I’m not sure what Sandra believes, but I don’t think the only alternative is to invent conspiracy to avoid some imagined problem with Joseph Smith using a Bible.
Well Dale thinks I may have Sandra's position wrong, so maybe it would be better to simply say my position before I was enticed by the dark side.
Since I have been studying this Book of Mormon authorship question I never had any predisposition to take the witness testimony without a grain of salt. Perhaps that's because I have come into contact with too many charismatics making wild claims.
It all comes down to what explanation he gave for its use and Cowdery’s (and possible others’) willingness to accept it.
I agree that Smith was capable of coming up with on the spot excuses/explanations that some (of the gullible) were willing to accept.
At this stage of the game, I see no need for Joseph Smith to risk everything by bringing in accomplices he doesn’t need.
But he does need them. He's already left his own home because his old treasure seeking buddies think he's got something of value that he's obligated to share with them.
By the time he gets to the Whitmer home, most of the translation has been done, and according to your theory (if I understand it correctly), Joseph Smith has already replaced one accomplice (Harris) with another (Cowdery), alienating him and risking exposure.
I don't think Harris was an accomplice on the same level as Cowdery. By using the term "accomplice" I am not suggesting that each "accomplice" was sat down in a private initiation ceremony, told of the great con and asked for a pledge of cooperation and secrecy. That's not how it works in faith-circles. Rather its peer pressure coupled with other factors, the most important of which would be the confidence the faith-leader is willing to place in any given potential follower because he believes follower A has the potential to "do great things"--as in: accept whatever the faith leader says. It is also a progressive thing where the initiate is entrusted with a little at first to see how loyal to the cause they are.
Harris was needed because of his money. Joseph knew he needed a source of funding. But Harris came with the added benefit of being particularly gullible. His wife could clearly see what he could not. I think the loss of the 116 pages was a genuine loss. And the loss caused Joseph great concern. He knew the loss had the potential to ruin the whole plan. That's what alienated Harris. I don't believe it was ever Joseph's will to alienate Harris. But he knew it was risky to allow Martin to take the manuscript in the first place. But Harris kept pestering him for it and Harris was his cash cow. He'd already witnessed Harris' devotion and loyalty through the Anthon episode, so against his better judgment, he allows Harris to take the ms. When those pages were lost, it threw everything into chaos. That, I think, is what alienated Harris and at that point Joseph was ready to throw him under the bus, even calling Harris a "wicked man." He's probably thinking he can come up with another source of funding, maybe Josiah Stowell. I doubt he was thinking Harris was so devoted he could still be used for funding at that point, but time heals wounds.
At some point, he brings David Whitmer into the conspiracy as a Book of Mormon witness, and possibly others as well. My position is that Joseph Smith could do what he did without accomplices. Besides, there is no direct evidence or even strong circumstantial evidence for postulating conspiracy. There is no need to multiply entities—nothing is gained and your theory is weakened.
There is a definite need. In fact several. For starters Joseph was poor and needed a source (or sources) of funding. Next, he was a terrible writer and needed a scribe. Next, he needed a safe location away from the arm of his former treasure hunting buddies who thought he was cheating them out of something valuable.
Ironically, I really don't think there is a lot of difference between your position and mine when it comes to Whitmer, other than the fact that I am much more skeptical of his claims than you are. I don't think Whitmer knew anything about a Spalding ms--which certainly makes denying one easy! He likely never heard of Solomon Spalding. In fact, it is quite possible that Joseph Smith had never heard the name Solomon Spalding until 1832-33. It is possible--and part of my working hypothesis--that Joseph Smith himself believed the Nephite record was a real thing and that Nephites were real people and that the great preacher Sidney Rigdon had actually received modern revelation straight from God, that God had desired to add to the genuine Nephite record. And that God was now going to use Joseph's own unique gift to bring it to the world.
If that much is correct, then, again ironically, we're also not that far apart on Cowdery. Cowdery would likely have been in on the con part at the highest level. The only "con" involved would have been to pretend to translate an ancient record, that had actually already been translated. All they were doing, at that point, was adding their own content and refining what had already been done. This also explains the reason Oliver (as contasted with Harris, Emma or Whitmer) was officially recognized as producing (or at least attempting to produce) content. He was in at the highest level below Smith. But the act was a necessary act of pious fraud, because the public would not have accepted the channels the work had already gone through. It was expedient to have Joseph--the final divine contributor--be the only publicly visible contributor... and not as a contributor, but merely as a translator. In fact, it was his divine destiny. A destiny he was not only perfectly suited for, but all too willing to assume. He would only have needed to have been perceived publicly as a "translator" with regard to the Book of Mormon, but he was free to give revelation on his own outside the Book of Mormon, which is exactly what he did. Under this scenario, the idea for producing revelation would have come through Smith's observation of Rigdon adding modern revelation to what Rigdon claimed was a genuine ancient record. If Rigdon could do it, so could Joseph.
In regard to the possibility of Cowdery copying in Joseph Smith’s absence, you are projecting onto Cowdery a mindset that he probably didn’t possess.
What mindset would that be? I am suggesting that Cowdery, more than any other, would have been a loyal devoted follower. Loyal followers are willing to embellish or invent stories that bolster the cause or to overlook/fail to mention anything potentially damaging to the cause. This is NOT an uncommon characteristic of devoted, religious followers--especially those in a second in command position. Why would Cowdery NOT possess this mindset?
What seems like a problem to you may not have been for him.
Its not a problem for me. It's a problem for your honest dupe theory. Or at least for my current understanding of your honest dupe theory.
Hence, there is no clear problem to reconcile here. So I’m not responding to adverse evidence that challenges my Smith-alone theory, if I speculate about what Joseph Smith might have explained to Cowdery.
I'm not the one who gets hung up on ad hocs or even speculation. I think speculation is generally a good thing because it sparks ideas which might eventually lead to the truth. Of course if one's theory is built entirely on speculation, that's a weakness.
The problem I think you have in this particular case is that you are speculating on something that's already resting on an argument from silence... as in the fact that you and I agree that a Bible was used, but none of YOUR star witnesses ever mention it, and, as I suggest, in my opinion they actually deny it by implication.
That, I think, is indeed a weakness and its a weakness my theory doesn't have to deal with, because A. I don't have to take the word of the Book of Mormon witnesses at face value and B. their silence on Bible use is exactly what my theory would predict when it was decided that a Bible had to be used to help quickly produce filler material. Loyal followers who are interested in promoting a cause would not want to divulge the use of a Bible because that would undermine the official story they are giving about the head in hat routine.
We are confident that Joseph Smith must have used a Bible, and most likely Cowdery was the scribe. We don’t know what Joseph Smith’s explanation was, but it was evidently acceptable to Cowdery.
I agree. And I think S/R can accommodate a Cowdery who knows about Rigdon and Spalding, or one who only knows that another contemporary prophet is supplying them with a legitimate Nephite record that also contains modern revelational truth to which Joseph is adding his own revelation.
To be clear, what follows is an ad hoc interpretation, not an ad hoc argument to escape adverse evidence. It’s not even the kind of ad hoc interpretation that would be counted against my theory since it’s not even essential to explain it—even within my paradigm.
Well, given the silence about the Bible, I disagree. The text itself--which has to be believed by Cowdery under your honest dupe theory, and next to Smith no one should know it better--claims the Nephites copied from the original Isaiah. Now, for some bizarre reason, Joseph puts the stone down and picks up a Bible--or he asks Cowdery to do it for him. My point is, sure that's acceptable ad hoc speculation, but it's all resting on the notion that Cowdery was an honest dupe who would have told us about the Bible if someone had simply asked him, but no one did.
I suggest that a truly honest dupe would have felt compelled to explain that a Bible was used and to give Joseph's acceptable reason why it was used. There would be no hesitancy to mention it because he truly believes Joseph's reason is valid. But obviously that doesn't happen. Under your theory, you have to explain why it doesn't happen. Your answer is that no one asked. That answer alone leans more toward my explanation of not-so-honest dupes/accomplices. It's like saying an honest thief would have told where he hid the money if only he'd been asked. I realize you'll object to the negative connotation of an analogy to a thief, but the motivation to speak or not is the same. It is obvious--whether Cowdery was an honest dupe or not--that he was wholly devoted to the cause. I suggest that that devotion would have compelled him to avoid mentioning things potentially damaging to the cause and even embellishing/inventing things to bolster it. Dale illustrates that point by pointing to Cowdery's active embellishment or invention of visions of angels. This is surely an example of someone who is an active accomplice (though possibly not with the connotations you seem to want to yoke to it) rather than a merely honest dupe.
My conclusion is that Cowdery is not a truly honest dupe, but is much more like the faith-healer's accomplice I mentioned who is willing to actively put on a show to bolster the cause. The extent to which he believes his own show is valid or the faith healer is the real deal is anyone's guess.
It’s just a historian’s effort to complete the story. The following reconstruction seems possible to me; it may not have even happened this way
Fair enough.
--Joseph Smith made changes in the Isaiah chapters the same way he did for the Inspired Version of the Bible—that is, he wrote corrections in the margins of a Bible. He explained to Cowdery that he had compared the Isaiah chapters in the Bible with the Nephite record through the seer stone, and instructed him to copy them while he and the Whitmers were on their trip to Palmyra to make arrangements with the printer.
I can accept that as a reasonable speculation. But again, its already resting on an argument from silence and then attempting to harmonize the silence with evidence of Biblical borrowing.
From an evidential standpoint, wouldn't we then expect to find a Bible with corrections in it? Is there such a Bible? (I truly don't know). And if not, then aren't you on the same level as S/R that hypothesizes a no longer extant ms?
But let's say that's exactly what happened. Why wouldn't Cowdery mention it? Why would he avoid mentioning it? Only because he was never asked? Don't you agree that at best that's a pretty weak speculation? Can't you agree that even if that's what did happen Cowdery--as someone who would not want to damage the cause--would have been more disposed to avoid a direct answer because of what he'd already stated about how the Book of Mormon came to be, combined with what the text itself claims, than to give an honest answer?
I just noticed you wrote this, so let me clear it up:
You do understand Metcalfe’s argument, don’t you?
As far as I understand, yes, I do.
It was Joseph Smith’s change in preference that made the change for therefore/wherefore, which is also found in the D&C.
What I am asking from each proponent of their own respective theory is to explain why the shift occurs. Here you suggest "It was Joseph Smith’s change in preference." Fair enough. Why does the "that" phenomenon follow the same pattern?
It’s not an alternating preference when you put Mosiah first. In fact, it’s one of Metcalfe’s arguments for putting Mosiah first.
I agree with Metcalfe on that. It's Glenn who seems to disagree.
I found rarely used phrases in certain chapters in the Book of Mormon that also showed up once or rarely in revelations that Joseph Smith dictated about the same time. Putting Mosiah first is essential to reconstructing the Book of Mormon’s dictation, and anyone trying to change that sequence is wrong.
Well I wouldn't state it as boldly as you have, but I agree that Mosiah likely represents the first extant text we have in the chronology of Book of Mormon translation. Again, it is Glenn who is suggesting the possibility of a Nephi priority. I am simply asking all for their explanation of the static data in Dale's chart and suggesting there is more to come.
