Bom Witnesses: Vogel Responds To Apologists

[LDSToronto]

So hundreds see an angel or an apparition and it is dismissed totally as "group hallucination"? What kind of question-begging nonsense is that?

Certainly any unknown phenomenon can be dismissed as "group hallucination", but exactly at the point, that term becomes meaningless. I suppose the first observers of the rings of Saturn could have been having a "group hallucination" in your opinion, but subsequent observation has proven that would have been an error.

Surely you've heard of mass hysteria, or even the broader field of social psychology somewhere in the course of your graduate studies? There are many explanations for group behaviour.

H.

[Bernard Gui]

Buzzard,

I didn’t say the witnesses were inaccurate, only ambiguous and perhaps misleading, that is, if we accept what Harris and the dissenters in Kirtland and Missouri were saying. Note that they could handle the plates through or under the cloth even if they were made out of tin. Their view of them, however, was spiritual under my recUonstruction. Only days before the eight saw the plates, a revelation more or less said they could only be seen by faith (D&C 17).

Tin is difficult to inscribe. Tin sheets do not rustle like leaves. It would be difficult to make tin sheets as thin as paper Tin is not as heavy as gold. It is not the same color as gold.

Bernard

Edited March 17, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

Surely you've heard of mass hysteria, or even the broader field of social psychology somewhere in the course of your graduate studies? There are many explanations for group behaviour.

H.

Social psychology is a scientific study of the interactions between individuals and societies- and of course I am familiar with the field as a field though I have only had a course or two in social psychology. But that field has little to do with the fact that the entire notion of "hysteria" has largely been discounted as a term that has much meaning- it is usually replaced with the diagnosis of specific disorders. "Mass hysteria" really is a virtus dormitiva- a placeholder concept for some unknown cause that has no known explanation. It's nice to have a catch-all term for everything- but unfortunately a word that stands for everything really means nothing.

And were you aware that people with multiple personality disorder can have totally different medical symptoms in different personalities? Like for example one personality having diabetes, a medically measurable disorder, and then when the other personality "takes over" the diabetes disappears?

The distinction between what is "mental" and what is "physical" is often non-existent. And you can substitute the word "spiritual" for "mental" in that last sentence.

Edited March 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

There are many explanations for group behaviour.

H.

And the term "mass hysteria" is no explanation at all.

Look up any quote you like where some phenomenon is attributed to mass hysteria and you will see that no firm cause is ever proven for any of it, other than "mass hysteria" which has no explanation. It is a catch-all phrase which can be substituted for "unknown causes" in each and every example. It explains nothing.

"Psychosomatic" is another term which is often used the same way. It means "the cause was mental but we don't know how that works".

Edited March 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Dan Vogel]

I admit I am late in this thread. And I do not want to interfere with the deep conversation about who "saw, touched, felt thought about, spiritualized or hallucinated about the plates"! But am I missing something here? Why spend so much time and effort on "who saw what and how"? Since the BoM is supposedly an accurate translation of the plates, shouldn't we be focused on what the evidence is for the historic claims of the BOM? All this arguing over the plates seems quite meaningless and trivial when the focus should be on evidence to their supposed history claims.

Does that make any sense?

You make perfect sense, to me at least. I too believe the apologists, mostly Richard Anderson, are wasting time with the witnesses-as-evidence debate. The BOM is easier to test. However, historians are interested in exactly what was claimed to have been experienced.

[Dan Vogel]

So hundreds see an angel or an apparition and it is dismissed totally as "group hallucination"? What kind of question-begging nonsense is that?

Certainly any unknown phenomenon can be dismissed as "group hallucination", but exactly at the point, that term becomes meaningless. I suppose the first observers of the rings of Saturn could have been having a "group hallucination" in your opinion, but subsequent observation has proven that would have been an error.

The point about “group hallucination” is that multiple witnesses who apparently see the same thing (and that’s an assumption) does not insure that hallucination is impossible, as you seem to think. Some groups are highly suggestible, as a group. Your example from the rings of Saturn is an illusion, which is entirely visual and has nothing to do with hallucination.

[Dan Vogel]

It's a shame you can't tell us why. I see that a lot from you. Your arguments tend to begin and end with arguments from authority- and that authority is YOU.

Apparently, yours end in ad hominem. If you understand Wade’s argument please do so, because I’m at a loss. Perhaps you could put it into standard form.

[Dan Vogel]

Tin is difficult to inscribe. Tin sheets do not rustle like leaves. It would be difficult to make ton sheets as thin as paper Tin is not as heavy as gold. It is not the same color as gold.

Bernard

JS said the sheets were as thick as common tin. I think tin rustles with metallic sound better than gold. The witnesses didn’t see the plates, so they don’t have to appear like gold, nor do they have to be etched, although they could have. Both Harris and William Smith said the plates weighed between forty and sixty pounds, which is consistent for tin.

[why me]

David Whitmer was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1838 for turning against Church members and joining in persecuting them. Though he never returned to the Church in his lifetime, he never denied the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and even publicly defended it near the end of his life in the Richmond, Missouri, Conservator on March 25, 1881:

The Book of Mormon“Unto all Nations, Kindreds, Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come: . . . I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once [and] for all to make this public statement: That I have never at any time denied that testimony [of the Book of Mormon] or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book, as one of the Three Witnesses. Those who know me best well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all my statements as then made and published. “He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;” it was no delusion; what is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand. “And if any man doubt, should he not carefully and honestly read and understand the same before presuming to sit in judgment and condemning the light, which shineth in darkness, and showeth the way of eternal life as pointed out by the unerring hand of God?” In the Spirit of Christ, who hath said: “Follow thou me, for I am the life, the light and the way,” I submit this statement to the world; God in whom I trust being my judge as to the sincerity of my motives and the faith and hope that is in me of eternal life. My sincere desire is that the world may be benefited by this plain and simple statement of the truth. And all the honor to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen!”

http://historyofmormonism.com/mormon-hi ... testimony/

Such is the final testimony of David Whitmer toward the end of his life.

Edited March 17, 2012 by why me

[why me]

JS said the sheets were as thick as common tin. I think tin rustles with metallic sound better than gold. The witnesses didn’t see the plates, so they don’t have to appear like gold, nor do they have to be etched, although they could have. Both Harris and William Smith said the plates weighed between forty and sixty pounds, which is consistent for tin.

Why did david confirm his testimony as shown above in my last post?

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, his brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seeen [sic] the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shewn unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvellous [sic] in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

In my previous post, he confirmed what I have hightlighted. What to make of it?

Edited March 17, 2012 by why me

[Storm Rider]

It is such an incredible stretch to think that these men who testified of the truthfulness of the plates and the Book of Mormon would be distanced from the Church and still maintain their testimony. Who does that? For what reason would they do it? It is not logical to assume that they would be pushed/leave the Church and yet maintain such a stout belief in the BofM's reality.

The fallacy of a "group hallucination" does not hold water in this context. If the tables were turned an LDS apologist would be laughed out of the room for suggesting such an unsupportable position. Dan, you know it and I know it. Let's not push the bounds of credulity any further.

[cdowis]

The fallacy of a "group hallucination" does not hold water in this context. If the tables were turned an LDS apologist would be laughed out of the room for suggesting such an unsupportable position. Dan, you know it and I know it. Let's not push the bounds of credulity any further.

In his article, see footnote 13:

“Arguing that skeptics like me are victims of their own ‘naturalistic assumptions’ attempts to divert attention from the fact that there is simply no reliable proof for the existence of the supernatural. Naturalism is part of our everyday experience; supernaturalism is not. The burden of proof rests with those making supernatural claims, and until such claims are proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ one is justified to approach such claims skeptically.”

By his own admission, any explanation is better than the existence of Deity, since the burden of proof lies not with his inability to provide a reasonable explanation, but with the believers providing proof to his satisfaction.

He is demanding a sign from Deity, and will be satisfied with nothing less.

Edited March 17, 2012 by cdowis

[why me]

It is such an incredible stretch to think that these men who testified of the truthfulness of the plates and the Book of Mormon would be distanced from the Church and still maintain their testimony. Who does that? For what reason would they do it? It is not logical to assume that they would be pushed/leave the Church and yet maintain such a stout belief in the BofM's reality.

I think that here is the problem: the witnesses had a problem with JS. But so did many other members who left the lds church. What we see of other leaders who did not have the witnesses' experience. These members who did not have their experience seemed to have become rabid mormon haters. The witnesses who left the lds church did not. Their disagreement was with Joseph. However, they also could not discount their experience with the plates. They were certainly put between a rock and a hard place and at the end of their lives, regardless of what they felt about Joseph, needed to confirm their testimony before they met their maker. My guess is that they did a Pascal wager with God over Joseph.

[cdowis]

Vogle appears to reject the theory that the witnesses were co-conspirators, and is going with the theory that they were dupes ==>> JS had produced tin plates, which he cleverly covered with a cloth. The witnesses riffled the sheets and somehow JS convinced that, through spirit eyes, they viewed the engravings of ancient workmanship and that the plates had the appearance of gold (not tin).

This may have worked with small children, but I do not see how JS was able to pull that off with mature men, experienced with things of the world. I find it interesting, for example, that he had eight witnesses. If he was going to use the "spirit eyes" trick, that was a bold move, rather than using only two or three. But EIGHT in addition to the previous three!?

That makes ELEVEN where he used his "spirit eyes" magic trick. And nobody caught on how he did it, even decades later when they had plenty of time to figure it out.

But again, Vogel is not worried since the burden of proof lies with us showing him a sign, not with his amusing attempt to explain it all.

Edited March 17, 2012 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

JS said the sheets were as thick as common tin. I think tin rustles with metallic sound better than gold. The witnesses didn’t see the plates, so they don’t have to appear like gold, nor do they have to be etched, although they could have. Both Harris and William Smith said the plates weighed between forty and sixty pounds, which is consistent for tin.

Good luck on your tin theory.

Bernard

[thesometimesaint]

As I have said before the best argument against Mormonism isn't some other variant of religion it is Agnosticism. OTOH personal experience trumpts any other explanation. Accordingly JS said paraphrasing; That if it hadn't happened to him he wouldn't have believed it himself.

[Buzzard]

I have heard skeptics of Christianity make essentially the same argument. That when Christ appeared to the twelve after his ressurection, they simply wanted to believe so badly, that when one or two started hallucinating that they were seeing the resurrected Lord, the others bought into it and said they were seeing the same thing, so as not to be on the outside of a wonderful experience.

What must be addressed is the cumulative probabilities of deception/group hallucination. The three saw an angel, the eight saw the plates in a natural setting. With one group, you could say they were hypnotized by Joseph, with the other group, you could say he put forward a mere prop. But when two groups bear witness, under totally divergent settings, the probability they they were both duped becomes quite small. The probability that they entered into a conspiracy that they stuck to the rest of their lives, even after leaving the church under the curcumstances they did, becomes beyond infentesimal. The most highly probable explanation becomes the obvious one-that eleven honest men swore to what they had seen and experienced.

Of course, for folks like Mr. Vogel, the nits absolutely must be picked, because the first principal and ordinance of anti-Mormonism is that Joseph had to be a fraud. After you establish that in your mind, a priori, it's simply a matter of smoking him out, irregardless of where the evidence takes you. What a terrible burden that must be.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Buzzard

[mfbukowski]

The point about “group hallucination” is that multiple witnesses who apparently see the same thing (and that’s an assumption) does not insure that hallucination is impossible, as you seem to think. Some groups are highly suggestible, as a group. Your example from the rings of Saturn is an illusion, which is entirely visual and has nothing to do with hallucination.

As you often do, you miss the point, or perhaps do so deliberately. I doubt you are really that obtuse.

Now you are grasping at straws, taking on faith the "not impossible" possibility that it still was a hallucination. You have more faith than I do!

The rings of Saturn an illusion? Of course they were not nor are they now.

The entire point is that when the first person, presumably Galileo, saw them, it was a totally subjective, unexplained phenomenon. He might have told hundreds of people what he saw and they would call it an "hallucination" or burned him at the stake for being a witch, or who knows what.

When another person, then another, saw the rings and they all agreed, had you been there, you might have said it was "mass hysteria" which explains nothing.

As more and more people made the same observation and published the results, corroborating the evidence, the rings stopped being a "subjective" report by a few, a hallucination or mass hysteria, and became "objective" and was ordained magically to the office of "scientific fact"

The entire point is that all observations which later become "scientific fact" start out as completely subjective for the first person who makes them. The more they are replicated the more "objective" they become.

It is totally erroneous to conclude that every observation made which is "subjective" is therefore "false" merely because it is subjective and personal.

Were that true, your doctor would have no reason to believe you when you entered the ER with chest pains.

[mfbukowski]

Apparently, yours end in ad hominem. If you understand Wade’s argument please do so, because I’m at a loss. Perhaps you could put it into standard form.

I would like to point out that it was you who started the ad hominem attacks- I am coming late to this thread.

Wade certainly doesn't need my help in making his point. Your continued repetition of the phrase "that doesn't make sense" without an explanation of why, really doesn't give you much credibility.

[cdowis]

When another person, then another, saw the rings and they all agreed, had you been there, you might have said it was "mass hysteria" which explains nothing.

As more and more people made the same observation and published the results, corroborating the evidence, the rings stopped being a "subjective" report by a few, a hallucination or mass hysteria, and became "objective" and was ordained magically to the office of "scientific fact"

The entire point is that all observations which later become "scientific fact" start out as completely subjective for the first person who makes them. The more they are replicated the more "objective" they become.

It is totally erroneous to conclude that every observation made which is "subjective" is therefore "false" merely because it is subjective and personal.

And how do the canals of Mars fit your argument?

[mfbukowski]

Vogle appears to reject the theory that the witnesses were co-conspirators, and is going with the theory that they were dupes ==>> JS had produced tin plates, which he cleverly covered with a cloth. The witnesses riffled the sheets and somehow JS convinced that, through spirit eyes, they viewed the engravings of ancient workmanship and that the plates had the appearance of gold (not tin).

This may have worked with small children, but I do not see how JS was able to pull that off with mature men, experienced with things of the world. I find it interesting, for example, that he had eight witnesses. If he was going to use the "spirit eyes" trick, that was a bold move, rather than using only two or three. But EIGHT in addition to the previous three!?

That makes ELEVEN where he used his "spirit eyes" magic trick. And nobody caught on how he did it, even decades later when they had plenty of time to figure it out.

But again, Vogel is not worried since the burden of proof lies with us showing him a sign, not with his amusing attempt to explain it all.

Oh how wrong you are!

It was "mass hysteria". If that doesn't explain it all, I don't know what possibly could!

[mfbukowski]

And how do the canals of Mars fit your argument?

I don't understand your question. Please rephrase it. There were subsequent observations which replaced the old theory based on more current and better observations. Does that answer it?

[cdowis]

Perhaps this will clarify==>>

Why were there so many observations of these canals, including drawings of something which did not exist. Mass hysteria? one observer taking his observation from previous observers?

http://www.google.co...Lum423Dw&zoom=1

Were the canals of Mars an example of mass hysteria?

Edited March 17, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps this will clarify==>>

Why were there so many observations of these canals, including drawings of something which did not exist. Mass hysteria? one observer taking his observation from previous observers?

http://www.google.co...Lum423Dw&zoom=1

Were the canals of Mars an example of mass hysteria?

Mass hysteria explains nothing. I have already said they were observations which were later supplanted by better observations- "better" because of improved technology and more objective because corroborated by more observers. Since they are objective scientific observations they are more "objective" and that is the purpose of scientific observation.

I have explained it twice now and you don't seem to understand my point.

Edit: Oh maybe I now understand. Post 96 was sarcasm - I included the wink smiley but maybe that did not communicate effectively. I agree with the point you made that I quoted in post 96 and my reply to you was sarcastic, meaning I said the opposite of what I meant. Sorry if I threw you off.

Edited March 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

Just playing devil's advocate, and you clarified and re-enforced your argument. I guess my point is that, despite decades passing, ,there has been no explanation for the spiritual eye trick either from the witnesses themselves, nor our most clever critics.

It is enough for the critics to simply give it a name. "Spiritual eyes" and throw in "mass hysteria", and that explains it all.

As you say, it explains nothing.

Edited March 18, 2012 by cdowis