Roger,
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.
Charismatic leaders generally rely on their ability to manipulate, not on accomplices.
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.
All leaders need followers, and followers need leaders. It’s a symbiosis. But the point I was making is that Joseph Smith doesn’t need accomplices or co-conspirators. Needing financial support doesn’t have to lead to induction into a conspiracy. Recall, the Whitmers knew about Joseph Smith through David Whitmer’s association with Cowdery, and that Cowdery had written two letters to David reporting his investigations of Joseph Smith. Undoubtedly, OC mentioned persecution they were receiving in Harmony, which lead to Peter Whitmer’s invitation to host Joseph Smith in Fayette. At this point, Joseph Smith has never met the Whitmers, so he has a temporary place to stay and finish the translation without having to negotiate or give up anything to them. Why would the Whitmers do this? Their former minister describe them as superstitious and believers in witches. They may have also believed in seer stones, but this is not clear. They were also German, belonged to the Reformed Baptist Church, and may have had sympathy with Anabaptist notions of restoration. Regardless, those attracted to Joseph Smith’s claims implies a mindset and vulnerability. They certainly aren’t thinking to themselves—hey, I want to get in on this con game to get rich. The only obligation Joseph Smith has towards the Whitmers is to convince them that he has the powers he claims. In fact, one of the vulnerabilities Joseph Smith has by relying so heavily on charismatic authority is challenges from other charismatics, which is what happens in Fayette. My Seeker book (which is on line at Signaturebooks.com) was about how Joseph Smith had to make a shift from charismatic authority to institutional authority to keep Mormonism from splintering. Charismatic leaders also have to keep proving they have this authority, which gets harder as time passes and his frailties become apparent.
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.
If Harris was scribe and testified that he saw Joseph Smith dictate with head in hat, wouldn’t you need for him to be an accomplice? It was just Harris and Smith, with Emma in the room working and dusting. There is no peer pressure with Harris; in fact, he couldn’t be kept away. He practically insinuated himself into the job as scribe. Yet he wanted evidence to show others. He took the characters to get scholarly support; he switched the stone; and he wanted to read the MS to his family to show them he wasn’t a fool. He said he would make money from it (but he didn’t) to keep his wife off his back.
At this point, Joseph Smith might hope Harris will finance the publication of his book, but no contract has been made. This hope is undoubtedly what induced Joseph Smith to let Harris take the MS against his better judgment. Yet he severed his relationship with MH when he lost the MS and called him a wicked man. You don’t do that to an accomplice. I don’t think your analogy to cults and gradual induction works here.
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.
Harris’s problem was that he wasn’t as smart as he thought. He was no match for Joseph Smith. Most of what he got from Joseph Smith was validation for his delusions, which he didn’t get from his wife and others. Joseph Smith gave him what he need, and that was irresistible to him. This has been called the “manna personality”. In a way, Harris was a victim to his own psychological needs. Whatever alienated Harris and Smith, it wasn’t a good situation and Joseph Smith did nothing to relieve the tension. When Harris visited Smith in Harmony in March 1829, he demanded to see the plates and left unsatisfied. Harris acted as scribe for a few pages, probably at the beginning of Mosiah and possibly including Mosiah 4:27-28, which instructs the borrower to return what he borrows according to agreement and strangely adds-“or else thou shalt commit sins; and perhaps thou shalt cause thy neighbor to commit sin also.” This chapter also advises not to “deny the beggar” (Joseph Smith), and mentions “even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins” (MH). Note also the parallel between “for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength” (Mos. 4:27), and “Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate” (D&C 10:4). Talk about manipulation! The revelation dictated to Harris at this time advised—“when thou hast translated a few more pages thou shalt stop for a season” (D&C 5:30). After writing a few pages, Harris left. The next month Cowdery came. Prior to leaving Harmony for Fayette with David Whitmer, Joseph Smith dictated a revelation (dated in BofC as May 1829) that referred to Harris as a “wicked man” and instructed Joseph Smith to replaces the lost MS with the small plates (D&C 10). This is evidence that Joseph Smith continued in Mosiah to the end, and then just before replacing the lost MS get the revelation instructing how to do it. The date in the BofC confused later Mormons, who redated it to “summer of 1828.” It seems logical to me that Joseph Smith would hold out to the last possible moment for the return of the MS before becoming committed to a solution. And because he wasn’t working from a MS, but dictating impromptu as MH described, he could not simply replace his previous effort but had to invent a rather lame excuse for translating another record that covered the same material but without the details about the kings and wars that he couldn’t remember.
The strain in relationship would continue, even after MH signed with publisher Grandin. Harris hesitated to sell his farm, and Joseph Smith issued a revelation in March 1830 commanding him to sell his farm (D&C 19:26). The object of the Canadian revelation received about this time was to pay the printer off and sever relationship with Harris. Your suggestion that Harris is an accomplice doesn’t fit.
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.
These needs do not unavoidably lead to inducting co-conspirators. Besides, as I have already shown, the Whitmers came to him and volunteered their home and aid.
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.
When David heard about Spalding, he knew it didn’t comport with his experience. That’s why the Spalding theory never took hold among the Mormons. It was easily dismissed as absurd. I’ve always wonder what would have happened had Alexander Campbell’s thesis had a chance to develop and wasn’t lost in the Spalding frenzy.
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.
Interesting as the speculation might be within your paradigm, it is nevertheless free floating—nothing anchors it to evidence or parts of the story that are better established.
My position is that Joseph Smith knew the Book of Mormon wasn’t translated from plates and that the history wasn’t real, but the Book of Mormon was inspired because it testified of Jesus and promoted good. This definition of inspired comes from the book itself (Moroni 7:12-19).
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.
At this stage of OC’s participation, nothing induces us to think he was part of a conspiracy. CO came to the Smith family in Manchester and by chance boarded with them as a school teacher (it’s doubtful that either Smiths or OC knew they were distantly related). OC came as a replacement for his brother, and the Smiths happened to live in the school district. By this time, the Smiths kept the story of the plates to themselves, but OC heard about it from others and pressed the Smiths for information. By the time school was out OC was nearly obsessed with the topic according to Lucy—and that’s saying a lot coming from her. One thing that made OC so interested was a dream he had where the Lord showed him the plates (according to Joseph Smith’s 1832 hisotry). OC was determined to investigate and went to Harmony with Samuel Smith. Joseph Smith received some revelations that convinced Cowdery had a gift of seeing. Cowdery received revelations through his divining rod and was vulnerable to Joseph Smith’s explanations. OC had come with a different mindset than joining a religious hoax.
OC wanted to try his hand at translation, and Joseph Smith evidently let him, knowing that he would fail. The failure was evidently due to his use of his rod, which was useless. But Cowdery learned that a seer was grater than a prophet, which I believe is the message of Mosiah 8, which includes the statement—“and no man can look in them except he be commanded … the same is called seer” (Mosiah 8:13, 15). This was a defining moment in Joseph Smith’s and OC’s relationship. Joseph Smith would have had no reason to bring OC into a conspiracy. If I’m right, the text was coming from current events, not a MS that had been written by someone else in a different place with a different purpose.
While I argue that OC was a dupe, it doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have later been induced by Joseph Smith to falsely testify to some visions that would keep the church together and promote a good cause. Sincere believers can be induced to lie on occasion. We have plenty of evidence that people lied about polygamy, but that doesn’t make them insincere in their beliefs. I can build a strong case to challenge OC’s version of angelic priesthood ordinations, but the same can’t be said for his testimony as a Book of Mormon witness.
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.
He was second elder because Joseph Smith and OC ordained each other, but there was no hierarchy at first. That came later. Joseph Smith even attempted to sideline OC and my wife, giving a revelation in mid-June 1829 that assigned them to choose the twelve apostles, who would ordain priests and teacher and thus build up the church (D&C 18). OC wouldn’t have it and he issued his own revelation that declared himself an apostle called by Jesus to build up the church. (Remember, OC had seen the Lord and the plates.) The idea of twelve apostles in a hierarchy was shelved and Joseph Smith explained in April 1830 that “an apostle is an elder” (D&C 20:38), meaning apostle was not an office in the church but a charismatic calling. Things changed after the failure of charisma in Zion’s Camp in 1834 and Joseph Smith was unable to retake the Missouri Zion from enemies. After his return to Kirtland, he and OC issued the first account of angelic ordination in September in a letter from OC to W W Phelps in Missouri, published the following month in the
Messenger and Advocate. OC told the story of an angel ordaining them to the lesser priesthood before their baptisms. This was a key move in changing the concept of authority from a charismatically-based to an institutional-based authority. Thus authority became even more legalistic and dependent on an unbroken chain or ordinations, which made any thought of overturning Joseph Smith’s leadership in the wake of failure less likely. Then, the following December OC was ordained co-president, and the reason for doing so is suspicious to say the least. They explained the delay was “in consequence of his necessary attendance in Zion, to assist Walmart. W. Phelps in conducting the printing business; but that this promise was made by the angel while in company with President Smith, at the time they received the office of the lesser priesthood” (see Jessee,
Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:20-21). This was a lame excuse, because there was ample opportunity. Now that OC was safely in the hierarchy, the next step Joseph Smith took was to organize the Quorum of the Twelve and Seventies in February 1835. Ironically, OC was no longer resistant but helped ordain the twelve and told them that they must seek to become charismatic apostles as well.
Long story. But when you say he was number two, it’s more complex than that. So I see OC evolving from dupe to dupe-liar for the Lord.
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.
I think Joseph Smith imbibed deistic and skeptic attacks on the Bible, and said to himself—if Ezra the scribe could produce a fake book by Moses (called a pious fraud), so could he.
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?
Your mindset is that of a skeptic, who would see contradiction in Joseph Smith’s use of a Bible, when he should just keep reading off the stone. People with your skepticism wouldn’t even be there because you would have no faith in the stone in the first place. OC would have to have your mindset to say—hey, Joseph, why do you need a Bible? Just read it off the stone.
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.
I said Joseph Smith’s use of a Bible is a problem for you, not for OC. What does that have to do with me? It’s up to you to show why OC would have a problem with this situation; there’s nothing in the event that leads to the conclusion that OC was therefore a co-conspirator.
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.
I don’t have a problem with ad hoc speculation, as long as it’s not used to escape adverse evidence in a debate.
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.
Where have I constructed an argument based on silence? It’s you!
Joseph Smith used the Bible to produce part of the Book of Mormon, and
The witnesses didn’t mention the use of the Bible,
Therefore it’s possible the Spalding MS was used to produce part of the Book of Mormon as well.
That’s an argument from silence. Can you map what you think is my argument from silence?
Your belief that the witnesses deny use of a Bible by omission or implication, that is, when they imply the entire Book of Mormon was translated by the stone are separate from your argument from silence. The first I have explained as an unrealistic expectation from historical sources; you have to show where there was an intentional omission. The second is an assumption that the stone was not used in connection with the Bible. To support my contention that the stone was used, I argued that the variant readings indicate that the Bible was not simply copied but involved the claim of inspired translation. So your argument from silence isn’t as strong as you think. As I said before, it’s not a serious attempt at understanding the historical situation, but is designed for polemical purposes.
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.
I don’t take the witnesses’ word uncritically; I gave you a list of reasons for accepting their testimony, to which you have not responded. Your theory doesn’t predict anything beyond Joseph Smith’s use of Spalding’s MS. The rest has been added onto the Conneaut witnesses’ claims in an ad hoc fashion, and other witnesses stepping up to fill the need. So, to say your theory predicts certain things is the “I knew it all the time” bias of hindsight. You haven’t demonstrated that any witness besides Cowdery saw the Bible being used. Nor have you demonstrated that use of the Bible would have been embarrassing in their minds to the point of intentionally suppressing this information. What you have is layer-upon-layer of assumptions in support of an argument from silence—all in an effort to smuggle the S/R MS into the translation room.
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.
More free-floating speculation.
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.
Given your previous speculation that allows a believing OC, this argument is weak. Everyone knows the Book of Mormon claims the Nephites copied Isaiah—that’s not the issue. It’s what the translator can do without arousing the suspicions of an honest dupe. My point is that the whole situation is bizarre, and quite acceptable to OC and the others, and they would have accepted whatever he told them. Besides, they weren’t in any position to question what a seer can or cannot do—they were witnessing something for which they had no frame of reference. You are trying to make an argument that rests on assumptions that I don’t think you can safely make. That’s why I said you are projecting your skepticism onto them and expecting them to find a problem where you find it. You have not demonstrated that (besides OC) the witnesses saw the Bible use, that they would have been troubled by it, and that they intentionally suppressed this information. You have merely assumed each one of these.
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.
This is an unreasonable expectation of the witnesses and of historical sources. The statements we have about translation came as situations arose. Most came by interviews conducted by newspaper reporters, who could care less about details, and church members who were looking for affirmations. Every source is incomplete; they couldn’t anticipate the kinds of questions we would be asking of them. What you need to do is make a compelling argument to show that the witnesses were intentionally suppressing this information, or simply telling the main themes in the story. Cowdery may have been the only one who saw the Bible use, and we only have the one statement, which as I showed is only impressionistic at best.
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.
We know the thief is a thief, we don’t know that the witnesses are accomplices. Nothing you have said leads to that conclusion.
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.
Of course, the possibility exists for any of the witnesses, but that’s not your argument. You have not simply asserted religious fanatics can lie, therefore they could have lied about Joseph Smith’s use of the Spalding MS. But that’s what you hope to gain through your argument from silence. Cowdery may have been the only one who saw use of the Bible, but everyone would have seen the Spalding MS. If you use the trick-hat theory, then your Bible argument goes away. If no trick hat, then the MS is out in the open and a huge problem for your theory. At any rate, your idea that OC suppressed information about the Bible can’t be sustained by reference to Bishop Miller’s report of OC’s 1848 speech.
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.
[/quote]
Faith-healers use accomplices—those who fake healing in order to raise the level of faith so that real miracles happen. Not everyone who gets “healed” is an accomplice, and accomplices aren’t always used. There are other tricks, and some people who aren’t accomplices who apparently get healed.
If I respond to your posts, I might not answer as fully as I have here. I’m going to become more selective.
