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

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

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

Post by _Buffalo »

why me wrote: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.


Maybe that's because the story we have begins after the break.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_GlennThigpen
_Emeritus
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 pm

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

Post by _GlennThigpen »

Buffalo wrote:
Dan Vogel wrote: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.



I don't know about being easy to detect. We do not know who had the manuscript and just what was altered. However, clever people would not have completely rewritten the whole manuscript, but just altered bits here and there so that the original handwriting would show through, proving that Harris was the original writer, but the parts that had been altered would show that Joseph could not remember accurately what he had written.
The excuse, whether it be deemed weak, etc. will have to suffice, because those who had obtained those 116 pages never came forward. Either there never was a 116 pages purloined, or the ruse was short circuited.

Glenn
In order to give character to their lies, they dress them up with a great deal of piety; for a pious lie, you know, has a good deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one. Hence their lies came signed by the pious wife of a pious deceased priest. Sidney Rigdon QW J8-39
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

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

Post by _Dan Vogel »

wenglund wrote:
Dan Vogel wrote: 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-

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 do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

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

Post by _Uncle Dale »

wenglund wrote:...
I take Joseph's and God's word for it
...


No doubt you had the same Sunday school lessons that I once
had to suffer through -- pushing the D&C precept of Smith's
words and instruction being the actual voice of God.

In which case, simply accepting Smith's word is essentially the
same as obeying the commands of the Almighty.

But we were also taught that on rare occasions Smith spoke
as a man -- and not as a prophet -- and that there was at
least the theoretical possibility of his being untruthful (which
would be a transgression punishable by dismissal from office).

Do you folks have the latter D&C section in your books -- or
just the former, "speaks as Moses" instruction?

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

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

Post by _Dan Vogel »

why me wrote: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.


First, I don’t see Joseph Smith as a simple conman. Second, Joseph Smith understood the risk for theft of the MS. Harris put pressure on him, and he was denied two times. On the third, Harris got permission. Joseph Smith gave in probably because Harris had already given financial support to the project, and he needed help publishing the book when finished. Joseph Smith made Harris sware to show the MS only to a select few, mostly family members. There was no time to make another copy. When the MS was lost, it was a crisis for Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, he learned his lesson. Before giving the MS to the printer a second copy was made, mostly by Cowdery, and a section at a time was taken daily to the printing office.

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.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

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

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Glenn,

I don't know about being easy to detect. We do not know who had the manuscript and just what was altered. However, clever people would not have completely rewritten the whole manuscript, but just altered bits here and there so that the original handwriting would show through, proving that Harris was the original writer, but the parts that had been altered would show that Joseph could not remember accurately what he had written.
The excuse, whether it be deemed weak, etc. will have to suffice, because those who had obtained those 116 pages never came forward. Either there never was a 116 pages purloined, or the ruse was short circuited.


Most likely Lucy Harris burned (or destroyed) the MS. She wasn’t interested in trying to expose Joseph Smith through some kind of elaborate scheme. All she wanted to do was stop the project and prevent her husband losing any more money. To take the MS in the hopes Joseph Smith would translate the same over again and then publish the re-translation, using Martin’s money, would not have served her purposes. But the possibility that the MS was still extant caused him to wait to the last possible moment before giving up hope of recovering it and supplying the missing beginning with another record. Not only did he dictate a revelation in May 1829 (D&C 10), but he included that explanation in the Preface to the 1830 edition.

So nothing had been altered, and any attempt would be easily detected. I have seen many altered (rather edited) MS from that time period and erasures are easy to detect given the type of paper and ink that was used. One method involves scraping with a knife and overwriting. However, it is difficult to imagine what would be accomplished by substituting words. The explanation Joseph Smith gave doesn’t make any sense.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

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

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Uncle Dale wrote:...
we were also taught
...


I once attended a high priests' meeting in which an Apostle spoke
on the "Standard Works." When asked whether or not the Preface
and the two witness statements published in the Book of Mormon
were the Word of God, he answered that they were de facto
scripture -- and that the Title-page and the remainder of the
Nephite record were de jure scripture.

As I recall, you Mormons totally ripped the Preface out of the
modern editions. So, for you, is it still Divine Scripture, or not?

UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_maupayman
_Emeritus
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:43 pm

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

Post by _maupayman »

Dan Vogel wrote:
why me wrote: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 la
ter 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.

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.
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

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

Post by _Uncle Dale »

maupayman wrote:...
I have read and seen Criddle's presentation
...


Here's a graphic excerpt from his updated (2011) presentation --

Image

UD
Last edited by Bedlamite on Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_MCB
_Emeritus
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm

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

Post by _MCB »

Have you, or others, summarized these problems? I would be interested in reading more on problems like these.
If I could answer that question-- we are working on it. As a a result of Jockers et al, the Joseph-only camp and the S/R camp are coming closer to a common theory of Joseph + helpers.
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
Post Reply