Bom Witnesses: Vogel Responds To Apologists

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course, Bill overstates his case. No one would introduce the concept of group hallucination in a non-visionary setting. That would be totally unconvincing. The possibility of group hallucination exists for this situation, but it's not automatic. As I said before, it's a legitimate approach for those who have concluded the BOM is fiction.

So you will excuse us if we find your claims "totally unconvincing."

In other words, your theory ("the BOM is fiction") controls the data. Just like we've said.

This is a very revealing statement.

[Buzzard]

IOW, the evidence disagrees with your theory; your theory is controlling; therefore, the evidence is dismissed.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

+1, The motion is seconded, Amen and Amen.

[KevinG]

I'm still stuck on the statement that the church is no longer like it was in Kirtland. (My internal response was: Well... duh?)

There was a lot of revelation and guidance given during that period that helped make Mormonism what it is today. Joseph himself taught to avoid the excesses of charismatics like speaking in tongues where there was no edification for the congregation. We now see speaking in tongues all over the church today (especially in the mission field) where the Pirit brings understanding to those on both sides of a language barrier.

I'm no historian but even I can see Vogel's theories are propped up on ignoring all contrary evidence.

[Pahoran]

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

The point I see is that you make an unqualified assertion that directly contradicts the personal testimony of the witnesses and then expect us to accept your just-so story, on no other authority than your dogmatic say-so, and forever after incorporate it into whatever we say about the witnesses.

Anti-Mormon arrogance truly knows no bounds at all, does it?

Well so sorry, Mr Vogel, but as important as you are in your universe, next time I discuss the witnesses, I will emphasise the fact (and it is a fact) that the Eight saw the plates with their own eyes, handled them with their own hands, and all in a natural setting.

But so that you don't feel left out, I might mention that the witnesses are a real problem for those who want to simply reject the Book of Mormon, and that I am aware of people who think that if they try hard enough, they can make the statements of the witnesses mean the exact opposite of what they say.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 19, 2012 by Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Tarski, Tarski,

Surely you can do better than this! Listen to yourself! "Probable mechanisms.... once one gets over the idea... related to narratives constructed..." by some mysterious "process" of ...."rationalization and neural negotiations"... over some non-specified time ranging from a second to a year, "leading to false judgements and memories and finally a speech act recounting" (presumably accurate or not) "the hallucination"?

You could have fudged it a little more by saying "alleged hallucination". Come on dude! Could you get it any vaguer? What are these mechanisms- what is the process- what is the rationalization- what are the neural negotiations, what is the time period, what are the false judgements (as opposed to true judgements)- how do the memories fit and how does the speech act supposedly correspond to the recounting of what is alleged to be a "hallucination"??

Would you buy this for one instant if an apologist wrote this? You would laugh your head off!

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).

Need I de-construct THIS paragraph also? Are you getting the idea? Same problem!

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

A truly interesting idea. How would anyone know that? Maybe we are hallucinating the whole United States of America. We actually live in Communist China- which is also a hallucination!

How about just a few anti-Mormons just hallucinating while alleging others are hallucinating? If we are all hallucinating how does one tell what "reality" is?

What really cracks me up, is that this is precisely what my personal critics say about the way I see things- and here it is TARSKI the board sage on all things logical and scientific making a similar but highly flawed argument!

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

If nothing else, you are giving me phenomenal evidence for the notion of "social constructivism". Thanks!

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

I will re-read it, but as I recall this has nothing to do with waking hallucinations- I will return and report when I have a chance to re-read it.

[wenglund]

Why should we duplicate what has already been duplicated? We didn’t make the phenomenon of group hallucination up.

And why do you think such things have to be duplicated to be a legitimate explanation? Some things in history can’t be duplicated. Indeed, I would be hard pressed to find 11 Mormons who can do anything like what we read their ancestors doing. Could current Mormons duplicate the Kirtland temple endowment? When’s the last time you heard tongue speaking and prophesying in sacrament meeting? Face it, current Mormons are nothing like founding Mormons. Why? Because the modern mind is not the same as nineteenth-century minds—even Mormon minds. Science and skepticism have had a wide impact on society. Where can we find a Martin Harris or David Whitmer?

Besides, these things are situational—a charismatic leader and his followers already predisposed to visions and such things. Not likely the thing that can be artificially created in a scientific experiment.

Finally, we don’t even know enough of the details to know what we are required to duplicate. The bar is probably going to be set too high.

You could have saved a lot of bandwidth were you to just admit that you are quite convinced that you couldn't pull it off.

Anyway, how about this instead: you and Tarski and Palmer and other believers in group hallucination can get together in an empty room and and see if you can conjure up a group hallucination of you all looking at, handling, turning pages, and hefting a recent edition of Webster's Dictionary? You are a charismatic guy, so it shouldn't be a problem. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

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.

We don't see atoms, we don't see dark matter, we don't see light waves or radio waves or the strings of string theory- so are we "hallucinating" everything?

I don'[t think that is a problem that arises for sane people. Can we prove we are not? It really doesn't matter much does it? I have to go pick up the cleaning now.

The point is that in real life these alleged "problems" don't amount to a hill of beans- it's all smoke and mirrors! This is the sort of alleged "problem" that Wittgenstein was put on this earth to solve.

[mfbukowski]

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

I apologize

[Dan Vogel]

But it is something that someone made up.

At any rate, group hallucination can be studied--to the extent it can be--only as a contemporary phenomena that is closely monitored and controlled. Any claim that a past event was due to group hallucination must remain an assertion, since the event can not be monitored or controlled in the ways necessary to demonstrate some for of "group hallucination".

Of course, as I have repeatedly stated, I’m not using group hallucination to prove the witnesses were hallucinating. I’m using it as an explanation should the BOM be judged to be fiction. In other words, the lack of historicity for the BOM makes hallucination probable.

[Jaybear]

Of course, Bill overstates his case. No one would introduce the concept of group hallucination in a non-visionary setting. That would be totally unconvincing. The possibility of group hallucination exists for this situation, but it's not automatic. As I said before, it's a legitimate approach for those who have concluded the BOM is fiction.

Apologists seem to forget that the discussions about the credibility of witnesses is relevant because the plates can't be produced for a real inspection.

So while they may scoff at the suggestions of "mass hallucination", the explanation need only come across as more plausible than the explanation Smith offered for the absence of the plates ... an angel took them back to heaven.

[Dan Vogel]

IOW, the evidence disagrees with your theory; your theory is controlling; therefore, the evidence is dismissed.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

The Poulson interview can’t be trust for the reasons I gave. My reasons are sound, unlike the reasons Anderson gives for rejecting Burnett’s report of Harris and Turley’s report of John Whitmer. Whose theory is controlling the acceptance and rejection of sources? Clue—its Anderson.

[Dan Vogel]

Bob,

I find your point about group hallucination interesting, and not a new one. The problem with a group hallucination theory is that it is so easy to break apart, with one or more participants coming around to contest it.

Well, none did in this case. However, there is no requirement that everyone in the group see the same thing. In the Kirtland temple, some saw angels, while most did not. In the appearances of Mary, not everyone in the crowd has a vision. That’s not a problem.

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course, as I have repeatedly stated, I’m not using group hallucination to prove the witnesses were hallucinating. I’m using it as an explanation should the BOM be judged to be fiction. In other words, the lack of historicity for the BOM makes hallucination probable.

And the historicity of the BOM makes the authenticity of the witnesses probable, right?

Your theory is clearly controlling your data, and you admit it.

[Dan Vogel]

So you will excuse us if we find your claims "totally unconvincing."

In other words, your theory ("the BOM is fiction") controls the data. Just like we've said.

This is a very revealing statement.

The main purpose of my original essay was to explain the nature of the three and eight witnesses’ experiences. Knowing that both groups of witnesses saw the plates in vision opens up the possibility of hallucination. However, I have repeatedly said that there is no way to distinguish between a possibly real vision of an angel and plates and a hallucination. I have also suggested that this is resolved if BOM historicity is rejected in favor of hallucination. Do you have a better way of looking at it, Bill?

[Dan Vogel]

And the historicity of the BOM makes the authenticity of the witnesses probable, right?

Your theory is clearly controlling your data, and you admit it.

Yes, the authenticity of the witnesses carries the same degree of probability as BOM historicity. The opposite is also true. The more improbable BOM historicity becomes, the more likely the witnesses hallucinated. There is no data to control with BOM witnesses with regard to the vision/hallucination issue. My main purpose is to establish the nature of their experiences with the plates, so that hallucination becomes a possibility.

[Dan Vogel]

The point I see is that you make an unqualified assertion that directly contradicts the personal testimony of the witnesses and then expect us to accept your just-so story, on no other authority than your dogmatic say-so, and forever after incorporate it into whatever we say about the witnesses. Anti-Mormon arrogance truly knows no bounds at all, does it? Well so sorry, Mr Vogel, but as important as you are in your universe, next time I discuss the witnesses, I will emphasise the fact (and it is a fact) that the Eight saw the plates with their own eyes, handled them with their own hands, and all in a natural setting. But so that you don't feel left out, I might mention that the witnesses are a real problem for those who want to simply reject the Book of Mormon, and that I am aware of people who think that if they try hard enough, they can make the statements of the witnesses mean the exact opposite of what they say. Regards, Pahoran

This post only tells me you don't know the evidence discussion by me and Anderson and simply want to throw out ad hominem.

[Sky]

Yes, the authenticity of the witnesses carries the same degree of probability as BOM historicity. The opposite is also true. The more improbable BOM historicity becomes, the more likely the witnesses hallucinated. There is no data to control with BOM witnesses with regard to the vision/hallucination issue. My main purpose is to establish the nature of their experiences with the plates, so that hallucination becomes a possibility.

So, was it all a hallucination when the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood’s were restored by the laying on of hands through the resurrected John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John?

If so, it just seems to me like too much hallucinating going on with too many people all at the same time. They certainly managed to pull off a great con!

[Bill Hamblin]

The main purpose of my original essay was to explain the nature of the three and eight witnesses’ experiences. Knowing that both groups of witnesses saw the plates in vision opens up the possibility of hallucination. However, I have repeatedly said that there is no way to distinguish between a possibly real vision of an angel and plates and a hallucination. I have also suggested that this is resolved if BOM historicity is rejected in favor of hallucination. Do you have a better way of looking at it, Bill?

Well, let's image (or hallucinate as a group, if you will), that Dan Vogel is on trial for murder, and Bill Hamblin is the prosecuting attorney. Dan provides 11 witnesses proclaiming his innocence. Bill replies: "Well, if Vogel is guilty, these witnesses must be lying or hallucinating." Would Dan Vogel (rightly) object to that line of reasoning? Isn't the point of the witnesses to establish innocence, rather than to be dismissed simply because the guilt of Vogel is assumed?

[Bill Hamblin]

The main purpose of my original essay was to explain the nature of the three and eight witnesses’ experiences. Knowing that both groups of witnesses saw the plates in vision opens up the possibility of hallucination. However, I have repeatedly said that there is no way to distinguish between a possibly real vision of an angel and plates and a hallucination. I have also suggested that this is resolved if BOM historicity is rejected in favor of hallucination. Do you have a better way of looking at it, Bill?

Actually I can.

1- Take the evidence of the witnesses as an independent historical question, not one predetermined by assumptions about the historicity or lack of historicity of the BOM.

2- Evaluate the evidence in terms of relative nearness to the events in question. That is, give precedence to those statements that are closer in time to the date of the event, and give precedence to primary statements by the witnesses themselves, over secondary statements or tertiary statements.

3- Categorize the evidence according to the pro or anti-Mormon bias.

4- Evaluate the evidence based on consistency of patterns vs. outlier claims.

In other words, a late, secondary anti-Mormon outlier claim must have less evidentiary value than a early, primary, Mormon claim that matches a broad pattern.

This, of course, does not solve all the problems, but it does create a consistent pattern that the witnesses themselves said they saw golden plates, saw engravings on the plates, and held the plates.

Using this methodology does not support the claim that they only saw plates under a cloth, or that the plates were tin, or that they only saw the plates in "visionary" circumstances.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[wenglund]

You don’t know if JS defined the law of witnesses the same way you do, but you suggest God does and you cite D&C 5 as proof. However, I can’t find anywhere in that revelation that says the plates have to be physically seen and handled by the three witnesses to fulfill that law. You are adding something that is not there. Indeed, you are making unsupported assumptions

It isn't spelled out explicitly (there was no call for God to insult people's intelligence by stating the obvious), but the implications are as plain as day--particularly the part about the witnesses "knowing of a surety" and viewing "things as they are."

Certainly, it is stated that God intended to have three witnesses view the plates, but not as to how they were to be viewed. At the time (March 1829), no one reading it would have a clue how it was to be accomplished. The “meaningful” way is a meaning you have added because you are trying to make an argument that just isn’t there.

Let's see, at the time, and according the historical record and the passage in question, Joseph physically had the plates in his possession, and he had physically seen and handled the plates. It is quite clear that he wasn't experiencing an ongoing vision or dream.

However, Joseph had entered into a covenant to not show the plates except to those people permitted by God.

Note that the covenanrt wasn't to not invoke a group hallucination or visions or dreams of the plates--as if that was something Joseph could control even if he wanted to, but rather to not physically show the plates he physically had in his possession, except to those granted divine permission. Why this isn't self evident to you, is anyone's guess (see below).

Also at the time, Joseph physically had the plates in his possession, and he had physically seen the plates and physically handled the plates, and he was commanded to stand as a witness to what he had physically received from God.

Furthermore, Joseph was told that other witnesses would be called to "receive this same testimony."

If the implications that the witnesses were to physically see and handle the plates isn't clear enough for you, then please understand that according to D&C 6, and as early as April, 1829, at least Oliver Cowdery had already received a divine manifestation about the Book of Mormon, and so there was no need for him to be given another vision of the plates. That would have been redundant. It only maked sense, then, that he be physically shown the plates, and "see them as they are," and this so as to bear the same testimony as Joseph.

Here is what Martin Harris was specifically promised: "...if he will bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desires to see. And then he shall say unto the people of this generation: Behold, I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith, Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them..." (D&C 5)

Why not? Both are witnesses, just different. There is nothing in the law of witnesses that demands this distinction. The point is to have more than one witness; the downgrading of a vision is yours. Yet, a vision is what the three witnesses were promised and what they said they had.

I’m dumbfounded that you think this makes any sense.

I see. Because I don’t follow your reasoning, which isn’t definitive anyway, I have to resort to “cognitive gymnastics” and “faith” to avoid your powerful logic. Wade, I think you know how weak this line of argument is.

It isn't that my argument is weak. It is that, admittedly, it isn't strong enough to pierce your self-inflicted darkness, and certainly not strong enough to counteract prophecy: "Behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, [and in turn they would not believe my servant Wade, even] if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you. Oh, this unbelieving and stiffnecked generation....And the testimony of three witnesses will I send forth of my word....And their testimony shall also go forth unto the condemnation of this generation if they harden their hearts against them" (ibid)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

Well, let's image (or hallucinate as a group, if you will), that Dan Vogel is on trial for murder, and Bill Hamblin is the prosecuting attorney. Dan provides 11 witnesses proclaiming his innocence. Bill replies: "Well, if Vogel is guilty, these witnesses must be lying or hallucinating." Would Dan Vogel (rightly) object to that line of reasoning? Isn't the point of the witnesses to establish innocence, rather than to be dismissed simply because the guilt of Vogel is assumed?

What a shame. What could be an interesting discussion derailed by mocking and what I can only assume is a deliberate effort to miss the point.

In your analogy, you would be remiss as a prosecutor not to inquire further if you learned that one of the witnesses mentioned to another person having seen what he was purported to have seen in a vision.

The relevant question being whether any or all of the other witnesses were similarly situated.

Its seems this question can be addressed without regard to Dan's guilt or innocence.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Jaybear

[Dan Vogel]

Well, let's image (or hallucinate as a group, if you will), that Dan Vogel is on trial for murder, and Bill Hamblin is the prosecuting attorney. Dan provides 11 witnesses proclaiming his innocence. Bill replies: "Well, if Vogel is guilty, these witnesses must be lying or hallucinating." Would Dan Vogel (rightly) object to that line of reasoning? Isn't the point of the witnesses to establish innocence, rather than to be dismissed simply because the guilt of Vogel is assumed?

There really is no need for a poor analogy. If the BOM is not history, the witnesses either lied or hallucinated. Presently, BOM historicity has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt--not even close. Of course, the BOM debate will continue, but for now I’ll settle for an acknowledgement of the relationship between the witnesses and historicity, in theory at least. The structure of this argument is valid.

Likewise, if I were guilty of murder (and that was established beyond a reasonable doubt independent of witnesses), then it follows that the witnesses were either lying or hallucinating and you must accept that. It would foolish to try and make it work the other way round. To make your analogy complete, you need to have the prosecuting attorney impeach some of the witnesses by quoting one of them saying to another person that they had seen me do it “by a supernatural power” and another by spiritual eyes.

No Nephites = no plates = no angel with plates = hallucination

[cdowis]

Apologists seem to forget that the discussions about the credibility of witnesses is relevant because the plates can't be produced for a real inspection.

I haven't forgotten it.

So while they may scoff at the suggestions of "mass hallucination", the explanation need only come across as more plausible than the explanation Smith offered for the absence of the plates ... an angel took them back to heaven.

I agree. Any explanation that excludes the existence of Deity is superior, regardless of how silly, how petty the argument

..... unless you actually believe that God and angels exist.

It really all comes down to showing you a sign that God exists. Otherwise there is no convincing argument.

Edited March 19, 2012 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

1- Take the evidence of the witnesses as an independent historical question, not one predetermined by assumptions about the historicity or lack of historicity of the BOM.

I can do this if the question is only about the nature of their experiences in the sense of natural vs supernatural or physical vs vision (setting aside the hallucination issue). In that case, BOM historicity is irrelevant.

2- Evaluate the evidence in terms of relative nearness to the events in question. That is, give precedence to those statements that are closer in time to the date of the event, and give precedence to primary statements by the witnesses themselves, over secondary statements or tertiary statements.

This is a rule of thumb, and doesn’t mean other criteria aren’t used. For example, the published Testimonies are the earliest, and are not especially helpful and misleading in a number of ways. I have stressed the danger in using them for reconstructing the historical event behind them. It so happens that Burnett’s report of Harris and Turley’s report of John Whitmer are very early, that is, 1838, and 1845 reporting an 1839 statement. Earlier and subsequent statements aren’t clear enough to answer the question at hand.

3- Categorize the evidence according to the pro or anti-Mormon bias.

Certainly you have to be mindful of such things. But you seem to want to privilege Mormon testimony, and not just Mormon but faithful Mormon. Regarding the two main sources I use, Turley was a faithful Mormon, and Burnett was a member but became disturbed partly by what he heard Harris say. This typically leads apologists to label Burnett an anti-Mormon for the purposes of dismissing him. But that’s begging the question. It’s what companies to whistleblowers to discredit them.

4- Evaluate the evidence based on consistency of patterns vs. outlier claims.

Burnett and Turley are not outliers because the other statements of the witnesses do not contradict them. Most are general affirmations and lack detail necessary to disconfirm Burnett and Turley.

In other words, a late, secondary anti-Mormon outlier claim must have less evidentiary value than a early, primary, Mormon claim that matches a broad pattern.

What about a late Mormon outlier such as P. William Poulson? Or an early former Mormon source supported by another early Mormon source?

This, of course, does not solve all the problems, but it does create a consistent pattern that the witnesses themselves said they saw golden plates, saw engravings on the plates, and held the plates.

They saw the plates, but how? That where Burnett and Turley come in.

Using this methodology does not support the claim that they only saw plates under a cloth, or that the plates were tin, or that they only saw the plates in "visionary" circumstances.

Yes, it does.