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

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Wherever Hurlbut was kept in custody is not relevant
...

In other words you do not know -- and you do not wish
to know. Is that correct?

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

...
Wherever Hurlbut was kept in custody is not relevant
...

In other words you do not know -- and you do not wish
to know. Is that correct?

UD

All I know about it is that the court records indicate that he was held in custody by a Kirtland constable in one instance, and a Painesville constable in two instances while he was awaiting the examination. It does not indicate where he was held during those times. But whether I know where he was held or whether I want to know where he was held is irrelevant to any part of the discussion.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
he was held in custody by a Kirtland constable in one instance, and a Painesville constable in two instances while he was awaiting the examination.
...

If you will read the correspondence sent to President Fairchild in
later years, by Hurlbut's in-laws, you will see that they claimed
his life was threatened during the time he was incarcerated in
Kirtland, by the Mormon township officials.

John C. Dowen (the previous Gentile Justice of the Peace) lost
the 1833 township election and by the end of 1833 all the
township offices, save one, were in the hands of Joseph Smith's
followers. The Mormon constable(s) would have looked upon
Smith as God's vicar on earth -- whose instructions were to be
obeyed as though they came from the Almighty.

At the beginning of 1834 there was no official jail in the township.
The most secure structure was probably the stone enclosure of
the unfinished temple up on the bluff above Kirtland Flats. There
is no known documentation as to where prisoners were held
when awaiting trial in 1833-34, but a location up on the hill
would probably been more secure than one down on the flats.

The constable would have taken possession of any loose items
in Hurlbut's possession (when he was arrested in Painesville)
and his luggage, personal items, etc., would have been carried
down to Kirtland and placed in custody of the local officials
until Briggs was able to get Hurlbut transferred to Gentile custody.

Hurlbut had lived in Kirtland Flats, but after his release from
custody he went to live in adjacent Mentor with the Johnsons.

Think of how the scene would have differed, had Smith been
arrested and taken into custody by a follower of D.P. Hurlbut.
Suppose that Smith's possessions had been entrusted to the
keeping of an armed man who looked upon Hurlbut as God's
representative on earth. Suppose Smith's manuscripts and
personal papers had been given over to Hurlbut's associates.

The correspondence in the Fairchild papers is indefinite as to
exactly when and where Hurlbut was reportedly threatened
with assassination by the Mormons -- but he was only in
their custody for a few days, and the implication was that he
was safe from any such threats, once he was out of Kirtland.

When investigators ask what happened to the manuscript
John Dowen claimed to have seen, they should recall that
Dowen's term in office ended just before Hurlbut was arrested.
Dowen lived in Kirtland -- and it is very unlikely that Hurlbut
ever returned to Kirtland after his transfer out of the Mormons'
custody. For these and other reasons, it is reasonable to
assume that Hurlbut's interactions with Dowen took place
before the end of 1833, and not during/after his incarceration
in Mormon hands in early January of 1834.

There is no mention of Hurlbut displaying his manuscript(s) to
anybody, following his being in custody in Kirtland. At the
beginning of February, 1834 Hurlbut turned over the Spalding
Roman story to E.D. Howe in Painesville. It appears likely that
he did not possess any anti-Mormon research materials after
that transfer.

So, in my chronology, at least, the events runs like this:

1. Hurlbut exhibits purported Spalding manuscript(s)
2. Hurlbut visits with JP. Dowen.
3. Hurlbut has hostile interaction with Smith in Kirtland.
4. Hurlbut is arrested and brought back to Kirtland
5. No further reports of Hurlbut displaying any manuscripts.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Fair enough. So "use of the stone" (and whatever that specifically entails), in this case at least, is speculative. I am not familiar enough with how much of the original ms survived. Apparently not enough to determine whether the variants were integral to the text. I assume they are in the printer's copy?

The printer’s MS merely copied the dictated MS, so whatever possible interlineations there were would have been lost. If we had the original and found the variant words inserted above the line, or interlinearly, we would know the text was copied from the Bible. However, if the variants were integral to the dictated MS Mormons could say it was dictated from the stone complete with changes. However, I would suggest the possibility that Joseph Smith took a Bible and wrote the variant readings in it, which was then copied without any interlineations involved. How exactly he would have performed this part of the translation would entail more speculation, but we can be fairly certain it was done in such a way as to assign inspiration/revelation on the variant readings. I would suggest he claimed to see the whole text in the stone, and looking back and forth wrote the variant words himself in the Bible. If so, this would not have been the first time he wrote himself during the translation. Joseph Smith’s handwriting appears for 28 words in Alma 45:22.

If we don't have evidence either way, then what basis is there to conclude that the variants were created at a later point in time? Is this how Pratt claims the Inspired Version changes came about?

If I remember correctly, Pratt’s statement was general. Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision is a combination of dictated revelations, and random changes. The dictated parts include the Books of Moses, produced in New York probably through the stone. Many of the random changes were made in accordance with revelations now found in D&C. I wouldn’t claim that every change came through the stone. As time went on, Joseph Smith used the stone less and less, and even gave it up to Cowdery.

So to be clear... you are saying the only external material that was blatantly plagiarized was the obvious large-scale, nearly verbatim KJVB quotations. Correct? When Sandra Tanner produces a large amount of word-string comparisons like the one I listed, you don't think an open Bible was used to produce any of them?

Right. He proved over and over he could do it. That was his gift.

So then, the short answer is, when it comes to words appearing in the stone, your opinion is that the witnesses were deceived by Joseph Smith.

Yes.

When you say things like: "He had a vision of the plates before he met Joseph Smith in Harmony, PA." I am at a loss as to how to interpret that. Does that mean you believe he actually did have "a vision of the plates before he met Joseph Smith in Harmony, PA" that was presumably given to him by God? If not, then how are we to interpret it?

If you read my biography of Joseph Smith, you’ll find that I’m a skeptic and naturalist. I don’t believe in the supernatural, so if I say Cowdery had a vision I mean he believed he had a vision. I don’t think it’s necessary to constantly qualify my statements. My inclination is to treat all claims of the supernatural as either delusion or fraud.

I agree that he "wasn’t the logical school teacher..." but why does that imply that he was deceived rather than being a part of the deception?

True, it doesn’t mean he could be a deceiver himself, but it opens the door to his possibly being a dupe. He could be manipulated by Joseph Smith. Lucy Smith, of all people, describes his behavior prior to meeting Joseph Smith as erratic or extreme.

One more question....

Where do you think the characters Martin Harris took to Charles Anthon came from? Who would have drawn/copied them?

I think mostly the characters came from Joseph Smith’s imagination. The best explanation given of them is the one given by the Tanners--that they are deformed English and distorted numbers. Joseph Smith knew before he sent Harris that the learned would not be able to read them—that was the point. The learned could not read them, but Joseph Smith could with his stone. The earliest accounts have Harris saying Joseph Smith was smarter than the learned. The part about Anthon reading them came later.

[_GlennThigpen]

So, in my chronology, at least, the events runs like this:

1. Hurlbut exhibits purported Spalding manuscript(s)
2. Hurlbut visits with JP. Dowen.
3. Hurlbut has hostile interaction with Smith in Kirtland.
4. Hurlbut is arrested and brought back to Kirtland
5. No further reports of Hurlbut displaying any manuscripts.

UD

I see no reason to quibble with your chronology. It is probably pretty accurate. Is there a point about the alleged second manuscript not being brought up at the preliminary hearing? This is where Joseph was asked, under oath, to recount the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. According to Briggs, he grilled Joseph rather relentlessly, but did not introduce the manuscript and the evidence of fraud that it supposedly contained. Briggs and Dowen both claimed to have seen a manuscript which read like the Book of Mormon, but with no religious matter. This would have been the perfect opportunity to produce that manuscript with Joseph on the stand and under oath. Briggs was very green at the time, but he would have to have been utterly stupid to not brace Joseph on the stand with irrefutable evidence that he was lying and probably would have resulted in a Hurlbut acquittal and a prosecution against Joseph for lying.

I do not know what your personal beliefs are in this area. I had been responding to Roger's idea that Hurlbut had recovered two manuscripts from the trunk one, being the Oberlin Manuscript and the other being the object of controversy. According to theory, Hurlbut sold the manuscript to the Mormons and the destroyed it.

To me, the legal proceedings in Ohio that led to Hurlbut's downfall are not proof positive that Hurlbut did not have the alleged second manuscript, but logically, if he did have it, would have put it to good use there.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...Is there a point about the alleged second manuscript not being brought up at the preliminary hearing?
...

We do not have a detailed transcript of those proceedings, so it
is not possible to recreate exactly what happened.

The fact that two judges presided in Painesville may indicate that
two complaints were combined into one hearing. Smith's complaint
was filed with Judge Dowen in Kirtland, and it was the more serious
charge -- that Hurlbut was attempting to murder Smith. If Hurlbut
was able to file a charge (probably in Mentor) his accusation would
have been the lesser complaint (simple assault) and might have not
even been granted legal status until Smith's complaint was first
heard and acted upon.

That is why I believe there were two judges present. At any rate,
the outcome was that Hurlbut was bound over to the State court.
He could have remained in legal custody, or he could have offered
a cash bond -- which is evidently what happened.

Almost immediately thereafter the local Anti-Mormon Committe ran
an advertisement in the Painesville paper, threatening to expose
Mormonism as having been founded on Spalding's writings. That
committee obviously believed that Hurlbut was about ready to
hand over to them his documentary evidence. They may have
paid him a sum of money at that time which covered his bail.

That is the last we hear of that committee -- at the beginning of
February, 1834. There is no evidence to show that Hurlbut gave
them any documents. Instead, he sold his materials (including
the Spalding Roman story manuscript) to E.D.Howe, for $50 and
a promise of 500 books with a sales price of about $1.00.

Going back to the pre-trial hearing -- the members of the local
anti-Mormon committee must have been encouraged enough
with the testimony offered at that time, to go on and place their
advertisement in the paper. But what evidence was then shown?

I do not know. There is no mention of Hurlbut exhibiting any
Spalding manuscript after his return from Ashtabula County,
in January of 1834. It appears very doubtful that he displayed
any such manuscript during his pre-trial hearing. Indeed, it is
doubtful that any such manuscript evidence would have been
admitted to a case of attempted (or threatened) murder.

Thus, we are left with the chronology showing that there were
no more reports of Hurlbut displaying any manuscript(s) AFTER
his incarceration by the Mormons at Kirtland. Of course he was
not held there by the Church as a legal authority -- he was held
by civil authorities who just happened to be followers of Smith.

There is not enough available evidence to make an accusation
against those Mormons, of having stolen Hurlbut's documents.
Also, if some Mormon did steal his purported "Manuscript Found"
during that January, 1834 incarceration in Kirtland, it is fully
possible that all he got for his efforts was a forgery concocted
by Hurlbut himself -- in order to make money off his late 1833
lectures. If that is what happened, I can see why embarrassed
Mormons would have simply burned the phoney Spalding story
and never subsequently have made mention of the theft.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

There is not enough available evidence to make an accusation
against those Mormons, of having stolen Hurlbut's documents.
Also, if some Mormon did steal his purported "Manuscript Found"
during that January, 1834 incarceration in Kirtland, it is fully
possible that all he got for his efforts was a forgery concocted
by Hurlbut himself -- in order to make money off his late 1833
lectures. If that is what happened, I can see why embarrassed
Mormons would have simply burned the phoney Spalding story
and never subsequently have made mention of the theft.

UD

Is there any evidence that (a) Hurlbut was in custody of the Mormons, and (b) that any of his belongings were molested in any way?

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

There is not enough available evidence to make an accusation
against those Mormons, of having stolen Hurlbut's documents.
Also, if some Mormon did steal his purported "Manuscript Found"
during that January, 1834 incarceration in Kirtland, it is fully
possible that all he got for his efforts was a forgery concocted
by Hurlbut himself -- in order to make money off his late 1833
lectures. If that is what happened, I can see why embarrassed
Mormons would have simply burned the phoney Spalding story
and never subsequently have made mention of the theft.

UD

Is there any evidence that (a) Hurlbut was in custody of the Mormons, and (b) that any of his belongings were molested in any way?

Glenn

You'll have to get out the 1832-34 Kirtland township records to
see if any Gentiles held office then. Dowen was a Gentile JP, but
was voted out of office late in 1833. I think there was one Gentile
who was the dog-catcher, or some such office-holder.

Suppose you were an anti-Scientologist, claiming to possess
documents extremely damaging to that group -- and you were
arrested and placed in the custody of a Scientologist, and then
transported to Scientoligy's headquarters in San Jacinto, CA.

Technically you would not be in the hands of the Church of
Scientology -- but you would be under the control of their
very self-defensive members.

Getting back to Kirtland in 1833-34 -- recall that George A. Smith
testified to being Joseph's Smith armed bodyguard -- protecting
the town from D.P. Hurlbut's forces -- who, at one point attacked
Kirtland by firing a cannon into the village.

That was the environment Hurlbut was going into, when in the
custody of the Mormon constable.

So -- if you were the anti-Scientologist, being incarcerated in
San Jacinto -- all the Scientologists there would know that you
had been trying to murder their leaders with heavy artillery.

That approximates the situation Hurlbut was in during Jan., 1834.
He was not held by the Church at Church headquarters -- but he
was held by members of the Church, and perhaps in the
unfinished temple.

Either that situation is worthy of our historical investigation or it
is not --- But Apostle George A. Smith seemed to think it was a
very dangerous episode in early Church history.

Do with it as you like. Perhaps you are currently too busy to
investigate such obscure matters, among dusty old records
stored away in Ohio warehouses.

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

If so, this would not have been the first time he wrote himself during the translation. Joseph Smith’s handwriting appears for 28 words in Alma 45:22.

That's odd. Is that the only place Joseph Smith's handwriting appears?

If I remember correctly, Pratt’s statement was general. Joseph Smith’s Bible Revision is a combination of dictated revelations, and random changes. The dictated parts include the Books of Moses, produced in New York probably through the stone. Many of the random changes were made in accordance with revelations now found in D&C. I wouldn’t claim that every change came through the stone. As time went on, Joseph Smith used the stone less and less, and even gave it up to Cowdery.

I suppose Cowdery and/or Rigdon was in charge of compiling the revelations and random changes?

Are there two ms's for the Book of Moses? What about the Book of Abraham? That's a whole different ballgame isn't it?

If you read my biography of Joseph Smith, you’ll find that I’m a skeptic and naturalist. I don’t believe in the supernatural, so if I say Cowdery had a vision I mean he believed he had a vision. I don’t think it’s necessary to constantly qualify my statements. My inclination is to treat all claims of the supernatural as either delusion or fraud.

Okay, then at least we are on the same page on that. It's confusing when you use the same terminology as the Mormons.

True, it doesn’t mean he could be a deceiver himself, but it opens the door to his possibly being a dupe. He could be manipulated by Joseph Smith. Lucy Smith, of all people, describes his behavior prior to meeting Joseph Smith as erratic or extreme.

So I look at the above and wonder if you meant what you typed or if there is a typo.... did you mean "True, it doesn’t rule out that he could have been a deceiver himself..." (which would be agreeing with me) or did you mean what you typed?

I think mostly the characters came from Joseph Smith’s imagination. The best explanation given of them is the one given by the Tanners--that they are deformed English and distorted numbers. Joseph Smith knew before he sent Harris that the learned would not be able to read them—that was the point.

I agree that Smith knew the learned would not be able to read them. I think Isaiah 29 was already in the back of Smith's mind before Harris left.

Are you aware of the possible connection to the Detroit Manuscript? Have you read Richard Stout's essay on this?

The learned could not read them, but Joseph Smith could with his stone. The earliest accounts have Harris saying Joseph Smith was smarter than the learned. The part about Anthon reading them came later.

Yes, I agree. Smith's 1832 version contradicts his 1838 version. So do you believe Anthon when he says a blanket was used to separate Smith from Harris?

[_aussieguy55]

Dale
We now have the three theories of the origin of the Book of Mormon. These theories have been defended by each propopent, each with what they feel is their eternal salvation. The stone in the hat theory accepted by TBMs, the Smith with sources argued by Vogel and Chris Smith, the S/R theory argued by Dale, Jockers and Criddle.
With the two papers now published, has Bruce S knocked your theory out the ring? Should the S/R supporters fold up their tent and leave. Will certain Mormons in their BYU campus wards now be crowing about how they demolished the arguments of the Stanford crowd? Or are we left now with the stone in the hat story or the Smith alone (using local materials) story (Vogel)?