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

[_marg]

Hi Glenn,

I agree fully with everything Roger has said, so I won't repeat.

Could you please explain to me though, what you think the Conneaut witnesses understood by the term "lost tribes".

[_GlennThigpen]

Hi Glenn,

I agree fully with everything Roger has said, so I won't repeat.

Could you please explain to me though, what you think the Conneaut witnesses understood by the term "lost tribes".

Marge, I am going to let it alone. I have tried to explain that from the very first, using the statements of the witnesses and the literature of the times, both before and concurrent with Solomin's time. We have different opinions, and I do not feel that I can persuade you any differently. So I am going to agree to disagree with you.

Glenn

[_marg]

Thanks Glenn,

If you change your mind you can respond in the other (ad hoc fallacy) thread, I've moved your post there.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=463932#p463932

[_Roger]

Glenn:

To which Glenn replies, but Roger, the you have witnesses that said that Solomon's story was about the lost tribes.

Why do you keep asserting this? Show me one witness who says this.

Are you throwing Martha Spalding under the bus when she says "He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question."

Not at all. Note that Martha never says what you want her to say. She says he carried out the idea in the book in question. She did not say the thesis of the book is a lost tribes account, Glenn. She merely says the lost tribes idea was the backdrop for the novel.

Or Henry Lake who said "This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes,"
Those statements, among others say that was what Solomon's supposed second manuscript was about. The lost tribes. Not just a motif.
Contray to what you assert, such a change would be much more than subtle.

No it wouldn't. It's a subtle change. So subtle in fact that the witnesses don't seem to be aware of it.

I do not know why you keep bringing up the lost 116 pages. It does not matter to the S/R theory what they contained. None of the Spaldingish witnesses ever saw those 116 pages.

It matters a great deal. Those pages were lost and had to be rewritten. We do not know the extent to which things were changed, Glenn. That's a critical point you don't seem to get. Under your paradigm, the story was the same story only with less secular detail and more religious material. Under both S/R and S/A the story does not have to be the same. It may have featured some of the same names and some generic similar themes, but the replacement material had to be significantly different from the lost pages in case the original resurfaced. I am convinced the original had lots of cross-outs and changes already on it. But now Smith & Co. had to rewrite it yet again. So the lost 116 pages may have had a lost tribes motif as it's backdrop. You have no way of knowing whether it did or did not. And in fact Martin Harris' comment seems to indicate that it did.

They only supposedly saw a manuscript about the lost tribes and they saw thew Book of Mormon, however briefly. You keep trying to equate a little bit like with "principally if not wholly". It may work for you, but it does not work in the real world.

Of course it works. What doesn't work is your argument. Even you note that their exposure to the Book of Mormon was likely brief. I do not think many of the S/R witnesses became Book of Mormon scholars. Nor did they have to be. No doubt they read chunks of it to see whether or not they could find anything comparable to Spalding and there is nothing that says they had to read every word to make that determination. They could have assumed the lost tribes motif applied to the Book of Mormon because they had heard that from others. In fact they seem to think it does apply to the Book of Mormon.

However, I will not beat that horse any longer, or should I say horses. I have beaten all of the horses of the lost tribes to death. If they ever did migrate, as per Solomon's publicly stated theory, according to the witnesses, then they would have had to do so on foot after the beating I meted out to their horses.

Well again, we simply don't know what Spalding originally wrote because we don't have MF. And on top of that, we don't know what Rigdon changed in his initial redaction. And finally we don't know what was changed for the 116 page re-write. Like I said, you simply don't have anything to make this argument stick. So it's good you realize your horse is dead.

....
Now, for something entirely different.
....
So, what do you think? Is this one of your significant parallels? Or is it just one of those co-incidences of life, signifying nothing?

Could go either way. The tale stands out from the rest of the Roman Story in that we are treated to a somewhat humorous but nonessential tale in which a predicament becomes something of a slapstick moment. In contrast to the rest of the story (with the later exception of the pre-war speeches) we get a glimpse of the emotions that went along with the characters. So this does seem to indicate that Spalding witnessed something like this first hand--or at least had heard detailed accounts from friends who were there.

The striking thing about the discovery narrative parallels, Glenn, is that they come in the same chronological sequence and, as I've already pointed out to Dan, did not even exist when the S/R witnesses made their initial claims. That in both accounts we have a 19th century male discovering ancient writings that contain a history of the ancient inhabitants of this continent who, himself, ends up translating the stories into English and asks us to ponder the tale with an open mind, is striking in and of itself. But when you add in details like the hill, stone box and lever, it becomes too coincidental.

Now... given that my horse is not anywhere near dead.... I note that you still can't explain the data in Dale's chart. ; ) So let me see if I can help out a bit.... should we attribute the obvious pattern to Moroni or Mormon's abridging work?

[_GlennThigpen]

....
Now, for something entirely different.
....
So, what do you think? Is this one of your significant parallels? Or is it just one of those co-incidences of life, signifying nothing?

Could go either way. The tale stands out from the rest of the Roman Story in that we are treated to a somewhat humorous but nonessential tale in which a predicament becomes something of a slapstick moment. In contrast to the rest of the story (with the later exception of the pre-war speeches) we get a glimpse of the emotions that went along with the characters. So this does seem to indicate that Spalding witnessed something like this first hand--or at least had heard detailed accounts from friends who were there.

The striking thing about the discovery narrative parallels, Glenn, is that they come in the same chronological sequence and, as I've already pointed out to Dan, did not even exist when the S/R witnesses made their initial claims. That in both accounts we have a 19th century male discovering ancient writings that contain a history of the ancient inhabitants of this continent who, himself, ends up translating the stories into English and asks us to ponder the tale with an open mind, is striking in and of itself. But when you add in details like the hill, stone box and lever, it becomes too coincidental.

Roger, I think that you need to back off those striking parallels a bit. If Dale is correct about the connection, which you seem to agree with, that would indicate that Solomon had just started writing the Roman story in mid 1812. The little episode I excerpted is on page 27 of the 132 page manuscript and the incident in question happened on August 11, of 1812. This comports very nicely with the testimony of Josiah Spalding that said that Solomon began composing his story after he (Josiah) had gone to stay with Solomon after the war broke out in June of 1812.
It also dovetails with the statement of Solomon's wife, Matilda, who said that he began writing his story around the time of Hulls's surrender of Detroit, which happened in August of 1812.

Now... given that my horse is not anywhere near dead.... I note that you still can't explain the data in Dale's chart. ; ) So let me see if I can help out a bit.... should we attribute the obvious pattern to Moroni or Mormon's abridging work?

Well, you may not think that your horse is dead, but you are going nowhere riding it. And after that dip in the quagmire, maybe it is becoming a bit fragrant.

I have stated several times, if you wish to provide us with some kind of coherent framework for your data that provides a falsifiable theory, based upon accepted literay, textual, and or historical methods, we would be able to have a discussion on the data. Right now it is meaningless. "I know it when I see it" is not a legitmate, accepted method.

And you still have shown me no scientific reason why I should reject the results and conclusions by Bruce Schaalje in his work with the extended NSC methods. That needs to be done before any goose chase after data with no recognized method of interpretiation.

And one more thing, from reading the statements of the witnesses, would you mind presenting your idea of what they say Solomon's supposed second story was about.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

For Marg’s and Roger’s benefit, I put together this collection of quotes about Joseph Smith’s method of translation.

HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS--SOURCES

The Spalding theory was born and thrived in ignorance of Joseph Smith’s method of translating in the open with his head buried in his hat in which he had put his seer stone. Staring into the darkness, he claimed he was merely reading the translation that appeared in luminous writing on the stone. However, apologetic responses to the Spalding theory did not draw on this information because it wasn’t widely known, and official accounts emphasized use of the spectacles that came with the plates.

The following essays discuss this topic and include many of the sources compiled here:

James E. Lancaster, “The Translation of the Book of Mormon,” in Dan Vogel, ed., The Word of God: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 97-112.

Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, “Joseph Smith: ‘The gift of Seeing,’” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Summer 1982):48-48.

PRE-SPALDING SOURCES

This group of sources shows that the head-in-hat descriptions were not motivated by Spalding claims, although this fact was later used in that manner.

MARTIN HARRIS (acted as scribe for Joseph Smith in Harmony, 12 April 1828-ca. 14 June 1828, for lost “Book of Lehi”, and possibly briefly in March 1829 for first part of Mosiah)

After having been thrice visited, as he states, he proceeded to the spot, and after penetrating "mother earth" a short distance the Bible was found, together with a huge pair of Spectacles! ... It was said that the leaves of the Bible were plates of gold, about eight inches thick, on which were engraved characters or Hyeroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, Smith could (he said so, at least) interpret these characters. ...

--“Golden Bible,” Palmyra Freeman, circa August 1829, as reprinted in Advertiser and Telegraph (Rochester), 31 August 1829. Reprinted in Painesville Telegraph, 22 September 1829. (EMD 2:221)

The following is apparently based on the above.

A man by the name of Martin Harris was in this village a few days since ... He states that after a third visit from the same spirit in a dream, he proceeded to the spot, removed earth, and there found the Bible, together with a large pair of spectacles. ... The treasure consisted of a number of gold plates, about 8 inches long, 6 wide, and one eighth of an inch thick, on which were engraved hieroglyphics. By placing the spectacles in a hat and looking into it, Smith interprets the characters into the English language.

--“Golden Bible,” Rochester (NY) Gem 1 (5 September 1829): 70. (EMD 2:272-73)

The reporter has obviously conflated the story of the spectacles that were obtained with the plates for the purpose of translation, and Joseph Smith’s use of a seer stone in a hat.

Unknown (report originating in Susquehanna, PA, ca. May 1830)

A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in dedicating [dictating?] as he says, by inspiration, a new Bible. He pretended that he had been entrusted by God with a golden Bible which had been always hidden from the world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed. ...

--Wayne County (PA) Inquirer, circa May 1830, as reprinted in Cincinnati Advertiser and Ohio Phoenix 8 (2 June 1830): 1. (EMD 3:274)

The Wayne County Inquirer was published in Bethany, PA, in the next county east of Susquehanna County.

TESTIMONY FROM HARMONY (PA) AREA, WHERE “BOOK OF LEHI” AND MOSIAH-MORONI WERE DICTATED, APRIL-JUNE 1828 AND APRIL-MAY 1829

Joseph Smith first came to Harmony (PA) in 1825 with Josiah Stowell’s treasure-digging company in the capacity of a treasure seer or scryer. He met Emma while boarding with Isaac Hale. In January 1827, he returned to marry her. After living in Manchester (NY) until about December, the couple moved to Harmony onto a small farm at the invitation of her father. Soon after Joseph Smith began dictating his “translation” to Emma, then Martin Harris, and finally Oliver Cowdery. Persecution forced Joseph Smith to move to Fayette (NY) about June 1829.

EMMA SMITH (acted as scribe for Joseph Smith in Harmony, ca. late Dec. 1827-12 April 1828, for lost “Book of Lehi”)

Emma Smith acted as scribe mostly before Martin Harris came in April 1828. After Joseph Smith’s death, she was accepted into RLDS Church without rebaptism in 1860. The earliest statement she gave regarding the translation is from 1856 interview with Edmund C. Briggs:

... When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, “Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?” When I answered, “Yes,” he replied “Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived.” He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls. ...

--Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History 9 (January 1916): 454.

Either Briggs’s memory of the interview is inaccurate, or perhaps Emma’s memory failed her, since it seems more probable that Emma heard her husband spell “Sariah,” the name of Lehi’s wife (1 Ne. 2:5). Although not reported until 1916, Briggs remembered that her testimony was essentially the same in 1856--prior to her affiliation with the RLDS Church--as it was shortly before her death when she was questioned by her oldest son Joseph Smith III in 1879. This latter interview included the following statements:

Q. What of the truth of Mormonism?

A. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Q. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

A. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

A. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me. ...

Q. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?

A. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work. ...

Q. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin of the Book of Mormon?

A. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity--I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.

--Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90. Also published in Saints’ Advocate 2 (October 1879): 49-52. (EMD 1:541-42)

Emma’s testimony is clear, largely because Joseph Smith III asked some good skeptical questions. Joseph Smith dictated to Emma and Oliver Cowdery “hour after hour” and “day after day” in the open “with his face buried in his hat,” and there was no way of concealing a MS from her. She was also an eyewitness to the translation when Cowdery was scribe, both in Harmony and Fayette as they “wrote in the room where I was at work.”

Some might try to negate her testimony by pointing out that in the interview wither her son, she denied polygamy was practiced by her late husband and so could have also lied about the method of translation. We know Emma was deceptive about polygamy because it conflicts with more credible testimony given by many others. Similarly, her testimony regarding the translation is credible because it is supported by other independent sources.

Some Spalding advocates have wildly speculated that Joseph Smith had a trick hat that allowed him to remove the top and read a MS in his lap as he sat behind a table, or to read notes on smaller paper inside the hat. The logistics of this illusion would be impossible even for the best trained magician. Closeup and street magic is the most difficult, especially where sight angles have to be controlled. Doing this hour after hour, day after day is incredible. Emma only states that she was “sitting at the table close by him ... with nothing between us.” Another source describes Joseph Smith holding the hat to his face with his elbow on his knees, which implies that he was not sitting at the table and had no way of concealing a MS (see below; William W. Blair, Letter to Editors, 22 May 1879, Saints’ Herald 26 [15 June 1879]: 190-91; EMD 4:343). The suggestion that Joseph Smith was reading from something in his hat can’t explain how he could read in the dark at such close range or how he could turn the page while dictating hour after hour without rousing suspicion. Such unrestrained speculation must be dismissed as desperate and unfounded.

MICHAEL MORSE (Emma’s brother-in-law, non-believer; in Harmony, no specified time)

Emma’s brother-in-law, Michael Morse (born 1804), became a casual observer of Joseph Smith’s method of translation. Morse said he saw this “many times” while calling at Smith’s home “on business.”

Says he many times called in at Jos[e]phs on business, when J[oseph]. would be engaged [in] translating the plates. J[oseph]. put the seer stone in a hat and leaning forward would place his face in the hat, and then Dictate to his scribe, Sentence by Sentence.

--William W. Blair, Journal, 8 May 1879, 52-56, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri. (EMD 4:341-42)

He further states that when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation.

The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph’s placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating, word after word, while the scribe--Emma, John Whitmer, O[liver]. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.

--William W. Blair, Letter to Editors, 22 May 1879, Saints’ Herald 26 (15 June 1879): 190-91. (EMD 4:343)

In his journal, Blair says “He, (Morse), was never a believer in J[oseph’s] prophetic claims, nor in the Book of Mormon. was (and is) a methodist.” Blair was accompanied by fellow RLDS member Edwin Cadwell, who asked Morse “whether Joseph was sufficiently intelligent and talented to compose and dictate of his own ability the matter written down by the scribes.”

To this Mr. Morse replied with decided emphasis, No. He said he [Morse] then was not at all learned, yet was confident he had more learning than Joseph then had.

Bro. Cadwell enquired how he (Morse) accounted for Joseph's dictating the Book of Mormon in the manner he had described. To this he replied he did not know. he said it was a strange piece of work, and he had thought that Joseph might have found the writings of some good man and, committing them to memory, recited them to his scribes from time to time.

We suggested that if this were true, Joseph must have had a prodigious memory--a memory that could be had only by miraculous endowment. To this Mr. Morse replied that he, of course, did not know as to how Joseph was enabled to furnish the matter he dictated.

--William W. Blair, Letter to Editors, 22 May 1879, Saints’ Herald 26 (15 June 1879): 190-91. (EMD 4:343)

The testimony of Morse, a non-believer, substantiates the testimony of believers. Some Spalding advocates try to neutralize Morse’s (and Isaac Hale’s) testimony by wildly speculating that all the believers were coconspirators and that Joseph Smith used the stone in hat only while non-believers were around. Besides postulating a massive conspiracy that was kept up for decades after Joseph Smith’s death, this doesn’t explain why Joseph Smith didn’t simply stop while non-believers were around. Why would he feel the need to impress non-believers with a skill to dictate stories impromptu that Spalding advocates deny he had in the first place? This show of skill happened repeatedly, not just once. Morse says he observed Joseph Smith “many times” while calling on business, presumably unannounced. Regardless, Spalding advocates who claim to be suspicious of believer testimony while at the same time dismissing non-believer testimony in this manner show that they will resort to any ad hoc speculation to immunize their position from adverse evidence.

ISAAC HALE (Emma Smith’s father, with whom they briefly lived and afterward bought an adjoining farm; non-Mormon)

Emma’s father, Isaac Hale, was extremely antagonistic towards Joseph Smith gave the following statement in 1834 at the request of E. D. Howe:

The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!

--“Mormonism,” Susquehanna Register, and Northern Pennsylvanian 9 (1 May 1834): 1. Reprinted in The New York Baptist Register (Utica, New York) 11 (13 June 1834); and E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed: or, A Faithful Account of That Singular Imposition and Delusion, from Its Rise to the Present Time (Painesville, Ohio: E. D. Howe, 1834), 262-66. (EMD 4:287)

MARTIN HARRIS (acted as scribe for Joseph Smith in Harmony, 12 April 1828-ca. 14 June 1828, for the lost Book of Lehi; and possibly briefly in March 1829, for first part of Mosiah)

Martin Harris gave many statements on Joseph Smith’s method of translation, beginning in 1829 (as mentioned above). In the following affidavit, dated 25 December 1884, R. W. Alderman recounts a conversation he had with Martin Harris in Mentor, Ohio, in 1852, wherein Harris described Joseph Smith’s method of translation and expressed some resentment toward the Mormon prophet.

In February, 1852, I was snowbound in a hotel in Mentor, Ohio, all day. Martin Harris was there, and in conversation told me he saw Jo Smith translate the “Book of Mormon,” with his peep-stone in his hat. Oliver Cowdery, who had been a school-teacher, wrote it down. ...

--R. W. Alderman, Affidavit to Arthur B. Deming, 25 December 1884, Naked Truths About Mormonism 1 (January 1888): 3. (EMD 2:294)

While on a mission to the eastern United States, Edward Stevenson visited Martin Harris at Kirtland, Ohio. On 9 February 1870 Stevenson recorded in his journal: “fou[n]d . . . Martin harris Who Bore testimony of the angle [angel] [and] Reccords” (Edward Stevenson, Journals, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah). In August 1870 Stevenson returned to Kirtland and accompanied Harris back to Utah. In the following collection of documents, Stevenson recounts the various testimonies Harris gave along the way and during his six-week stay in Salt Lake City before going to Smithfield, Cache Valley, to live with his son.

He also stated that the Prophet translated a portion of the Book of Mormon, with the seer stone in his possession. The stone was placed in a hat that was used for that purpose, and with the aid of this seer stone the Prophet would read sentence by sentence as Martin wrote, and if he made any mistake the sentence would remain before the Prophet until corrected, when another sentence would appear. When they became weary, as it was continuing work to translate from the plates of gold, they would go down to the river and throw stones into the water for exercise. Martin on one occasion picked up a stone resembling the one with which they were translating, and on resuming their work Martin placed the false stone in the hat. He said that the Prophet looked quietly for a long time, when he raised his head and said: “Martin, what on earth is the matter, all is dark as Egypt.” Martin smiled and the seer discovered that the wrong stone was placed in the hat. When he asked Martin why he had done so he replied, to stop the mouths of fools who had declared that the Prophet knew by heart all that he told him to write, and did not see by the seer stone; when the true stone was placed in the hat, the translation was resumed, as usual. ...

--Edward Stevenson, “The Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. No. III,” Millennial Star 48 (21 June 1886): 389-91. (EMD 2:324)

Martin explained the translating as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used. Martin said, after continued translation they would become weary and would go down to the river and exercise by throwing stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion, Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labor of translation, Martin put in place the stone that he had found. He said that the Prophet remained silent unusually and intently gazing in darkness, no traces of the usual sentences appearing. Much surprised, Joseph exclaimed, “Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt.” Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them, etc.

--Edward Stevenson to the Editor, 30 November 1881, Deseret Evening News 15 (13 December 1881). Reprinted in Deseret News 30 (28 December 1881): 763; Millennial Star 44 (30 January 1882): 78-79; 44 (6 February 1882): 86-87. (EMD 2:320-21)

The story of switching the stone shows Harris wasn’t simply a passive follower of Joseph Smith, but wanted proof before investing his money in the Book of Mormon’s publication. Harris’s pre-scribe description of Joseph Smith behind a curtain copying characters from the plates is corrected by this and other accounts he gave of the stone in the hat and seeing Joseph Smith looking into the fake stone and raising his head and seeing Martin smile. This was the method Joseph Smith used for about 116 pages of MS, which Harris lost. That Joseph Smith was unable to replace the lost MS supports Harris’s (and Emma’s, as well as Michael Morse’s and Isaac Hale’s) testimony that Joseph Smith’s head was in the hat and dictating impromptu stories without aid of a MS.

OLIVER COWDERY (acted as scribe in Harmony, PA, 7 April-May 1829, and in Fayette, for first part of Mosiah-Moroni; and in Fayette, ca. 1 June 1829-1 July 1829, 1 Nephi-Words of Mormon)

The meeting of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith was fortuitous and unplanned. Oliver Cowdery took his brother Lyman’s place as school teacher in Manchester (NY), and found boarding with the Smith family. He eventually heard about the plates from neighbors and pressed the Smiths from more information. After having a dream/vision of Jesus and the plates, he concluded to accompany Samuel Smith to Harmony and meet Joseph. Two days after arriving, he became Joseph Smith’s scribe. The only statement he left about the translation came in 1848 as he prepared to rejoin the church in Council Bluffs (IA).

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, “Holy Interpreters.” ...

Sidney Rigdon did not write it; Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it myself, as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.

--Reuben Miller, “Last Days of Oliver Cowdery,” Deseret News 9 (13 April 1859). Reprinted in Millennial Star 21 (1859): 544-46. (EMD 2:495)

While Cowdery doesn’t describe the manner of Joseph Smith’s dictating the translation to him, Emma, who worked in the room where Joseph Smith and Oliver were at work, said it was with the seer stone in the hat (see above).

JOSEPH KNIGHT, SR. (lived in Colesville, NY, north of Harmony, PA, and visited occasionally and brought supplies)

Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes then he would take a sentence and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters[.] then he would tell the writer and he would write it[.] then <that would go away> the next sentance would Come and so on[.] But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite[,] so we see it was marvelous[.] thus was the hol [whole] translated.

--Joseph Knight, Sr., “Manuscript of the History of Joseph Smith,” circa 1835-1847, 4, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah. (EMD 4:17-18)

Knight doesn’t state that he saw the translation firsthand, but he had opportunity.

TESTIMONY FROM FAYETTE (NY) AREA WHERE 1 NEPHI-WORDS OF Mormon WERE DICTATED, JUNE 1829

While on a business trip to Palmyra in 1828, David Whitmer met Oliver Cowdery, who the next year traveled to Harmony, PA, to meet Joseph Smith. He reported back to Whitmer by letter that Smith apparently had the ability to discern Cowdery’s private thoughts. This letter was followed by a request for refuge for Smith and Cowdery in Fayette. In early June 1829 Whitmer traveled to Harmony in his wagon and conveyed the two men to his father’s residence where the translation of the Book of Mormon would continue to completion. The Whitmer were of German stock and lived in a small one-and-half story cabin. Emma soon moved in as well, and in the cramped quarters their was little chance for privacy--no place to escape the eyes and ears of the Whitmers. In fact, David Whitmer said he had “free access to their room,” and his sister Elizabeth said she “often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours.” Another source reports David Whitmer saying “the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith’s relatives besides.” Whitmer also said that his brother Christian relieved Cowdery as scribe. In the extant pages of the section translated at the Whitmer residence, there are two unidentified handwritings amounting to about twenty-five pages. Those Spalding advocates who imagine Cowdery was a coconspirator and that Joseph Smith’s dictating with his head in hat was only a show put on when the Whitmers were present must account for these handwritings. Scribe 2 wrote 1 Nephi 3:7-4:14 and 12:9-16:1, and Scribe 3 wrote 4:20-12:8. This section of the Book of Mormon includes Nephi’s decision to return to Jerusalem and his obtaining the plates from Laban, Lehi’s tree of life dream, and Nephi’s visions and prophecies. The claim that Joseph Smith and Cowdery were secretly writing the Book of Mormon using a MS supplied by Sidney Rigdon must give way to the fact that a major portion of the first chapters having been dictated to scribe other than Cowdery. Either Joseph Smith was dictating impromptu and didn’t need the postulated Rigdon MS, or Spalding advocates must expand their conspiracy theory to include the entire Whitmer family.

In addition to the following compilation of David and Elizabeth Whitmer statements, it should be remembered that parts of the statements of Emma and Cowdery pertain to Fayette as well.

ELIZABETH ANN WHITMER COWDERY (David Whitmer’s sister and wife of Oliver Cowdery)

The earliest account of Joseph Smith’s method of translation in Fayette was given by Elizabeth Ann (Whitmer) Cowdery (1815-1892), younger sister of David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery’s widow. On 15 February 1870, she prepared an affidavit regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon for William E. McLellin. That same month, William E. McLellin quoted the affidavit in a letter to friends. Unfortunately, the original affidavit is lost, and McLellin’s is the only known copy. In addition, the bottom half of the letter is missing from the fold down. Two years later, McLellin mentioned Elizabeth’s affidavit again (VI.F.10, WILLIAM E. MCLELLIN TO JOSEPH SMITH, III, JUL & SEP 1872). In the first letter, McLellin introduced the affidavit with the following: “Last Tuesday, I went to visit David [Whitmer] again in Richmond and found him as well as usual for him. ... I stayed in Richmond two days and nights. I had a great deal of talk with widow Cowdry and her amiable daughter. She [Elizabeth’s daughter] is married to a Dr. Johnson. But has no children. She [Elizabeth] gave me a certificate and this is a copy. ...”

Richmond, Ray Co., Mo. Feb 15th 1870--I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith’s translating the Book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father’s house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place [indecipherable canceled word] his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read?] to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him. ...

--William E. McLellin to “My Dear Friends,” February 1870, Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, Community of Christ Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri. (EMD 5:260)

DAVID WHITMER (in Fayette, June 1829, 1 Nephi-Words of Mormon)

David Whitmer was excommunicated in Missouri in 1838, along with Harris and Cowdery. He never returned to the church, and resided in Richmond, MO, until his death in 1888. At the insistence of his family, he organized a church in the 1870s named “The Church of Christ,” consisting of a small group of interested worshipers that was short lived.

David Whitmer is known as the most interviewed witness. He said he had free access to the translation process, and left many statements about it. The earliest statement giving a description of Joseph Smith’s method of translation was reported by Eri B. Mullin of the RLDS Church in 1880 of an interview he had with Whitmer in 1874:

... I for my part know he said that Joseph had the instrument Urim and Thummim. I asked him how they looked. He said they looked like spectacles, and he (Joseph) would put them on and look in a hat, or put his face in the hat and read. Says I, “Did he have the plates in there.” “No; the words would appear, and if he failed to spell the word right, it would stay till it was spelled right, then pass away; another come, and so on.” ...

--Eri B. Mullin to Saints’ Herald, 25 January 1880, Saints’ Herald 27 (1 March 1880): 76. (EMD 5:15)

Due to time lapse, some of the details are garbled. Even some members were confused about the spectacles and the stone in hat. This was largely due to the fact that Joseph Smith’s history mentioned only the spectacles and referred to them as “Urim and Thummim”, and some witnesses (and reporters) called the seer stone by the same term. Whitmer frequently corrected reporters.

... During all these months David had free access to their room, and was

AN EYE-WITNESS TO THE METHOD OF PROCEDURE.

The plates were not before Joseph while he translated, but seem to have been removed by the custodian angel. The method pursued was commonplace but nevertheless effective. Having placed the Urim and Thummim in his hat, Joseph placed the hat over his face, and with prophetic eyes read the invisible symbols syllable by syllable and word by word, while Cowdery or Harris acted as recorders. “So illiterate was Joseph at that time,” said Mr. Whitmer, “that he didn’t even know that Jerusalem was a walled city, and he was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed, and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together. ...”

--“The Golden Tablets on Which Were Inscribed the Records of the Tribe of Nephi. Written in ‘Improved Egyptian’ and Translated by Joseph Smith. How He Came to Find Them and the Mighty Goggles by Which They Were Translated. And How He Was Pitched Down Hill for Daring to Think He had Struck a Bonanza. An Interview with David Whitmer, Who Helped to Make the Translation. And Who Now Holds the Original Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. ...,” Chicago Times, 7 August 1875, 1. (EMD 5:21)

I, too, have seen the “manuscripts” and examined them. I, too, have heard Father Whitmer say that he was present many times while Joseph was translating; but I never heard him say that the translation was made by aid of Urim and Thummim; but in every case, and his testimony is always the same, he declared that Joseph first offered prayer, then took a dark colored, opaque stone, called a “seer-stone,” and placed it in the crown of his hat, then put his face into the hat, and read the translation as it appeared before him. This was the daily method of procedure, as I have often heard Father Whitmer declare; and, as it is generally agreed to by parties who know the facts, that a considerable portion of the work of translation was performed in a room of his father’s house, where he then resided, there can be no doubt but what Father David Whitmer is a competent witness of the manner of translating. ...

With the sanction of David Whitmer, and by his authority, I now state that he does not say that Joseph Smith ever translated in his presence by aid of Urim and Thummim; but by means of one dark colored, opaque stone, called a “Seer Stone,” which was placed in the crown of a hat, into which Joseph put his face, so as to exclude the external light. Then, a spiritual light would shine forth, and parchment would appear before Joseph, upon which was a line of characters from the plates, and under it, the translation in English; at least, so Joseph said. ...

--J. L. Traughber to Editor, 13 October 1879, Saints’ Herald 26 (15 November 1879): 341. (EMD 5:59)

Whitmer described what happened on one occasion when he was present upstairs to observe Joseph Smith translating:

“ ... One morning when he was getting ready to continue the translation, something went wrong about the house and he was put out about it. Something that Emma, his wife, had done. Oliver and I went up stairs, and Joseph came up soon after to continue the translation, but he could not do anything. He could not translate a single syllable. He went down stairs, out into the orchard and made supplication to the Lord; was gone about an hour--came back to the house, asked Emma’s forgiveness and then came up stairs where we were and the translation went on all right. He could do nothing save he was humble and faithful.” ...

--William H. Kelley to Saints’ Herald, 16 January 1882, Saints’ Herald 29 (1 March 1882): 68-69; reprinted in the Journal of History 3 (October 1910): 450-52. (EMD 5:91)

Some translation was done upstairs in the cramped quarters of the small garret, or half story, of the Whitmer cabin, and Whitmer felt free to accompany Joseph and Oliver to the room. Another statement (see below) describes translation being done downstairs in the vicinity of the front door.

My statement was and now is that in translating he put the stone in his hat and putting his face in his hat so as to exclude the light and that then the light and characters appeared in the hat together with the interpretation which he uttered and was written by the scribe and which was tested at the time as stated. ...

--David Whitmer to Kansas City Journal, 13 June 1881, “A Few Corrections,” Kansas City Daily Journal, 19 June 1881. (EMD 5:82)

Mr. Whitmer emphatically asserts, as did Harris and Cowdrey, that while Smith was dictating the translation he had

NO MANUSCRIPT NOTES OR OTHER MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE

save the seer-stone and the characters as shown on the plates, he being present and cognizant how it was done.

--“The Last Man. Of the Men Who Attested to the Truth of the ‘Book of Mormon,’ David Whitmer Only Is Left. In the Sunset of Life He Bases His Hopes of Heaven on the Records of the Lost Tribe. And Solemnly Reiterates All that He Has Ever Said Regarding Them,” Chicago Times, 17 October 1881. Reprinted in Saints’ Herald 28 (15 November 1881): 346-47. (EMD 5:86)

“... We asked him the question: Had Joseph Smith any manuscripts of any kind by him at the time of translating the Book of Mormon that he could read from?

“His answer was: ‘No, Sir. We did not know anything about the Spaulding manuscript at that time.’ ...”

--David Whitmer interview with J. W. Chapburn, 1882, Saints’ Herald 29 (15 June 1882): 189. (EMD 5:94)

Father Whitmer, who was present very frequently during the writing of this manuscript affirms that Joseph Smith had no book or manuscript, before him from which he could have read as is asserted by some that he did, he (Whitmer) having every opportunity to know whether Smith had Solomon Spaulding’s or any other persons’ romance to read from.

--“Revelation Revisers,” St. Louis Republican 77 (16 July 1884): 7. Reprinted in Saints’ Herald 31 (9 August 1884): 516-17. (EMD 5:128)

“The way it was done was thus: Joseph would place the seer-stone in a deep hat, and placing his face close to it, would see, not the stone, but what appeared like an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language, all appearing in bright luminous letters. Joseph would then read it to Oliver, who would write it down as spoken. Sometimes Joseph could not pronounce the words correctly, having had but little education; and if by any means a mistake was made in the copy, the luminous writing would remain until it was corrected. It sometimes took Oliver several trials to get the right letters to spell correctly some of the more difficult words, but when he had written them correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear, and be replaced by other characters and their interpretation.

“When the seer-stone was not placed in the hat, no characters or writing could be seen therein, but when so placed then the hieroglyphics would appear as before described. Some represented but one word, or name, some represented several, and some from one to two lines. ...”

--James H. Hart to Deseret Evening News, 18 March 1884, Deseret Evening News 17 (25 March 1884). (EMD 5:104)

In speaking of the translating he said that Joseph had the stone in a hat from which all light was excluded. In the stone the characters appeared and under that the translation in English and they remained until the scribe had copied it correctly. If he had made a mistake the words still remained and were not replaced by any other.

--George Q. Cannon, Journal, 27 February 1884, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah. (EMD 5:113)

... The house of the senior Whitmer was a primitive and poorly designed structure, but it was deemed the most secure for carrying out the sacred trust on account of the threats that had been made against Smith by his mercenary neighbors. In order to give privacy to the proceeding a blanket, which served as a portiere, was stretched across the family living room to shelter the translators and the plates from the eye of any who might call at the house while the work was in progress. This, Mr. Whitmer says, was the only use made of the blanket, and it was not for the purpose of concealing the plates or the translator from the eyes of the amanuensis. In fact, Smith was at no time hidden from his collaborators, and the translation was performed in the presence of not only the persons mentioned, but of the entire Whitmer household and several of Smith’s relatives besides.

The work of translating the tablets consumed about eight months, Smith acting as the seer and Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s wife, and Christian Whitmer, brother of David, performing the duties of amanuenses, in whose handwriting the original manuscript now is. Each time before resuming the work all present would kneel in prayer and invoke the Divine blessing on the proceeding. After prayer Smith would sit on one side of a table and the amanuenses, in turn as they became tired, on the other. Those present and not actively engaged in the work seated themselves around the room and then the work began. After affixing the magical spectacles to his eyes, Smith would take the plates and translate the characters one at a time. The graven characters would appear in succession to the seer, and directly under the character, when viewed through the glasses, would be the translation in English. Sometimes the character would be a single word, and frequently an entire sentence. In translating the characters Smith, who was illiterate and but little versed in Biblical lore, was ofttimes compelled to spell the words out, not knowing the correct pronunciation, and Mr. Whitmer recalls the fact that at that time Smith did not even know that Jerusalem was a walled city. Cowdery, however, being a school-teacher, rendered invaluable aid in pronouncing hard words and giving their proper definition. ...

About this time Harris, inspired by curiosity and elation, took sixteen of the golden tablets home to show his wife, who is alleged to have stolen them from a bureau drawer and peddled them among her friends. For this offense Harris was severely reprimanded by the Lord, through Smith, but the angel afterwards recovered the plates and restored them. Smith’s offense of tattling the secrets of the work among his neighbors was less readily condoned, and for a long time the work was suspended, the angel being in possession of the plates and spectacles. Finally, when Smith had fully repented of his rash conduct, he was forgiven. The plates, however, were not returned, but instead Smith was given by the angel a Urim and Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form. This seer’s stone he was instructed to place in his hat, and on covering his face with the hat the characters and translation would appear on the stone. ...

--“The Book of Mormon. David Whitmer, the Associate of Joseph Smith, Now on His Death-Bed. He Describes the Translation of the Golden Tablets at Which He Assisted. The Angel in the Pasture--His Hatred of Polygamy--His Services in the Church,” Chicago Tribune, 17 December 1885, 3; reprinted in the Deseret Evening News 19 (24 December 1885); and Saints’ Herald 33 (2 January 1886): 12-14. (EMD 5:153-54, 155)

The reporter has obviously garbled some of the details. The last paragraph shows that Whitmer must have explained Joseph Smith’s shift from spectacles to stone in hat before his arrival at the Whitmer home. Whitmer made it clear in numerous interviews that the plates were seen by no one, and that he had seen them only in a subsequent vision. The critical information here is that the Whitmer family had numerous occasions to become casual observers of Joseph Smith’s translation method.

I will say that all who desire to investigate the Spaulding manuscript story will not be obliged to go very far before they will see the entire falsity of that claim. I testify to the world that I am an eye-witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon. Part of it was translated in my father’s house in Fayette, Seneca County, N.Y. Farther on I give a description of the manner in which the book was translated. ...

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. . . .

--David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Missouri: David Whitmer, 1887), 10-11, 12 (EMD 5:196-97)

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, I think that you need to back off those striking parallels a bit. If Dale is correct about the connection, which you seem to agree with, that would indicate that Solomon had just started writing the Roman story in mid 1812.

You're mixing things. First, I mentioned the discovery narrative parallels because I knew you had something up your sleeve. What you've said here does nothing to diminish the impact of the DN parallels, which remain as striking as ever. Second, pointing out the similarities to a real life event does nothing to establish only one manuscript. Third, apparently you weren't paying attention when both Dale and myself indicated that MSCC likely came after MF? He may also have worked on both simultaneously. We already know that later portions of MSCC were composed after 1813.

The little episode I excerpted is on page 27 of the 132 page manuscript and the incident in question happened on August 11, of 1812. This comports very nicely with the testimony of Josiah Spalding that said that Solomon began composing his story after he (Josiah) had gone to stay with Solomon after the war broke out in June of 1812.

And may also explain why Josiah's recollections are reminiscent of MSCC.

It also dovetails with the statement of Solomon's wife, Matilda, who said that he began writing his story around the time of Hulls's surrender of Detroit, which happened in August of 1812.

I would be interested in Dale's take on that. Since the witnesses indicate Spalding had many manuscripts, my own guess is that Spalding was writing off and on from 1809 all through 1812 and beyond. He possibly did start writing MSCC around early 1812 however.

Well, you may not think that your horse is dead, but you are going nowhere riding it. And after that dip in the quagmire, maybe it is becoming a bit fragrant.

: )

I have stated several times, if you wish to provide us with some kind of coherent framework for your data that provides a falsifiable theory, based upon accepted literay, textual, and or historical methods, we would be able to have a discussion on the data. Right now it is meaningless. "I know it when I see it" is not a legitmate, accepted method.

The framework is S/R, Glenn. The raw data that you can't explain supports it. I'm simply not going to let you get away with attempting to dodge the issue (while simultaneously alleging that science is somehow against S/R). Neither your Book of Mormon production theory nor Dan's can adequately explain raw data that comes directly from the Book of Mormon text. This is hard, empirical data, that you can't explain but fits nicely into S/R. And I predict it will only get worse (for S/A and S/D) as more data is added.

And you still have shown me no scientific reason why I should reject the results and conclusions by Bruce Schaalje in his work with the extended NSC methods. That needs to be done before any goose chase after data with no recognized method of interpretiation.

Since neither one of us are actually scientists we are both going to have to appeal to our respective experts. However, even if I were to accept your argument that Schaalje's work negates Jocker's (which I don't) what would that prove? Would that be enough to render S/R dead? Not at all. S/R stood before Jockers came along. Jocker's data merely supports the S/R thesis, just like the data in Dale's chart supports it. You, however, want to use Schaalje to support the notion that no one in the 19th century contributed content to the Book of Mormon. Using Schaalje to promote that notion is going to run into a lot of resistance, not just from S/R proponents but from people like Dan Vogel and the Tanners, etc. who are all convinced beyond doubt (as am I) that the Book of Mormon was composed in the 19th century and there were never any Nephites.

On this very thread, Ben Maguire has stated that Jocker's method is very reliable when the real author is among the candidate set. Jocker's latest data includes Joseph Smith. There should be no more likely Book of Mormon author to include among potential candidates than Joseph Smith. So if Ben's assessment of Jocker's method being accurate when the real author is among the candidate set is correct, then it doesn't matter much what conclusions Schaalje draws. Dale has already shown that Schaalje was not forthcoming when it came to identifying dots on his chart. When Dale found a way around that, he discovered that the data clusters in ways he had predicted long before computer word studies were possible. Schaalje's own response was that large distance is meaningful while short distance is not. Call me naïve, but that just doesn't add up.

It was also pointed out that the entire basis for Schaalje's conclusions (about the 19th century candidate authors) comes down to PC1. But there is a factor in PC1 that tends to drive the Book of Mormon chapters away from the 19th century candidate authors (although even in PC1 that phenomenon is not 100% potent). What Dale and others have repeatedly pointed out is that the dots move together and intermingle in PC2 and PC3. The factor causing the separation in PC1 is likely King James English--which only makes logical sense, since the candidate samples are not composed in King James English. Eliminating that factor basically takes the steam out of Schaalje's conclusion. Couple that with Ben's assessment, and I don't place much stock in Schaalje's conclusion.

And one more thing, from reading the statements of the witnesses, would you mind presenting your idea of what they say Solomon's supposed second story was about.

Their statements are pretty self explanatory Glenn.

[_marg]

[quote="Roger"Third, apparently you weren't paying attention when both Dale and myself indicated that MSCC likely came after MF? He may also have worked on both simultaneously. We already know that later portions of MSCC were composed after 1813. [/quote]

I missed this. What evidence is there that MSCC portions were composed after 1813? You think it's possible MSCC came after MF..why?

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg (and Roger),

Arad Stowel sworn. Says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill that he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book open upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent; hold the stone to the candle, turn his back to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable, that [Stowell] went off disgusted."

http://richkelsey.org/1826_trial_testimonies.htm

This is interesting. We all know that Smith can't dictate at will contents of books he's unfamiliar with unless there is a trick going on. It would appear in this case that the book was Smith's and he likely prepared himself for this show by memorizing a page in advance..for the sole purpose of such a show. Had Stowel picked his own book and asked Smith to do the same thing, I'm sure the outcome would have been different.

How did he do the trick? Not very well since Stowell saw through it right away, although he didn’t explain how it was done. Whatever Joseph Smith’s method, it wasn’t the same as used with the Book of Mormon.

But what is interesting is Smith showing his propensity to perform tricks. He's not simply claiming to translate with God's help, words which appear on a stone, he's performing a trick, trying to show that he can dictate any book without looking at it by using his stone.

We know that Joseph Smith’s activities as a treasure seer were deceptive, and that whenever he gave proof, it was a trick—either psychological or manipulative. What does Joseph Smith’s demonstration with Stowell show? It depends on how it was done. It might only show Joseph Smith had a great memory. I don’t think it shows that Joseph Smith could read any book, although that might seem to support your trick-hat theory. To be sure, that was the illusion that Joseph Smith wanted to create—and you seem to be buying into it. This doesn’t in any way support the idea that Joseph Smith could dictate hour after hour, day after day, the contents of a Spalding MS while his head is buried in his hat.

So this indicates Smith's propensity and interest in preparing in advance for a trick to perform. Here he is transferring the treasure seeking trickery to books. And why would he be thinking along those lines? Because he's likely already been thinking along those lines with the Book of Mormon.

As I said, this court hearing was in March 1826, and Joseph Smith had been talking about the plates and their contents since September 1823, although he wasn’t translating or reading the book in the hill. The incident with Stowell was a demonstration of his ability at remote viewing. Joseph Smith was experimenting not with reading books with his stone, but ways of demonstrating his gift without actually finding a real buried treasure. With such proofs, his explanations of slippery treasures would be more believable. In the same trial record, Josiah Stowell testified that Joseph Smith saw in his stone a treasure chest that had been buried with a tail feather placed on the lid. When they dug for the treasure, they found the feather but not the truck, which Joseph Smith explained had slipped away through the ground. Obviously, the feather was planted, either at the time of digging or previous to it. This shows Joseph Smith willingness to provide physical proof of his gift, which separated him from self-deluded treasure seekers. This is what led to his supplying witnesses to the plates, and as I have argued his manufacturing a set of fake plates from tin that people could feel through a cloth covering.

The majority of the Book of Mormon would have been done by simply reading from a preprepared manuscript with the scribe Cowdery and whoever else as scribe he spent a good deal of time with ..and they'd by in on the process of knowing a manuscript was being used. But for some minor scribes a prepared in advance trick could easily be planned. Memorize a page or 2..and use that for show purposes..those same memorized pages could be used a number of times if necessary for show. And of course he can also always wing it temporarily.

One ad hoc hypotheses after another—nothing more than wishful thinking. This is thesis driven speculation to explain away adverse evidence. Cowdery is a conspirator “and whoever else as scribe he spent a good deal of time with”—meaning the two other scribes at the Whitmer residence. You need to invent three conspirators to explain how the Rigdon/Spalding MS gets into the room. If Joseph Smith had one conspirator—Cowdery—why would he need two others? Why would he risk rejection and exposure with two more conspirators, when they were unnecessary? It makes no sense. We don’t even have half the original MS that was dictated at the Whimter residence, but about 25 pages are in the handwritings of the two scribes, with only a few verses by OC preventing these pages being consecutive. Your theory serves no other purpose but to maintain your central thesis, it has no explanatory power and no evidence to support it. It also conflicts with eyewitness testimony given by Emma, who said she worked in the same room where Joseph Smith and Cowdery worked, and David Whitmer who said he had free access to the translation room. You need more conspirators to maintain your theory.

If Smith is only into dictating the Book of Mormon from his creative mind, then why is he into performing tricks of dictating books which have nothing to do with his claims to what is happening with the Book of Mormon and divine involvement?

Huh? This makes no sense. He wasn’t dictating books in 1826, he was only reading them remotely. Who says Joseph Smith had only one interest?

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Come on Glenn. You really don't get it? Why does a particular error pattern--a redundant "that"--have a high frequency of occurrence at the beginning of the Book of Mormon and at the end, but not in the middle? Just look at the chart. It's pretty striking!

Can you give us some examples of this redundant “that” from both sides of the divide? Why do you call this an “error”? What is the “pattern” you see, and what does it mean?

And why would that pattern follow the same pattern as the wherefore/therefore shift? Just look at the chart! There has to be an explanation for it. If I remember correctly without checking, Dan said something like "writer's preference" or some such thing. In other words--unless I'm totally misunderstanding Dan's extremely limited response on this question--Joseph Smith just started preferring to use wherefore over therefore starting around 3 Nephi. --meaning he can't explain why it occurs other than Joseph Smith must have changed his usage for inexplicable reasons.

I’m not sure it does. Metcalfe wasn’t postulating different authors, but a shift in preference. This is why he collated it with a similar shift that occurred in Joseph Smith’s revelations. I can’t say that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it. But why do you think there is the “same” pattern?

But it gets worse, because he really can't explain why that pattern is remarkably similar to the double "that" pattern. Given the limitations of his Book of Mormon production theory, I think that chart must simply be inexplicable. I certainly haven't heard any reasonable explanations from an S/A perspective.

But it would appear that you have other options, no? How do you explain it?

Admittedly, I don’t have a studied answer to Dale’s double “that” tabulation. I’m trying to get you guys to explain it more fully. I have preliminarily observed that the pattern seems to follow the separation between religiously rhetorical books at the beginning and end of the Book of Mormon, and skip the historically narrative books. So if you are serious about discussing this issue, provide more information about your views.