As explained in an email to Art Vanick, one of the authors of the book under review:
"My only interest is in all of this is to get at the truth. If that means discovering the Book of Mormon to be a fraud perpetrated by conspirators, then so be it. Although I am inherently predisposed to reject your theory in lieu of the stated beliefs of my faith, I am, however, willing to give a fair and somewhat objective review of your case. To approach objectivity as near as I am able, my approach will be to primarily ask probing questions, and to evaluate the arguments and evidence presented using secular tools of science, philosophy, law, and logic. Fair enough?
"To keep things manageable, I intend to keep the discussion focused solely on the verity and soundness of your theory as rested on the arguments and evidence you have presented in your book.
"So as not to be misunderstood, it is a common practice in socio-historical research and judicial examinations, particularly where there is conflicting evidence and testimonies, to consider the reliability or credibility of the evidence and testimonies, as well as the source and methods by which the evidence and testimonies were obtain. This can be done as much by factual observation as well as fair value judgements, with both being indispensable. As such, when this method is applied to your evidence and testimony, I hope you do not take it as a personal (ad hominem) attack on you or your evidence and witnesses.
Given that the majority of evidence presented in the Enigma, and yet to be presented during the course of this critique, comes from the historical statements of witnesses, when I was asked by Art in a later email to first set forth a standard by which I intend to evaluate these statements, and this before he and his coauthors were willing to proffer their own standard (doesn't that seem backwards to you), and before they would be willing to address my inquiries regarding their witnesses (which I found interesting given that they had already selected their "witnesses," presented their "testimonies," and published their "case"), I explained that because there were so many variable associated with a given testimony, it then becames, of necessity, a matter of weighing a variety of things fairly and rationally in the balance, and it would not be practical to suggest a single standard. I went on to state that, "I am perfectly comfortable leaving the 'standard' for what is solid or credible testimony up to the discretion of the reader (the jury of peers), regardless of whose witnesses were under examination."
However, I did think it wise to list, for his benefit, and for the benefit of the reader, some examples of the many variable that should be tested and weigh when evaluating the testimonies. I believe consideration and discretionary weight should be given to:
I should note that even though I had set forth my evaluative criteria, Art decline to proffer his (apparently holding himself, the author, to a different, or double, standard than what he has repeatedly requested of me, the reviewer). However, he did tell me (and by extension, the reader) to: "Look in the front of the first Dan Vogel book about early Mormonism. There is about a two page description of what he uses as a standard for determining the quality of evidence, and that is the standard which we used for our entire book." If the reader, like me, is without access to the Vogel book (even were we to figure out which Vogel book Art is referring to), what Art has suggested is of little help. But, it is also of little consequence given that we each have our own criteria called "common sense".
And, because of confusion on Art's part about who had the burden of "proof" in all of this, I pointed out this obvious fact:
"The Spalding theory is being proposed by you good men, not me. Thus, it is your case to 'prove,' not mine. My need is but to raise reasonable doubt, and to test for accuracy and logical soundness, sufficiently so that in the minds of the readers they rightly reject the theory."
Last updated 1/28/01