anyone interested in the origins of the Book of Mormon

[_The Dude]

Here is what we know of the translation, from a site some call anti-Mormon:

After reviewing the accounts from Joseph Smith (1838, 1842), Emma Smith Bidamon (1870, 1879), David Whitmer (1875, 1879, 1881, 1885, 1886, 1887), Oliver Cowdery (1834, 1859), Martin Harris (1882), Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery Johnson (1870), Michael Morse (1879), Isaac Hale (1834), Alva Hale (1834), William Smith (1883, 1884, 1891), and neighbors of Joseph Smith collected in 1833 by Dr. Philatus Hurlburt, -- James E. Lancaster provides this summary:

"An examination of the foregoing eyewitness testimonies produces the following consensus on the method of translation of the Book of Mormon:
(1) Nephite interpreters often called "Urim and Thummim" were found with the plates on Hill Cumorah; [my note: The words "Urim and Thummim" were never used to describe the stones until after the Book of Mormon was published. Even then the term was first used by people other than Joseph Smith.]
(2) these interpreters were used first in the translation of the plates;
(3) the portion translated by use of the interpreters was copied into 116 pages of foolscap and was later lost by Martin Harris;
(4) because of the loss of the first 116 pages of translation, the interpreters were permanently taken away [June/July 1828];
(5) the Book of Mormon that we have today was translated by use of the seer stone;
(6) Smith translated by placing the seer stone in a hat and covering his face with his hat to darken his eyes;
(7) the plates were not used in the translating process and often were not even in sight during the translation;
(8) other persons were sometimes in the room while Smith dictated to a scribe; and
(9) [almost] all witnesses agree to these facts.
The earliest newspaper accounts do not differ significantly from this scenario." ("The Translation of the Book of Mormon", pp. 105-6)

http://lds-mormon.com/transltn.shtml

Dale may have some good ideas, but if he's trying to make the Spalding theory explain the production of the Book of Mormon, he's going against all the witness evidence we have, and his theory is all speculation. Not even the Tanners could run with that one.

But Ray, the entire premise of the theory is that there was a conspiracy. This means that Joseph, Rigdon, and anyone else who was in on it would try to control who would witness, and what they would witness. I've never accepted that the actual events must be limited by what a few selected witnesses reported. That's the apologitsts game but it's not a rational appeal, even if we forget about Rigdon and try to make it work with Smith alone. Joseph Smith alone would control who would witness and what they would witness. Why isn't that obvious?

The Book of Mormon was written by men in the 19th century. So whatever it took for that to happen, it happened. Nothing more, nothing less. The evidence of the book itself makes me think Joseph Smith couldn't do it by himself, and I'm very skeptical of things like automatic writing (which strains my belief and understanding almost as much as an actual angel -- almost ascribing magical or psychic powers to Joseph Smith, in my opinion).

I'm generally very skeptical of conspiracy theories, but in this case I'm willing to listen to Dale's ideas.

Or does somebody have a better story?

[_Gazelam]

From 1823 to 1829, the angel Moroni appeared at least twenty times to Joseph Smith and others. Those appearances opened the way for the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon and laid the foundation of many of the Church's most characteristic teachings. As a resurrected messenger of God, Moroni told Joseph Smith about the Nephite record on gold plates and taught him concerning the gathering of Israel, the forthcoming visit of Elijah, the imminence of the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the judgments to be poured out on the world prior to that event.

Of Moroni's first appearance on the night of September 21, 1823, Joseph Smith recorded:

After I had retired to my bed for the night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God for forgiveness of all my sins and follies, and also for a manifestation to me, that I might know of my state and standing before him…. While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air…. He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen…. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare…. His whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning [Joseph Smith—H 1:29-32].

The angel introduced himself as Moroni, and as he told about the Nephite record, its contents, and the interpreters buried with it, Joseph saw in vision their location in the hill Cumorah. Moroni warned Joseph not to show the plates or the interpreters to anyone except those whom the Lord designated. Moroni also quoted certain prophecies from the Bible, including Malachi 3- 4, Isaiah 11, and Acts 3:22-23.

After the angel left, Joseph lay contemplating this experience, and Moroni returned a second time and repeated verbatim everything he had said in his first visit, adding more detail about the coming judgments, and then returned a third time to repeat his instructions and to warn Joseph that he must put all thoughts of worldly wealth aside and concentrate solely on the translation of the record and the establishment of the kingdom of God.

As Moroni left the third time, Joseph said he heard the cock crow, the visitations having occupied the entire night. He arose and went into the fields with his father and his older brother Alvin, but felt tired and feeble. His father, noticing his son's condition, told him to return to the house. As Joseph was climbing over a fence, he fell to the ground unconscious.

The next thing he remembered seeing was Moroni standing over him, repeating his instructions of the night before, adding that Joseph should now tell his father about the visitations. Joseph did so, and his father, assured that the vision came from God, told Joseph to follow the angel's instructions (Joseph Smith—H 1:46-50).

Joseph Smith then went to the hill and found the place shown him the night before in vision. He uncovered the plates and was about to remove them when Moroni appeared again, counseling Joseph that the time was not yet right. Instead, he instructed Joseph to return to this spot at the same time the following year and that he should continue to do so until the time had come for obtaining the plates (Joseph Smith—H 1:51-54).

It is reported that during those years Joseph Smith also received visits from Mormon, Nephi, and other "angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days" (HC 4:537; cf. JD 17:374; Petersen, p. 131). Joseph shared with his family some of his experiences. His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recalled, "From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same…. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them" (pp. 82-83).

Moroni temporarily reclaimed the plates and the interpreters after Martin harris had lost the first 116 manuscript pages of the translation. Later, when Joseph Smith moved from Harmony, Pennsylvania, to Fayette, New York, in June 1829, Moroni returned them to him there (Smith, pp. 149-50). Still later, Moroni showed the plates to the Three Witnesses (HC 1:54-55), took them after the translation had been completed (Joseph Smith—H 1:60), and once more returned them briefly to Joseph to show to the Eight Witnesses (see Book of Mormon Witnesses).

In addition to Joseph and the Three Witnesses, Mary Whitmer also saw the angel and talked with him. Mary Whitmer said she was shown the gold plates when she conversed with Moroni (Peterson, pp. 114, 116). Other sources indicate that Moroni appeared also to W. W. Phelps, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, and Oliver Granger (Peterson, pp. 151-52).

from http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/basic/gospel/restoration/Moroni_Visitation_EOM.htm

[_beastie]

Why would Rigdon lie about when he first heard of the Book of Mormon?

"I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.”

That statement is an outright lie. Why lie about that? Others admitted that they had heard about the oncoming gold Bible, which had been mentioned in the press. Van Wagoner references several statements that make it plain there is little doubt Rigdon knew about the oncoming book. Why lie about that?

[_ajax18]

Why would Rigdon lie about when he first heard of the Book of Mormon?

"I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.”

That statement is an outright lie. Why lie about that? Others admitted that they had heard about the oncoming gold Bible, which had been mentioned in the press. Van Wagoner references several statements that make it plain there is little doubt Rigdon knew about the oncoming book. Why lie about that?

Yeah, I wonder what Sidney would have been trying to accomplish with this. The more specific and random assertions, denials, and testimony if you will become, you have to ask, "Why did Rigdon bring it up in the first place, and if the truth was so obvious why did he feel the need to restate himself so often." I see it in the modern Church too. Everybody seems to really feel the need to say, "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he couldn't have written the Book of Mormon by himself." It's almost as if the more I hear a testimony of some particular assertion at Church, the more skeptical of it I get.

[_Ray A]

and I'm very skeptical of things like automatic writing (which strains my belief and understanding almost as much as an actual angel -- almost ascribing magical or psychic powers to Joseph Smith, in my opinion).

I'm generally very skeptical of conspiracy theories, but in this case I'm willing to listen to Dale's ideas.

Or does somebody have a better story?

Well, Dude, it's not so much which is the best story, but what best fits the facts, and in my opinion some process of automatic writing does fit. No, no one understands how it works, but the facts are that it does. People in situations very similar to Joseph Smith, and with as limited education, have produced some remarkable writing way beyond their natural capacity. You have to remember to that AW is not a set, well-defined "method". I believe there was some conscious involvement in what he did, and thus wove his own life patterns and knowledge into the text, for example the prophecies of a Joseph who would be a descendant of Joseph of old, and he would be named after his father. Think you're going to find that in the Spalding MS? Make sense?

[_The Dude]

and I'm very skeptical of things like automatic writing (which strains my belief and understanding almost as much as an actual angel -- almost ascribing magical or psychic powers to Joseph Smith, in my opinion).

I'm generally very skeptical of conspiracy theories, but in this case I'm willing to listen to Dale's ideas.

Or does somebody have a better story?

Well, Dude, it's not so much which is the best story, but what best fits the facts, and in my opinion some process of automatic writing does fit. No, no one understands how it works, but the facts are that it does. People in situations very similar to Joseph Smith, and with as limited education, have produced some remarkable writing way beyond their natural capacity. You have to remember to that AW is not a set, well-defined "method".

No, it's not about who has the best story.

So if I ask you "what's the evidence that Joseph Smith used automatic writing?" -what facts can you show me? I read the chapter in American Apocrypha and I wasn't impressed. So what if other people have done it, and nobody knows how they did, but what specific evidence is there that Joseph Smith did this? How do you account for the transmission of King James errors into the Book of Mormon? -- I consider that very strong evidence that a KJV Bible was referenced at some point.

I believe there was some conscious involvement in what he did, and thus wove his own life patterns and knowledge into the text... Make sense?

Of course! There must have been several steps. First, there was a raw manuscript for a piece of fiction, supposedly written by Spaulding. This served as background material, cultural details, moundbuilder references, the battles in Alma, and stuff like that. Rigdon added Campbellite theology to this plus a lot of his own ideas about what a correct christian belief system would be, thereby making it a decidedly religious document. Either Rigdon or Spaulding borrowed ideas from Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews." Finally, Joseph had a hand in the text, and he took the opportunity to weave in his own material, prophesies about himself, and whatever else. Like I said earlier, I'll bet Rigdon was mighty surprised when he saw the finished book and all the personal touches Joseph Smith had added. Finally, I think the head in the hat trick was just a stunt and a cover story. Stage magic, essentially. I don't believe the real work was done in that fashion at all.

When I see people criticize this explanation, I see them attacking only one of those steps and not considering it as a process. People frequently say Joseph didn't know anything about the cultural details, or the kinds of battles described in Alma. Well those parts may have been part of the pre-Rigdon document. Or they complain that Spaulding's writings are not at all religious; but the theology would have appeared later -- with Rigdon and Joseph -- as the concept of the "project" evolved into something completely different.

[_Ray A]

Of course! There must have been several steps. First, there was a raw manuscript for a piece of fiction, supposedly written by Spaulding. This served as background material, cultural details, moundbuilder references, the battles in Alma, and stuff like that. Rigdon added Campbellite theology to this plus a lot of his own ideas about what a correct christian belief system would be, thereby making it a decidedly religious document. Either Rigdon or Spalding borrowed ideas from Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews." Finally, Joseph had a hand in the text, and he took the opportunity to weave in his own material, prophesies about himself, and whatever else. Like I said earlier, I'll bet Rigdon was mighty surprised when he saw the finished book and all the personal touches Joseph Smith had added. Finally, I think the head in the hat trick was just a stunt and a cover story. Stage magic, essentially. I don't believe the real work was done in that fashion at all.

When I see people criticize this explanation, I see them attacking only one of those steps and not considering it as a process. People frequently say Joseph didn't know anything about the cultural details, or the kinds of battles described in Alma. Well those parts may have been part of the pre-Rigdon document. Or they complain that Spaulding's writings are not at all religious; but the theology would have appeared later -- with Rigdon and Joseph -- as the concept of the "project" evolved into something completely different.

Look at my bolding. This is PURE theory, and no better than any other minus the hard evidence. And it is a conspiracy theory which does not match the primary witness evidence. Where, when, and how did they do all this conspiring? And why does ALL the witness evidence of how the "translation" was done does not match any conspiracy theories? In my amateur (some would say apostate) opinion, there are only two options: 1) It actually came from God and is literal history (which does not explain the serious anachronisms), or 2) A process of automatic writing (which explains the anachronisms perfectly, and could include inspiration, since automatic writers have been known to deliver "important messages" from "higher sources").

Other than that, Joseph Smith was just a freak.

The reason you don't accept automatic writing is because being a hardcore materialist you can't grapple with anything beyond "empirical science". Trust me (or don't), we have much more to explain about the potential of the human brain, and "laws" of the universe we may not yet understand. I look at evidence and parallels, not what I think is possible or not possible. What people think "impossible" may yet have an explanation. To deny all the witness evidence to come up with a "naturalistic" theory is not feasible to me, especially when there is so much corroborative evidence among people who have done AW.

[_The Dude]

Of course! There must have been several steps. First, there was a raw manuscript for a piece of fiction, supposedly written by Spaulding. This served as background material, cultural details, moundbuilder references, the battles in Alma, and stuff like that. Rigdon added Campbellite theology to this plus a lot of his own ideas about what a correct christian belief system would be, thereby making it a decidedly religious document. Either Rigdon or Spalding borrowed ideas from Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews." Finally, Joseph had a hand in the text, and he took the opportunity to weave in his own material, prophesies about himself, and whatever else. Like I said earlier, I'll bet Rigdon was mighty surprised when he saw the finished book and all the personal touches Joseph Smith had added. Finally, I think the head in the hat trick was just a stunt and a cover story. Stage magic, essentially. I don't believe the real work was done in that fashion at all.

When I see people criticize this explanation, I see them attacking only one of those steps and not considering it as a process. People frequently say Joseph didn't know anything about the cultural details, or the kinds of battles described in Alma. Well those parts may have been part of the pre-Rigdon document. Or they complain that Spaulding's writings are not at all religious; but the theology would have appeared later -- with Rigdon and Joseph -- as the concept of the "project" evolved into something completely different.

Look at my bolding. This is PURE theory, and no better than any other minus the hard evidence.

This is probably why Dale Broadhurst is so interested in wordprint studies that show evidence of multiple authors. Does automatic writing account for that? Maybe Joseph was channelling different different spirits for different parts? That's getting really bizarre to me. But that is hard evidence for a conspiracy involving mutliple steps and authors, as I just described.

And it is a conspiracy theory which does not match the primary witness evidence. Where, when, and how did they do all this conspiring? And why does ALL the witness evidence of how the "translation" was done does not match any conspiracy theories?

I already addressed this. Witnesses can only tell what they saw, not what they didn't see.

In my amateur (some would say apostate) opinion, there are only two options: 1) It actually came from God and is literal history (which does not explain the serious anachronisms), or 2) A process of automatic writing (which explains the anachronisms perfectly, and could include inspiration, since automatic writers have been known to deliver "important messages" from "higher sources").

I think you should keep the conspiracy theory in mind too.

Other than that, Joseph Smith was just a freak.

Not sure what you mean by this, but.. okay!

The reason you don't accept automatic writing is because being a hardcore materialist you can't grapple with anything beyond "empirical science". Trust me (or don't), we have much more to explain about the potential of the human brain, and "laws" of the universe we may not yet understand. I look at evidence and parallels, not what I think is possible or not possible. What people think "impossible" may yet have an explanation. To deny all the witness evidence to come up with a "naturalistic" theory is not feasible to me, especially when there is so much corroborative evidence among people who have done AW.

First of all, I'm not denying the witnesses saw what they claimed. I'm denying they saw everything there was to see. Big difference, Ray.

Second of all, you are right that I have a philosphical issue with automatic writing. Nevertheless, if we do someday have a better understanding of automatic writing and it is an understanding that actually gives increasing weight to that as an explanation for the Book of Mormon, then I will come around to the idea. But notice that you are appealing to future evidence -- it's possible that future understanding of AW will actually rule out Joseph Smith. We might discover that AW only really works for left-handed read heads born under the sign of Gemini. Right now I don't feel like we know enough about it to count it as a real theory. I'm a hardcore materialist; but hey, at least I'm not lazily claiming that some farm boy made it all up in his spare time.

[_Ray A]

This is probably why Dale Broadhurst is so interested in wordprint studies that show evidence of multiple authors. Does automatic writing account for that?

Yes, it does. And this is precisely what the Book of Mormon does, it culls from numerous sources, some of which appear very modern in content. If Joseph copied the errors from the KJV, AW can explain that. How many theories of Book of Mormon production have you read? I've read many, and one common strain is that the book contains both modern and ancient content, which Blake Ostler tried to explain in his 1987 Dialogue article, that the Book of Mormon undoubtedly contains modern content, unknown in 600 BC. This kills the historicity idea stone dead. There were no Christians living in 600 BC, or 70 BC. The "mishmash" that the Book of Mormon is can be explained either by Joseph's freakishness, or his tapping into another source. If the witnesses did not see some hidden MS, and they ALL stated it was done without notes, Joseph either had a phenomenal memory (freakish) or was able to conceal notes in his hat. How do you read notes by looking into a darkened hat? WHERE were the notes concealed? Do you really think the witnesses were so blind? How did the Book of Mormon get from an A4 notepad (being facetious) into the MS without anyone claiming or proving this is how it was done?

Bear in mind what we are looking at here: Conspiracy theories which could establish total fraud (with no hard evidence), or parallels to people who have done even more than Joseph Smith. But at 23, I doubt he could have produced the Book of Mormon. Anyone who reads it can see this is way beyond a normal 23 year old.

[_The Dude]

...it culls from numerous sources, some of which appear very modern in content. If Joseph copied the errors from the KJV, AW can explain that.

Now AW sounds like a spiritual version of the World Wide Web.

How many theories of Book of Mormon production have you read? I've read many, and one common strain is that the book contains both modern and ancient content, which Blake Ostler tried to explain in his 1987 Dialogue article, that the Book of Mormon undoubtedly contains modern content, unknown in 600 BC. This kills the historicity idea stone dead.

I will agree that there is ancient content, but all derived from and contaminated by the King James Bible.

(Blake Ostler doesn't agree that the historicity idea is stone dead, does he?)

If the witnesses did not see some hidden MS, and they ALL stated it was done without notes, Joseph either had a phenomenal memory (freakish) or was able to conceal notes in his hat. How do you read notes by looking into a darkened hat? WHERE were the notes concealed? Do you really think the witnesses were so blind? How did the Book of Mormon get from an A4 notepad (being facetious) into the MS without anyone claiming or proving this is how it was done?

We've already gone over this. Apparently the narrative of translation witnesses has been repeated so many times by LDS apologists that you cannot free yourself from it. We have only a few witnesses. There are no reports covering the entire process from start to finish -- that is an inference -- more like a leap of logic -- from what few witness reports we have.

Several of the more sophisticated FAIR/MAD defenders have conceded that Joseph Smith must have cracked open the KJV Bible in order to account for translation artifacts carried over from the KJV Bible. They admit this, in so many words, despite the fact that none of the witnesses observed such a thing. It follows that the witnesses didn't see all there was to see during the months of "translation." I see no reason to worry about how much of the Book of Mormon text made its way from an A4 notepad into the finished manuscript, when all we have are a few scant witnesses covering maybe 5% of the total work that went into the project.

Remember, the premise of the Spaulding-Rigdon theory is that the "translation" was a scam, and Joseph Smith had control over who the witnesses were and what they would see.

Bear in mind what we are looking at here: Conspiracy theories which could establish total fraud (with no hard evidence), or parallels to people who have done even more than Joseph Smith.

That's a big problem with AW. It relies on parallels, just like run-of-the-mill Book of Mormon apologetics.

But at 23, I doubt he could have produced the Book of Mormon. Anyone who reads it can see this is way beyond a normal 23 year old.

Which is why we look for sources that could have aided Joseph Smith:

1) divine inspiration, angels, golden plates, standard Book of Mormon apologetics
2) automatic writing, the spiritual world wide web
3) a conspiracy of regular 19th century human beings

Take your pick. You have pointed the finger at me, saying I am a hard materialist. Shall I point a finger at you and label the underlying reason why you favor #2?