Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_wenglund]

That settles it then! The juxtaposition of my “wild conjectures” with the invocation of “God” is not lost on me.

I was just adding to your comments about the lost 116-page MS something that was obvious. My observation rests on the very reasonable conclusion that an altered MS would be easily detected. It’s not easy imitating Harris’s handwriting or erasing a MS written in ink. If you can accept that, then the reason given in D&C 10 placing the blame for not translating the “same over again” on a potentially altered MS is weak. The most reasonable explanation for this excuse is that Joseph Smith could not reproduce his efforts, and any attempt to do so could prove disastrous to his claims should the MS surface afterwards. This is strong evidence in support of David Whitmer and other eyewitnesses that no MS was used.

I realize this is counter to your faith, but you should at least recognize that it’s a reasonable argument from my perspective. However, from a faith perspective it could be looked at in a less fundamentalist way. If Joseph Smith translated conceptually using his own language, as some apologists have argued, then he still wouldn’t be able to reproduce the same words. This explanation would as require a very liberal way of looking at Joseph Smith’s revelations.

I can understand that if a person doesn't believe in God, doesn't believe that Joseph Smith received revelation from God, doesn't take Joseph's word for it, may speculate about: what exactly was written in the lost pages, who may have had the lost pages, what may or may not have been in the interest of the bearer of the lost pages, what may or may not have been viable in terms of making alterations of the lost pages sufficient to create problems in the minds of the relatively uneducated and indiscriminate and non-forensicaly trained prairi folk back in the 1820, etc.; and then to view these layers of speculation as reasonable and the revelatory version as weak and lame. But, I trust you will understand if I view it just the opposite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Uncle Dale]

...the Joseph-only camp and the S/R camp are coming closer to a common theory of Joseph + helpers.

I don't see the Smith-alone crowd budging one inch from the
position their Saint Fawn Brodie staked out in the last century.

If anything, it is the Latter Day Saints and the Smith+helpers
advocates who are edging uneasily closer together.

They at least agree on the fact of multiple authorship. When
Sandra Tanner attempts to approach that textual reality, about
the best she can summon up is the guess that Smith might have
changed his dictation language a bit here and there, in places
where he himself was somewhat influenced by external sources.

The Mormons at least agree that Oliver Cowdery made an attempt
to add to the "translated text," and that perhaps Alma 45:22
represents his small initial success, before a subsequent failure.
While we textual analysts are not convinced that Oliver Cowdery
contributed THAT particular portion of the "translation," we are
certainly willing to grant the possibility of his input into the book's
narrative -- on "dictated manuscript" pages containing the "hand"
of any number of different scribes.

Finally -- there are Latter Day Saints like myself, who are able to
take a few mental steps above the haze of polemics, to try and
discern a Divine Providence in our ancestors' Restoration Movement
no matter whether Nephites were real or imaginary.

My hope is that the "New Mormon History" of my own youth might
one day be reborn as an even more honest, more introspective
"Newer Mormon History," which sets aside the Book of Mormon as
a relic of our shared past -- and not something to be clung to as
the "Keystone" of our biblical faith.

I'm inclined to give the LDS far more credit and optimistic scholarly
cooperation than I can ever envision extending to the Brodieites.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Very interesting stuff Dan. Have you, or others, summarized these problems? I would be interested in reading more on problems like these. Also, I was wondering if you have published your full theory of how the Book of Mormon was written? If so, where might one find the information? I have read and seen Criddle's presentation on the Rigdon authorship theory, but would be interested in seeing yours. Thanks.

Brent Metcalfe discussed these problems in his “The Priority of Mosiah,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, and I cover those and others in The Making of a Prophet.

[_GlennThigpen]

Your last statement tells me you don’t know your Book of Mormon very well. When Joseph Smith lost the MS, he continued with Mosiah, now chap. 1, to the end of the Book of Mormon, that is, the book of Moroni. This was in May 1829. He waited until the last possible moment before giving up on getting the lost MS back; he now had to resolve the problem of a book without a beginning. It was at this time he got the revelation that told him to replace the previous record, which had been taken from the large plates of Nephi, with a duplicate record called the small plates of Nephi (D&C 10; date of May 1829 per Book of Commandments). Also about this time, Joseph Smith and OC moved from Harmony, PA, to Fayette, NY, with the Whitmers. Thus the first part—First Book of Nephi to The Words of Mormon—were produced last, during June 1829.

This new record had to be knitted together—hence the awkward Words of Mormon, which supplied the missing beginning of the Book of Mosiah. Note that Mosiah is the only book abridge by Mormon that doesn’t have a superscription and it begins “And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla ….” This missing information was supplied in Words of Mormon 1:12-18. Amazing how Mormon would know exactly what portion would be lost. There are so many problems Joseph Smith created by the introduction of the small plates and his writing them last that this would become a very long discussion. One example is the discovery of Coriantumr, the last surviving Jaredite, by the people of Zarahemla, his carving a record in stone, and Mosiah I translating it and learning that the Jaredites came from the “tower … and their bones lay scattered in the land northward,” as discussed in Omni 1:12-22). Yet, when the bones were discovered in the land northward, along with copper breastplates and a record engraved on gold plates, Mosiah II, Mosiah I’s grandson, was mystified as to who they could be until he translated the plates (Mosiah 28:11-19). When Joseph Smith was dictating this portion of Mosiah in April 1829, he probably had no idea that he would later have Coriantumr survive the Jaredite annihilation at the end of the Book of Ether. When he dictated Omni he was probably unaware of the problem he was creating. There are others like this.

Dan, I really do not see a problem there. The twenty-four plates were found by a group of people that King Limhi had sent to find Zarahemla. They got lost, evidently went too far, winding up in the land northward where they found the remains of the Jaredites and the plates.
When Ammon led the people of Limhi to Zarahemla and presented the plates to Mosiah II, the curiosity was about the contents of those twenty-four plates. There is nothing that indicates Mosiah II was mystified about who those slain people could be. It only states that he translated the plates because the people were anxious to learn of their contents. It was that translation that related those twenty-four plates to Coriantumr and the slain people in the land northward.


Glenn

[_MCB]

I'm inclined to give the LDS far more credit and optimistic scholarly cooperation than I can ever envision extending to the Brodieites.

LOL Depends on how willing Dan V. is to back down from his Brodieite stance. He does see some problems to his explanation. I mean, after all, he is the present-day leader of the Brodieite camp.

I agree that the S/R camp has a more compassionate attitude towards Joseph Smith.

Glenn, the first half of Mosiah is incredibly confused and convoluted. I wouldn't be surprised if they accidentally mixed up what pages they had at the time they lost the 116.

I can also imagine an Ether first scenario. They they made up the story about the loss of the 116 to make it look less like Spalding's work. But that is probably way out there, nobody seems to have ever mentioned it as a possibility.

[_GlennThigpen]

I'm inclined to give the LDS far more credit and optimistic scholarly cooperation than I can ever envision extending to the Brodieites.

LOL Depends on how willing Dan V. is to back down from his Brodieite stance. He does see some problems to his explanation. I mean, after all, he is the present-day leader of the Brodieite camp.

I agree that the S/R camp has a more compassionate attitude towards Joseph Smith.

Glenn, the first half of Mosiah is incredibly confused and convoluted. I wouldn't be surprised if they accidentally mixed up what pages they had at the time they lost the 116.

The first half of Mosiah can be confusing and convoluted and requires careful reading and cross checking. I'll wait to see what Dan may have to say about my post. We will probably wind up agreeing to disagree. The actual interpretation of those passages can be taken several different ways. I think my assessment is pretty logical, but I could be proven wrong.

Glenn

[_maupayman]

Very interesting stuff Dan. Have you, or others, summarized these problems? I would be interested in reading more on problems like these. Also, I was wondering if you have published your full theory of how the Book of Mormon was written? If so, where might one find the information? I have read and seen Criddle's presentation on the Rigdon authorship theory, but would be interested in seeing yours. Thanks.

Brent Metcalfe discussed these problems in his “The Priority of Mosiah,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, and I cover those and others in The Making of a Prophet.

Thanks Dan, i'll check those out!

[_Dan Vogel]

Glenn (and Maupayman),

I was in a hurry and perhaps didn’t explain my position well. I’ve decided the fastest way is to re-post something I posted on the MAD board several years ago. I believe the replacement text created problems in the narrative and shows the ad hoc way the text was constructed, which supports the eyewitness testimony as well as the implications of Joseph Smith’s inability to restore the same text.

Things that don't make sense in the Book of Mormon
Solving the Mystery of the Jaredites Twice?

Apologists typically claim that Joseph Smith dictated a narrative that was consistent.

I propose to challenge this claim by pointing out some incongruities in the Book of Mormon's narrative.

Apologists can respond in two ways: modify their claim that the Book of Mormon is remarkably consistent, or attempt in various ways to harmonize textual conflicts. Either way, the claim becomes overly simplistic.

My first example comes from the book of Mosiah, which is the earliest dictated portion of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi-Words of Mormon being dictated last to replace the lost 116-page MS). Several narrative incongruities arise from what I call the narrative seam, particularly between Mosiah and Omni.


279-130 BC -

After the Great Migration of the Nephites and their discovery of the people of Zarahemla, Mosiah I translates the record of Jaredite survivor Coriantumr.

20 And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

21 And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons.

22 It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward. (Omni 1:20-22)

About 121 BC -

Limhi sends an expeditionary party looking for Zarahemla, but they accidently discover the destroyed Jaredites in the north and bring back 24 gold plates. However, no one can translate them. When Nephite missionary Ammon shows up in the land of Nephi, king Limhi asks him if he can translate.

12 And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction. (Mosiah 8:12)

Apparently Ammon doesn't know the identity of the destroyed people in the land to the north, but tells Limhi that Mosiah II had "interpreters" to translate ancient records.

About 92 BC -

After Limhi's people migrate to Zarahemla, Mosiah II translates the plates.

17 Now after Mosiah had finished translating these records, behold, it gave an account of the people who were destroyed, from the time that they were destroyed back to the building of the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people and they were scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth, yea, and even from that time back until the creation of Adam.

18 Now this account did cause the people of Mosiah to mourn exceedingly, yea, they were filled with sorrow; nevertheless it gave them much knowledge, in the which they did rejoice. (Mosiah 28:17-18)

Here the Nephites in Zarahemla seem unaware of Coriantumr and his record. A possible reason for this is that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mosiah in April 1829 and would not dictate Omni until near the end of June. Mosiah 28:19 promises that "this account shall be written hereafter"; however, apparently, at the time he dictated Mosiah, Joseph Smith did not anticipate Coriantumr’s survival. Thus, in the book of Ether, the prophet Ether adds an element to his prediction that was unforeseen at the time Smith dictated the book of Mosiah, that Coriantumr would

“live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr should receive a burial by them; and every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr” (Ether 13:21).

About a month later, near the end of June 1829, Smith dictated the replacement for the lost portion of the Book of Mormon and fulfilled Ether’s prediction by having Coriantumr “discovered by the people of Zarahemla” and dwell with them for “nine moons,” during which time they learn from him both about the origin of the Jaredites and their destruction (Omni 1:20-22). This created problems because prior to the discovery of the Jaredite record and its subsequent translation by King Mosiah II, the Nephites were mystified about the meaning of the bones and ruins they discovered in the north country (Mos. 28:17-18). It is a curious situation for people who had previously had contact with Coriantumr.



NOTES TO ABOVE

More evidence that the people of Zarahemla were not a unified group who followed a single cultural tradition can be seen in Ammon's encounter with Limhi. The Zeniffite king reported to Ammon that not long before, he had sent an exploring party to locate Zarahemla, but, it turned out, they reached the Jaredite final battleground instead. At the point when Limhi told about that expedition, Ammon was oddly silent on one related point. Since he was himself "a descendant of Zarahemla" (Mosiah 7:13), we might have anticipated that he would recall Coriantumr, the final Jaredite king as described for us in Omni 1:20-22. Why did Ammon not remember that chief Zarahemla's ancestors had this dramatic tradition of an earlier people, the Jaredites, who occupied the land of Desolation and who became extinct except for this wounded alien ruler who lived among the Jewish newcomers for nine months? Surely he would immediately have related the twenty-four gold plates and the corroded artifacts to the tradition to which Limhi referred. Instead, Ammon seems as ignorant of Coriantumr as Limhi was. This suggests that different segments of the "Mulekite" population did not all share the same traditions. ...

--John L. Sorenson, "When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?" Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1 (1992): 16.

MORE THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE IN THE Book of Mormon
LEHI'S 600 YEAR PROPHECY UNKNOWN TO LATER PROPHETS

This thread continues my discussion of textual problems created when Joseph Smith dictated the first part (1 Nephi-Words of Mormon) last.

See previous thread: "Solving the Mystery of the Jaredites Twice?"

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=20670


In reviewing Lehi's prediction concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the restoration of Israel, Nephi includes a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah:

Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews--even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world (1 Nephi 10:4; cf. 19: v8).

In writing the first part of the Book of Mormon last, Smith is unaware of the problems he is creating by inserting new theological material. For instance, Lehi’s 600-year prophecy is unknown to later writers. Alma, for example, is unaware of Lehi's prediction when, in speaking of Jesus' birth, he declares:

For the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice (Alma 13:25).

Samuel the Lamanite's five-year prediction loses meaning in light of Lehi's previous pinpoint accuracy in foretelling the date (Hel. 14:2). Why no mention of Lehi's prophecy?


This problem was discussed in 1993 in Brent Lee Metcalfe, "The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis," in Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, 416-17. When Matthew Roper reviewed this essay, he disputed Metcalfe's use of Alma 13:25 but admitted that the subsequent silence of later prophets regarding Lehi's prophecy is a "significant point" and gave the following explanation:

But Metcalfe does raise a significant point: Why would Benjamin and Alma not speak more specifically of the date of Christ's birth and Lehi's 600-year prophecy in their public discourses in the land of Zarahemla? The most likely explanation may be that this information was considered a mystery, reserved for the faithful. Nephite prophets often concealed certain scriptural information from the public at various times in their history, for diverse reasons (Alma 37:27-29; 45:9; 3 Nephi 28:25; Ether 4:1). I would suggest that Samuel's prophecy was considered significant and unique because it was the first public disclosure of the date of Christ's birth among the people of Zarahemla and not because the information was new. The largely negative reaction of the people (Helaman 16:6-23; 3 Nephi 1:4-10) is reason enough for the prophets to have concealed the information so long.

--Matthew Roper, "Review of Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis by Brent Lee Metcalfe," FARMS Review 6/1 (1994): 366.

Roper's extra-textual speculations notwithstanding, the text presents an incongruous situation. It is another example of how the seam between the small and large plates is imperfect.



The following is from an endnote in Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (p. 606):

Although the actual year was 597 B.C., Joseph Smith’s use of the year 600 B.C. as the first year of king Zedekiah’s reign (1 Ne. 1:4) was probably based on the Bible commentaries of his day. Both Adam Clarke and Thomas Scott dated it to 599 B.C. Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible ... with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 6 vols. (New York: Ezra Sargent, 1811-17), s.v., 2 Kings 24:18; Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible ... with Explanatory Notes, Practical Observations, and Copious Marginal References (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1817), 2:387-88. The Bible Smith used for his inspired revision was published in 1828 and purchased by Oliver Cowdery on 8 October 1829; it variously dates Zedekiah’s reign to 593 B.C. (see under 2 Kings 24:18 and 2 Chron. 36:11) and 599 B.C. (see under Jer. 52:1) (The Holy Bible [Cooperstown, NY: H. and E. Phinney Co., 1828], original in the Community of Christ archives [EMD 3:478]).

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn (and Maupayman),

I was in a hurry and perhaps didn’t explain my position well. I’ve decided the fastest way is to re-post something I posted on the MAD board several years ago. I believe the replacement text created problems in the narrative and shows the ad hoc way the text was constructed, which supports the eyewitness testimony as well as the implications of Joseph Smith’s inability to restore the same text.

Things that don't make sense in the Book of Mormon
Solving the Mystery of the Jaredites Twice?

Dan, as I mentioned in my previous post, the people of king Limhi were the ones who found the Jaredite plates and delivered them to Mosiah II to translate. There is no reason to assume that Ammon, as a descedant of Zarahemla, would have known of Coriantumr and the stone from which Mosiah I had deciphered the brief history of the Jaredites. He was at the best, a grandson of Zarahemla, andwould have been very young or maybe not even born a the time. If he had been a contemporary of Zarahemla, your point would have been stronger.
Again, there is indication that the Nephites were mystified about the destroyed people that Limhi's people had seen. They were desirous to learn about the contents of the plates. Since no one could translate them but Mosiah II, they were left to conjecture about what the contents of the plates were. And, as it turned out, it was about the Jaredites and lastly, about Coriantumr.

On the 600 year Lehi prophecy about the coming of Christ, if you recall, it was on the small plates of Nephi. Those plates were given to Jacob by Nephi with special instructions. They were evidently handed down from father to son until they were full, then delivered to King Benjamin, who, as a descendant of Nephi, had been keeping the large plates of Nephi.
There is no indication textually that Lehi's prophecy was recorded on the large plates, or that the subsequent prophets had even read those plates of Nephi. That would explain the fact that later prophets were not aware of that prophecy. I think that Roper's point about the exact year not being generally known is viable, given the fact that Nephi was given a special commandment to make those plates in addition to the large plates, for reasons which the Lord did not explain.

I think that my points are as plausible as the ones you posited. Of course, with mine, you have to accept that the small plates did indeed exist, etc. with which I do not expect that you will concur.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Glenn, some of those inconsistencies don't bother me either. I have written a creative retelling of the story, and in it I have the Zarehemlites as a pacifistic, disgusted splinter of the Jaredites. Given all the splintering, one group did not know the history of another, because of the distance they had traveled to get away from all the violence.
I guess I can revisit that project.