?

We're not trying to provide "proof" of anything. We only have to hold the mirror up to the nose of this long-dead horse yet again.

You and your fellow Spaulding acolytes are the ones making extraordinary claims without the possibility of miraculous intervention.

Regards,

Pahoran

[maklelan]

First of all, I would ask if you have seen Craig's presentation. Assuming that you have, you have seen several features of the overall model that are important to scientists and are conspicuously absent from the LDS and LDS apologist narrative regarding the provenance of the BoM. These include:

Explanatory power with available data on the specific subject: As you would have seen in the video, the model accounts for the known facts regarding the BoM.

Actually it accounts for the conclusions of a specific model of the composition of the Book of Mormon. That model must undermine the testimony of Joseph's wife, for instance, regarding whether or not he had another text with him. It must suppose the existence of a second parallel manuscript being prepared for publication by Spalding that was unknown to his wife and never found. There are a number of others.

They were able to put together author attribution that matched very well with the known chronology and personalities involved in production of the book. They were able to show that, indeed, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding did cross paths before the BoM was written, and that Rigdon would have had access to the Spaulding work Manuscript Found.

And it still has to overlook problems with the notion of another manuscript.

Occam's razor or parsimony: With this simple model, all of the requirements for magic, suppositions and rationalizations of apologists,

How does one scientifically quantify the probability of specific supernatural events?

and seemingly inexplicable behaviors of Joseph Smith and his associates

Like what?

becomes suddenly and simply clear. That is, the model that Criddle presented in terms of authorship attribution is not only simple, it explains with one logical assumption, what is unexplainable by apologists.

Far more than one single assumption is taking place.

Consistency with data in a wider context: With the Criddle / Jockers model, the reason for not even having the "gold plates" in the house while "translation" was going on, and why Joseph Smith engaged in polygamy, and why the copyright in Canada was sought for the book all become clear.

How does Criddle's model specifically account for polygamy?

Predictive power: Once the Criddle Group understood what was going on, they were able to use their model to successfully predict the outcome of other statistical analyses of their data set.

That happens with tightly controlled data sets. How do they account for the fact that their data misidentified the author of Mosiah 14 (only two or three words away from a perfectly verbatim reproduction of the entirety of Isaiah 53) as Longfellow? Also, their model presupposes none of the ostensible authors were involved. What results would have surprised the Criddle Group, given their limited data set?

[maklelan]

Here is the problem. For the scientific community to accept the LDS and LDS apologist narrative regarding the provenance of the BoM, they would have to accept that the book came about by supernatural means. We both know (I trust) that will never happen. Science does not play well with magic.

Actually it simply doesn't play with the supernatural, period. The supernatural is, by definition and practice, outside science's purview.

Unless the response that is published provides an alternative model or hypothesis that does not involve magic, the scientific community (at least the small minority who know or care about the BoM) is going to remain unimpressed. The rest will remain oblivious.

I'm not personally interested in trying to prove by scientific means an event that is, by definition, irreconcilable with the scientific method.

So, in the court of science and public opinion, Bruce has a real uphill battle. It is impossible that this will turn out well for the Book of Mormon. The best the Church could have done would have been to discourage any response in the peer reviewed literature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And the Church does not have it. Not even close.

It has never claimed to have proof. That undermines faith, the foundation of the gospel.

[maklelan]

no disinterest third parties? As if they couldn't have been taken to the appropriate authorities and their authenticity as ancient documents verified.

That wasn't what Joseph was permitted to do, but, to respond directly, no. Who do you imagine to be the "appropriate authorities" in a situation like that, and what makes you think they would have been disinterested?

Also, I believe I asked a pretty direct question about other witnesses. Do you have a response?

Surely the writing on plates could be have been taken down by scribes to be later verified by scholarship. (I am aware a Columbia university academic looked at something that was purported to be copied from the plates) If one were to make such a discovery today, this is exactly what we would expect.

We live in quite a different world than Joseph Smith, on many levels, not least of which, the academic.

I agree that this would not compel anyone to join the church, but at least then the church could claim the document has its origin in antiquity. Right now no one can be sure of its origin. there is absolutely no textual support for the plates' existence.

Meh.

But now what of the Book of Jaraneck, written on plates and purporting to be a history of the ancient Britons? The plates are the the possession of prophet Matthew Gill, and he is not allowed to show these to anyone but his family and close associates. Sound familiar? How credible is this?

Lots of copycats out there. However, we're talking about the 11 witnesses, and I believe you owe me some responses.

[Vance]

Right now no one can be sure of its origin. there is absolutely no textual support for the plates' existence.

So, the existence of the text isn't "textual support for the plates' existence"?

Do you realize how silly that sounds?

[4truth]

In response to canterdogs who wrote:

Why couldn't Joseph show the plates to objective witnesses?

...Maklelan wrote :

There were no disinterested third parties at this point in time, and their relationship to Joseph in no way impugns their objectivity. It may give cause for further consideration, but it does not undermine their testimony.

First, the relationship of the witnesses to Joseph does in fact throw serious doubt on their credibility. canterdogs is quite correct to point this out. Only a pro-Joseph bias would deny that.

Second there were plenty of potentially objective witnesses. In fact a whole world of them, but especially there was Dr. Charles Anthon who Martin went to see before the BOM was published in 1828. Dr. Anthon himself specfically requested Harris to open the trunk and examine the plates himself:

I then asked him how he could be so foolish as to sell his farm and engage in this affair; and requested him to tell me if the plates were really of gold. In answer to this latter inquiry, he said, that he had never seen the plates themselves, which were carefully locked up in a trunk, but that he had the trunk in his possession. I advised him by all means to open the trunk and examine its contents, and if the plates proved to be of gold, which I did not believe at all, to sell them immediately. His reply was, that. if he opened the trunk, the "curse of heaven would descend upon him and his children.' "However," added he, "I will agree to open it, provided you take the 'curse of Heaven' upon yourself, for having advised me to the step." I told him I was perfectly willing to do so, and begged he would hasten home and examine the trunk, for he would find that he had been cheated. He promised to do as I recommended, and left me, taking his book with him. I have never seen him since.

-Charles Anthon, 1841 in Clark, Gleanings by the Way.

If the plates were ever real and could have been taken to Prof. Anthon, he would have had to have eaten his words. As it is, Joseph scribbled some characters he had likely seen on the Detroit Manuscript in a failed effort to fool the learned.

So here's a question for those who accept the orthodox version of how the BOM came to be....

Was the 1828 Harris-Anthon visit the fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11? If so, how exactly was Isaiah 29:11 fulfilled?

All the best,

Roger

[Vance]

Second there were plenty of potentially objective witnesses.

Humm, Really?

And would the supposed "objective witnesses" remain objective after seeing an angel? Or after handling the plates?

Nah, after either of those experiences objectivity is out the window.

[4truth]

Hi Vance:

So, the existence of the text isn't "textual support for the plates' existence"?

In a word... correct.

Do you realize how silly that sounds?

Wow... talk about the pot calling the kettle black! In fact it is wholly ridiculous to argue that because the English text of the BOM exists, therefore the mythical plates written in a mythical language by a mythical people must also have existed.

All the best.

[4truth]

Vance:

Humm, Really?

And would the supposed "objective witnesses" remain objective after seeing an angel? Or after handling the plates?

Nah, after either of those experiences objectivity is out the window.

Huh? You're saying after actually seeing the plates people would still deny their existence?

[canterdogs]

That wasn't what Joseph was permitted to do, but, to respond directly, no. Who do you imagine to be the "appropriate authorities" in a situation like that, and what makes you think they would have been disinterested?

Also, I believe I asked a pretty direct question about other witnesses. Do you have a response?

We live in quite a different world than Joseph Smith, on many levels, not least of which, the academic.

Meh.

Lots of copycats out there. However, we're talking about the 11 witnesses, and I believe you owe me some responses.

He wasn't permitted to? lol and i refer you to south park, that is all.

What does it matter that there were no disinterest parties? If the plates themselves could have been witnessed by others and taken to an appropriate university for examination and perhaps to be deciphered, if not then at a later date when knowledge of Egyptian was obtained. You are an academic, surely you have faith in the academic process produce unbiased scholarship, especially from an ancient text that could be dated and translated to English. Surely scholars would have been eager to examine such a record and this could, at very least, place the BoM in antiquity - like we can do with the Bible and other ancient texts. In any case, you think that only having witnesses from one side of the "disinterested parties" is really convincing?

The 11 were close friends and family. Joseph's relatives remained in the Utah church and would not have any incentive to recant. Whitmer had every reason not to recant... Cowdery left and joined the methodists but later wanted to rejoin the latter day saints. The fact that he didn't retract his testimony still doesn't change the fact that he was intimately involved in its production and that he stood to ridicule if he did retract his testimony. But putting his name to that statement, there was no turning back for him. Harris went off with Strang, an alternate Mormon prophet... No incentive to recant there. He was later rebaptized.... The other Whitmers joined the BoM believing Church of Christ (Whitmerite). I mean c'mon must I continue? These testimonies are not credible. i don't really have time to investigate everything about the witnesses.. all I can say is that when one realizes that they are close family and associates they are basically worthless

[TAO]

In response to canterdogs who wrote:

First, the relationship of the witnesses to Joseph does in fact throw serious doubt on their credibility. canterdogs is quite correct to point this out. Only a pro-Joseph bias would deny that.

The Lord permits whom the Lord permits to see, no? He would only show through an angel to 3 witnesses, and them alone. The other 8 he had Joseph show, but had him show no others.

Second there were plenty of potentially objective witnesses. In fact a whole world of them, but especially there was Dr. Charles Anthon who Martin went to see before the BOM was published in 1828. Dr. Anthon himself specfically requested Harris to open the trunk and examine the plates himself:

And yet we find many 'objective witnesses' were 'critics'. For example, the one guy who Joseph asked to translate a section of the text on a piece of paper - only to rip it to shreds after discovering what it was for. The Lord clearly had a reason to show it to the people he did, and no others.

If the plates were ever real and could have been taken to Prof. Anthon, he would have had to have eaten his words. As it is, Joseph scribbled some characters he had likely seen on the Detroit Manuscript in a failed effort to fool the learned.

Not really. You saw what some did to the Book of Lehi. Something just as nasty could have easily happened. Not that it would have, but that it could have. The part on the 'Detroit Manuscript' is an assumption on your part.

So here's a question for those who accept the orthodox version of how the BOM came to be....

Was the 1828 Harris-Anthon visit the fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11? If so, how exactly was Isaiah 29:11 fulfilled?

You do realize that part of the BoM was sealed no? If you go to Joseph Smith History 1:6465, you will see those very words:

64

[TAO]

all I can say is that when one realizes that they are close family and associates they are basically worthless

*shrugs* what is worthless to you is not worthless to God apparently.

And your still trying to use visual proof...it isn't gonna work that way. Try faith. It works better. Really, much, much better.