Bom Witnesses: Vogel Responds To Apologists

[Xander]

And we see the real difference between a historian's approach and that of an apologist. Wonderful work Dan!

I loved these remarks that hit home of some important points frequently ignored by believers:

no one saw the plates uncovered in a non-visionary situation

Because the plates were covered, the statements of Smith’s family and friends are only evidence of their trust. Nothing more. They concluded Joseph was telling the truth because they could feel the plates and rings through the cloth and could hear a metallic sound when they ruffled the pages. But that is where their testimony ends. While their testimonies can be used to dismiss specific speculations—that the box contained sand or the cloth concealed a brick tile, for instance—they cannot be used to eliminate speculation altogether because they are themselves speculations.

Bushman’s attempt to straitjacket historians with a one-sided narrative that serves the believer’s agenda should be rejected. It is one thing to narrate the story from the believers’ point of view, as Bushman does, but quite another to proscribe other historians from exploring other aspects of the story. The fact is that Smith, by concealing the plates as he did, invited speculation. It is a part of the story that cannot be ignored.

Of course you probably should have asked the mods to introduce this in the "focused discussions" area of the forum. You're probably going to get nothing but meaningless attacks, generally from those who haven't even bothered to read what you've written.

I guess here is the part where mfbukowski and altersteve respond by calling me a "bitter" apostate who cannot "move on with his life," and before I can respond to such nonsense, I get conveniently banned from the thread for making "personal remarks" about others.

It must be nice to have your personal echo chamber from which you can hurl all sorts of fallacious and offensive commentary about those you need to marginalize for the sake of faith. With that kind of support group mentality, it easily explains why some folks have camped out here for years obsessively posting day and night, while ironically accusing infrequent visitors of having some kind of personal issues.

Do something besides stirring up contention. - Ares

Edited March 18, 2012 by Ares

[thesometimesaint]

Coming from you that is hilarious. :rofl:

[wenglund]

Wade, This argument, if it could be called that, doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense except perhaps to those, like you, who are holding desperately and dogmatically to the frayed remains of a tissuey theory. It speaks rationally to intent. But, perhaps some of the readers (Xander?) may be fooled by your baseless dismissal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 18, 2012 by wenglund

[Bob Oliverio]

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.

Then it would seem to me that if we really wanted to "exonerate and validate" whatever relevance these witnesses bring to establishing the credibility of the BOM - we are not focusing in the right direction.

The effort SHOULD BE on quality, credible and convincing "scholarship" that would bring both the focus and interest from personal testimonies about gold plates to the actual existence of the people, places and cultures so distinctly described in the Book of Mormon.  

It just seems like these theories and arguments of what the witnesses saw, spiritualized, touched or hallucinated over w regards to some plates would be seen as comedic to outsiders until we can provide meaningful scholarship supporting the existence of and attracting scholars' interest in the history claimed.

[thesometimesaint]

We have hard and fast evidence for ancient Greece existing. But few alive today would claim that those ancient Greek Gods are real.

As for evidences for the BoM here is a good site to start your search.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html

[Bernard Gui]

It just seems like these theories and arguments of what the witnesses saw, spiritualized, touched or hallucinated over w regards to some plates would be seen as comedic to outsiders until we can provide meaningful scholarship supporting the existence of and attracting scholars' interest in the history claimed.

What would be an example solid historical evidence?

Bernard

[Bob Oliverio]

We have hard and fast evidence for ancient Greece existing. But few alive today would claim that those ancient Greek Gods are real.

As for evidences for the BoM here is a good site to start your search.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html

So let's skip the Gods, put ourselves on par with simple Greek history and generate some scholarly interest in ancient Zarahemla!  Even that would be a great first step and help these poor, badgered witnesses.

[Bernard Gui]

I see what you mean.

[Bob Oliverio]

What would be an example solid historical evidence?

Bernard

Are you being serious?  The same evidence that generates interest and  scholarly conclusions supporting all history into our academic history books today.

[Tarski]

By the way, it is physiologically impossible for two different people to have the same hallucination.

No it is not.

Examples abound and the probable mechanisms are not too hard to understand once one gets over the idea that a hallucination is something that is or isn't happening at a given instant in the inner Cartesian theater. One must understand it as a phenomenon related to narratives constructed by a process of (typically internal) rationalization and neural negotiations over time ( a second, minute, day, year?) and leading to false judgments and memories and finally a speech act recounting the hallucination.

It also involves confabulation and issues of memory fixing and not just simple brute failure of afferent perceptual pathways. The typical case might be where such processes occur in a matter of microseconds within a single brain but can also involve a group interacting under unusual circumstances. The content of the hallucination even depends on exactly when the subject (or group) is probed since adjustments and negotiations and memory fixation continue over time and are especially affect by the very act of probing (say asking for a recounting of events).

In a certain extended sense, whole nations could "hallucinate".

Instead of the usual example of groups of people seeing Mary mother of Jesus, here is a simple example in a small group (pulled of another message board):

Yesterday swim and 8 other people went to a friend's house to have a little party, just to chill, music.. something a little private.. 5 friends and swim took E.. let's say, Monique, Kim, Lisa, Tim and George..

We were at different parts of the house.. at some point Tim said.. "haha this is weird, when I look at Jonh, I see him wearing sunglasses!!" But he wasn't, swim was like: swiy's crazy, he's not wearing sunglasses.. (John wasn't on E)

Then swim and her friends were sitting together.. and all of sudden.. OMFG swim saw the sunglasses on Lisa!!.. and then on Tim and George.. the glasses on each one of them were different, as an example, one was wearing glasses for reading, another friend big aviator sunglasses, other friend just regular casual glasses..

The only person at the house that had sunglasses was Monique, but she wasn't even wearing them..!!!

Swim and friends couldn't find an explanation, coz each friend described how exactly the glasses looked and everyone agreed they were looking at the same type of glasses on that specific friend..

It was sooooo freaking awesomee!! Swim knows hallucinations are not very common on E, they do happen to some people.. BUT.. THIS WAS A COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATION! Everyone saw the exact same thing that wasn't really there... Swim never hallucinated before while on E...

Swim doesn't know what caused that, maybe the pills, everyone took the same type of pill..

There is a hint of the human need to get group help on perceptual judgements in the humorous phrase' "what just happened?"

Even with the type of hallucination that occurs because of effective sensory deprivation some interesting issues arrise that call into question our assumption that a hallucination is something that happens like an inner movie at a given instant or series of instants in time:

http://www-personal....experiences.pdf

Edited March 18, 2012 by Tarski

[mfbukowski]

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.

And THEY accuse us of "magic thinking" when they have NO explanations for any of these spiritual phenomena- not only ours but apparitions, near death experiences- whatever.

Even the term "placebo effect"- great sounding phrase and it seems to mean something- but what does it mean? It means that the mind/spirit can cure physical symptoms. "Oh- then they were never 'really' there at all"- they might say- of course all that is is another instance of non-explanation.

There is much more to this universe than Dan Vogel or even Einstein and Hawking combined can explain. And unfortunately our dear Dan is not quite in that class.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

We ALL "hallucinate" all the time. We ALL see things that aren't there. The closer those hallucinations are to the generallly perceived/agreed upon reality the more mentally sane we are said to be. So it isn't a matter of absolutes, but one of degrees of variation. IE; When we see the smilie we naturally project a human face onto it.

Generally true, but each of us experinces events, real or imagined, differently. For ease of classification we group experiences into groups of like experiences. For instance if I say the color "green". We both will "see" a different color of green, but it is still green.

In the case of the witnesses to BoM we have their written statements as to the reality of the plates, that there appeared to be writting on them. Not one of the recanted their testimony to the physicality of the plates though for some it would have been to their advantage to do so.

Mass hallucinations just don't do that.

[why me]

And we see the real difference between a historian's approach and that of an apologist. Wonderful work Dan!

I still like what David Whitmer said in the twilight of his years, reconfirming the testimony of the three witnesses in the book of mormon. Now that is an historical document.

[why me]

No it is not.

The problem is: we are dealing with 11 people who claimed seeing the book, some feeling the book with their own hands. It is rather difficult to claim an hallucination. Also, we have Oliver also verifying the visitation of John the Baptist and and the others to restore the priesthood. This would take a lsd trip for sure to pull this over.

[why me]

So let's skip the Gods, put ourselves on par with simple Greek history and generate some scholarly interest in ancient Zarahemla! Even that would be a great first step and help these poor, badgered witnesses.

Here is the problem: lets just say that we find a place called Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. What would you do? However, we have 11 people who claimed throughout their lives what they saw and saw and felt with their hands. And yet, critics do not believe them and try to rationalize the experience with one big hallucination.

[altersteve]

I guess here is the part where mfbukowski and altersteve respond by calling me a "bitter" apostate who cannot "move on with his life," and before I can respond to such nonsense, I get conveniently banned from the thread for making "personal remarks" about others.

I would not say this to you, nor have I ever. Please leave me out of this.

[Bob Oliverio]

Here is the problem: lets just say that we find a place called Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. What would you do? However, we have 11 people who claimed throughout their lives what they saw and saw and felt with their hands. And yet, critics do not believe them and try to rationalize the experience with one big hallucination.

Here is the problem: lets just say that we find a place called Zarahemla in Mesoamerica. What would you do?

First, who is we?  If the evidence drew the interests of credible scholars and academics this would be a huge and great first step.  Has it?

However, we have 11 people who claimed throughout their lives what they saw and saw and felt with their hands. And yet, critics do not believe them and try to rationalize the experience with one big hallucination.

But what did they see?  And what is the relevance or significance if what they saw was irrelevant to establishing any meaningful evidence to the history claim of the BoM?  

Frankly I think arguing what the witnesses saw or did not see may be great material for our Sunday F&T testimony, but is really an exercise in futility as support for the BoM.  I am just amazed that others here can't grasp that!

[why me]

Frankly I think arguing what the witnesses saw or did not see may be great material for our Sunday F&T testimony, but is really an exercise in futility as support for the BoM. I am just amazed that others here can't grasp that!

You would not be thinking this if at least one of the witnesses denied their experience. If this were the case, you would certainly see its importance. What is amazing is David's final testimony that he wrote to clarify his position. I posted it on page 5 of this discussion. He is very certain about what he saw and even years later he needed to clarify for the world, just what he experienced. Now that is amazing.

Edited March 18, 2012 by why me

[Darth_Bill]

Frankly I think arguing what the witnesses saw or did not see may be great material for our Sunday F&T testimony, but is really an exercise in futility as support for the BoM. I am just amazed that others here can't grasp that!

The BoM itself mentions the witnesses. It has been used for verification that the origin story told by JS was at least partially true. So....I'm not sure why we would dismiss them.

And I know it is being debated, but really this idea that the witnesses never handled the plates without a cloth is bothersome. I've just started reading the original essay.

[why me]

The BoM itself mentions the witnesses. It has been used for verification that the origin story told by JS was at least partially true. So....I'm not sure why we would dismiss them.

And I know it is being debated, but really this idea that the witnesses never handled the plates without a cloth is bothersome. I've just started reading the original essay.

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.

David Whitmer

It seems that david saw the plates without a cloth. He reconfirms his experience with the book of mormon as published in the book.

[wenglund]

Since the sense of my argument, as previously stated, seems lost on bro. Vogel, and this even though to his way of thinking, by calling himself an historian he is supposedly endowed with understand of things he has not experienced, and this in a way superior to that of those who have had experience, perhaps I can spell it out for him.

Within the restored gospel, and according to how we view the ways of God regarding growth in spiritual faith, a fundamental aspect of that growth is the law of witnesses: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Cor. 13:1)

This law is intended to facilitate growth in faith without eliminating the prospect of faith. For example, in the preexistence we dwelt in heaven and walked by sight in relation to God, but have since been sent to earth where we are to walk by faith. For the most part, we are prevented from seeing God directly, otherwise we would have factual knowledge of God's existence, and wouldn't be able walk by faith. Yet, God has shown himself unto certain "special witnesses", and this primarily by way of visitations of his Son, and this to provide substance upon which faith in God for the general membership may be established and progress. We are prevented from seeing God so as to exercise faith in him, though we also have witnesses, who have seen God. to provide building blocks for our faith.

The same, in principle, may be true for the Book of Mormon. As intimated in D&C 5, God had, for his purposes, commanded that Joseph show the golden plates to no one except those selected by God. Up until the late spring of 1829, Joseph was the only eye witness and firsthand witness to the physical reality of the golden plates--though several family members and friends were cirmcumstantial witness to the physical reality of the plates (having seen and touched and hefted them when covered, and having seen Joseph making boxes for them and taking them here and there, etc.)

Afterwards, though, as explained in the scriptures and in the history of the Church, 11 other witnesses were permitted to not only to physically view the plates, but to physically handle them as well. Three of those 11 were also permitted to have angelic confirmation of the truthfulness of the ancient text. As such, the law of witnesses was fulfilled.

The law of witnesses for the physical reality of the gold plates could not have been fulfilled except the witnesses physically experienced the golden plates as Joseph had. Were they to have experienced the plates by way of visions or dreams or hallucinations, they then could only witness to those visions or dreams or hallucinations, and not to the physical reality of the golden plates.

In short, as intimated in section 5, the intent behind choosing the witnesses and permitting the witnesses to physically experience the plates, was to testify of the physical reality of the plates and thus fulfill the law of witnesses in that regard. And, the collective testimonies of the witnesses, and some of the statements several of them made through the remainder of their lives, seems to strongly support the physicality of their individual and shared experience, and certainly don't deny the physicality of the plates.

To suggest that certain select statements might somehow contravene the physicality of the stated experiences, is to not correctly grasp the intent behind having witnesses, if not also to mistakenly shoehorn a strained interpretation onto otherwise relatively self-evident declarations. It doesn't compute--though it is understandable that people not well acquainted with the law of witnesses or the process for growth in faith, or who may have flunked the test of faith, and who may be theory laden, might see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 18, 2012 by wenglund

[Bill Hamblin]

No it is not.

Examples abound and the probable mechanisms are not too hard to understand once one gets over the idea that a hallucination is something that is or isn't happening at a given instant in the inner Cartesian theater. One must understand it as a phenomenon related to narratives constructed by a process of (typically internal) rationalization and neural negotiations over time ( a second, minute, day, year?) and leading to false judgments and memories and finally a speech act recounting the hallucination.

It also involves confabulation and issues of memory fixing and not just simple brute failure of afferent perceptual pathways. The typical case might be where such processes occur in a matter of microseconds within a single brain but can also involve a group interacting under unusual circumstances. The content of the hallucination even depends on exactly when the subject (or group) is probed since adjustments and negotiations and memory fixation continue over time and are especially affect by the very act of probing (say asking for a recounting of events).

In a certain extended sense, whole nations could "hallucinate".

Instead of the usual example of groups of people seeing Mary mother of Jesus, here is a simple example in a small group (pulled of another message board):

There is a hint of the human need to get group help on perceptual judgements in the humorous phrase' "what just happened?"

Even with the type of hallucination that occurs because of effective sensory deprivation some interesting issues arrise that call into question our assumption that a hallucination is something that happens like an inner movie at a given instant or series of instants in time:

http://www-personal....experiences.pdf

Naughty, naughty Tarski: equivocation is not allowed. I was clearly talking about "physiology." You are talking about how different groups socially and culturally interpret unusual experiences. (Like atheists dismissing spiritual and visionary experiences as aberrant brain chemistry, or delusion, or hypnotism, for example.) That's a very different thing.

[LDSToronto]

Naughty, naughty Tarski: equivocation is not allowed. I was clearly talking about "physiology." You are talking about how different groups socially and culturally interpret unusual experiences. (Like atheists dismissing spiritual and visionary experiences as aberrant brain chemistry, or delusion, or hypnotism, for example.) That's a very different thing.

Huh? So Tarski has to stay in the domain that you've specified, even if his explanation works? That seems like a strange way to explore a world of possibilities.

H.

[Dan Vogel]

It makes perfect sense except perhaps to those, like you, who are holding desperately and dogmatically to the frayed remains of a tissuey theory. It speaks rationally to intent. But, perhaps some of the readers (Xander?) may be fooled by your baseless dismissal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

There is no need to attack. I’m serious. I did not understand your point. I will be happy to respond to it if you explain what your point is.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

David Whitmer

It seems that david saw the plates without a cloth. He reconfirms his experience with the book of mormon as published in the book.

You are missing something here. The point is that no one saw the plates in a non-visionary way.