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

[_wenglund]

You probably won’t agree with this, but along the same lines is the explanation Joseph Smith gave in D&C 10 for not reproducing the “same over again” was because the enemies had altered the stolen MS so that it would not read the same if he had attempted a re-translation of the large plates. The lost MS was the “book of Lehi” and undoubtedly contained the names of the kings, which Joseph Smith could not remember and reproduce—hence the rather lame excuse given in the revelation. Nevertheless, this would imply that Joseph Smith wasn’t reading from a MS and was creating the text as he went.

Your right. I take Joseph's and God's word for it over your wild conjectures. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

Glenn said:

But also, the more that you find, the more complex any "borrowing" idea becomes, and the less likely. After all, if parallels can be found in hundreds of texts from that era, what does it prove?

That proves nothing, except that those ideas were common in that era. I have read many sources that others have seen as having parallels, and discarded them as being only a product of that era and way of thinking (think John Wesley and King Benjamin).

I never knew a Protestant theologian can be so good!! I thought Methodists and Presbyterians were nearly twins.

Those I have confirmed through this cognitive (somewhere between subjective and objective) process present compelling and frequent parallels.

Have you established any sort of baseline in order to show that these parallels are actually meaningful, i.e. that trained historians and literary scholars would find compelling?

Edited to add:
After further though, I withdraw the question. I recall in an earlier post that you did not wish to discuss your work in this forum until it is completed, and are only showing it to a review committee, if I recall correctly. So I will not bother you with any more questions until you are ready.

Glenn

[_why me]

You probably won’t agree with this, but along the same lines is the explanation Joseph Smith gave in D&C 10 for not reproducing the “same over again” was because the enemies had altered the stolen MS so that it would not read the same if he had attempted a re-translation of the large plates. The lost MS was the “book of Lehi” and undoubtedly contained the names of the kings, which Joseph Smith could not remember and reproduce—hence the rather lame excuse given in the revelation. Nevertheless, this would imply that Joseph Smith wasn’t reading from a MS and was creating the text as he went.

This would imply that Smith did not have a copy of the manuscript and yet, he freely gave his only copy to Martin Harris. That was quite a risk to take for a conman, knowing the risk of loss. However, if Smith was a conartist I just can't see him not having a copy of the manuscript. And he certainly would not give out his only copy.

Now if he was under the impression that if portions of the manuscript were lost he could just go back and rely on god's help in re-translating them he was sorely disappointed but that would explain his carelessness of which he was sorely punished. Also, he seemed to have no problem in picking up the story. I don't see just where the lost pages could have fit into the Book of Mormon because I see no break in the story.

[_MCB]

Thank you. You are very considerate given your hobby (or profession). Matthew Jockers is a member of that committee. That should be good enough, don't you think?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
That was quite a risk to take for a conman, knowing the risk of loss. However, if Smith was a conartist I just can't see him not having a copy of the manuscript. And he certainly would not give out his only copy.
...

Con men who are convinced that they are acting under the
direction of supernatural powers are, no doubt, a breed unto
themselves.

If we were to make a list of the most famous frauds, who
actually believed that God was directing their actions, whose
name would go at the top of that list?

Mohammed?
Lucia dos Santos?
Simon bar Kochba?
Father Divine?
Sun Myung Moon?
Muhammad Ahmad?
Ann Lee?
Richard Brothers?
Joseph C. Dylkes?

If Joseph Smith, Jr. truly believed that he was conducting his
religious fraud under Divine direction, he would have had no
qualms about bringing forth the Book of Mormon, no matter
the setbacks.

Mormons say that an angel came to him in 1828 and took
away his plates and his urim and thummim -- and yet the con
man prevailed in the end. I suppose that he knew that he
would always prevail -- right down to the summer of 1844.

Why else would a con man put his own family -- his own
mother and father -- his own person in mortal danger at
Far West, Missouri in 1838, with Missouri Militia rifles loaded
and aimed across the Mormon barricades?

More likely Joe just could not remember how Martin spelled
out the names of all of those kings, from Nephi's son on down
to Mosiah's father -- and thus had to discard the "lost"
Book of Lehi. Strange, that God did not intervene and help
Joe produce an exact duplicate of that "lost" book, eh?

UD

[_MCB]

Strange, that God did not intervene and help
Joe produce an exact duplicate of that last book, eh?

He probably believed, given his superior memorization skills, that his office as prophet gave him the ability to approximate the original text. (With the help of his friends).

Then, when Hurlbut came up with Conneaut Manuscript Found, they rejoiced in the providential loss of the 116 pages. It was not a close enough match to convince Hurlbut.

[_Uncle Dale]

...It was not a close enough match to convince Hurlbut.

One person I communicated with was convinced that Hurlbut
believed he had been tricked by William Sabin (Solomon Spalding's
brother-in-law) and had been given a phoney manuscript,
roughly copied from the Book of Mormon.

Once he had a chance to examine the Sabin fraud, while
riding in the stagecoach back to Kirtland, Hurlbut became
convinced that the story in his hands was an 1830s fraud
concocted by Sabin to trick people into leaving the Mormons.
Hurlbut made brief use of the phoney manuscript, in order
to make a quick buck back in Ohio, but then disposed of it
as being useless in fighting Mormonism.

I doubt this is what actually happened -- but it corresponds
with Hurlbut's testimony and actions.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

...
More likely Joe just could not remember how Martin spelled
out the names of all of those kings, from Nephi's son on down
to Mosiah's father -- and thus had to discard the "lost"
Book of Lehi. Strange, that God did not intervene and help
Joe produce an exact duplicate of that "lost" book, eh?

UD

That part has been explained. On the one hand, you endow Joseph with an excellent memory (section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants), but now, not good enough to remember a hand full of names. It is up to you whether you accept the explanation or not. We do have witnesses who saw it and said so, but again, it is up to you whether you believe them.

Glenn

[_Buffalo]

You probably won’t agree with this, but along the same lines is the explanation Joseph Smith gave in D&C 10 for not reproducing the “same over again” was because the enemies had altered the stolen MS so that it would not read the same if he had attempted a re-translation of the large plates. The lost MS was the “book of Lehi” and undoubtedly contained the names of the kings, which Joseph Smith could not remember and reproduce—hence the rather lame excuse given in the revelation. Nevertheless, this would imply that Joseph Smith wasn’t reading from a MS and was creating the text as he went.

Agreed. If Joseph had been working from a manuscript (gold plates or home-written fraud) he would have been able to reproduce it. Making the excuse after the fact in D&C shows that Joseph was making up the details, at least, as he went, even if he had a general idea of what the plot was.

And what a poor excuse, too. A forgery of a 100+ page hand-written document by amateurs would have been easy to detect.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Joseph with an excellent memory
...

I agree.

But did he proofread the pages written out by Martin Harris,
before he allowed Harris to abscond with them?

Joe's 1830 "Preface" appears to betray a fear that a comparison
of the "lost" pages with a new translation would reveal a few
discrepancies -- but exactly what?

I mentioned the spelling of Nephite kings' names as one
possibility, but not as the only one.

If Joe failed to proofread Martin's handwriting, then he would
not have known for certain exactly which textual discrepancies
might be revealed -- to show God's inability to direct Joe in
reproducing exactly the same text as Martin had written.

Joe still had the "golden plates" (whatever they were) and
had God directed him, should have been able to reproduce
the "lost" text exactly. For one reason or another he did not
accomplish the required task. A lack of good memory may
not have been the determining factor.