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

[_marg]

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.

Dan it is impossible that Smith would know when Emma was misspelling if he was not looking at what she was writing. So what are the options?

The only thing I can think of is she's lying. She's attempting to make it appear that the stone actually was divinely controlled, that Smith read off of it words but not only that despite Smith not being able to spell himself, he knew without even looking at what she was writing when she was misspelling. And so what in the intended inference one is supposed to draw from her statements....that God was guiding Smith. But what she is claiming is impossible. That is it is impossible for Smith to know when she's is misspelling without looking at what she is writing, but that is her claim.

She's a liar Dan.


Dan she's actually a very good witness for the S/R position. She establishes herself as a liar by claiming something which could not have happened, and then goes on to describe a process that is not Smith simply dictating but rather reading off of material. When she says he would spell out what he couldn't pronounce does that sound like a person simply dictating without reading off of something? Does anything she describes sound like a person simply dictating as opposed to reading off of prewritten material? No Dan, it does not. But she states this, because it supports what Smith and Co want which is propaganda that not only was he not capable of writing but that he was being guided by a God.

[_Roger]

marg:

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

There is a letter written on the back of one of the sequentially numbered manuscript pages. The narrative surrounding the letter appears to flow uninterrupted. The letter has an 1813 date which strongly implies that what came afterward was composed after the letter. The only alternative to that is that Spalding skipped the page (left it blank) while he was writing his narrative and then later went back and used the blank page to compose a letter. This does not seem as likely as that he simply composed the letter at the same time he was composing narrative.

It is not safe to draw the conclusion that all of MSCC came after MF, however, evidence seems to indicate that he was working on MF as early as 1809, as supported by some of the witnesses. So he was either working on both MF and MSCC during that time or he possibly began working on MSCC around 1812. Dale knows the dates better than I do, so I am interested on his take on this.

The idea that he began MF after MSCC comes from the notion that he "went back earlier in time" and adopted a scriptural style to make the work appear more ancient. This would seem to imply that MSCC came first since it comes from a post-Christian era. But Wright was responding to the discrepancy of no Nephi and Lehi in MSCC when he was confronted with it. Wright does not concede... oh yeah! by george that is the ms I was referring to. Instead he says in the other one, Spalding went back further in time and adopted a Scriptural style to make the work appear more ancient. I agree that as worded, Wright implies an earlier date for MSCC, but, in the first place I don't think Wright was in a position to know for sure which came first and in the second place he may not have intended the implication his language results in... meaning "he went back in time" may not actually have been intended to imply that MF was a rethinking of an earlier MSCC as opposed to simply distinguishing one from the other. ie: in one ms he has Christian era sailors land in America, as you can clearly see Mr. Hurlbut, but in the other, he went back in time and adopted a scriptural style in an effort to make the work appear more ancient.

So either Spalding had started MSCC earlier and then switched to MF but continued to work on MSCC as late as 1813, or it is incorrect to interpret Wright's implied logic to mean that MF was an attempt to make MSCC appear more ancient. Either explanation works.

The point Glenn wanted to make (I think) of the quagmire story is that if we parallelomaniacs are going to be consistent we are going to have to agree that Spalding used a story in his novel that occurred in 1812 but Glenn is (apparently) under the (mistaken) impression that all of MSCC had to have preceded MF (or was all there ever was) and, if so, then how do we account for the witnesses who claimed to have been familiar with the story well before 1812? At least I think that's where Glenn wants to go with this.

But that does not pose a problem since there is nothing (aside from Wright's implication) that demands MSCC preceded MF and even if it did there is nothing written in stone to say that Spalding could not have worked on both manuscripts at the same time.

[_marg]

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.

Quote:
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)


Quote:
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.

Dan this story about Harris indicates 2 possibilities, one it isn't true, never happened, it is propaganda, the other possibility illustrates how gullible Harris was. For reasons below I'm leaning towards the first possibility. If you can think of other likely probabilities let me know.

Does Smith routinely leave the stone lying around in the hat? Let's say they go down to the river for a break, Smith doesn't go back to the room right away and has left the stone in the hat giving Harris an opportunity to switch..so then Smith goes to the room and picks up the hat with the switched stone in it, and pretends he can't read from the switched stone and complains and then Harris confesses and gives him back the stone.

So either Harris is so gullible that he doesn't appreciate the above scenario was a set up by Smith in advance, or it never happened because Smith was unlikely to ever leave the hat with the stone in it simply lying on a table while he left the house. He was much more likely to always carry the stone with him or have it hidden when not on him. If tjat particular stone was lost or stolen and he replaced it then that would indicate the stone had no special significance..so he wouldn't want that to happen.

Again as with Emma there is that same similar claim that Smith would stop dictating if Harris had made mistakes, despite the fact that Smith was looking into the hat and not reading what Harris was writing. Again this calls into question the reliability that he's being truthful.

So I don't think this evidence supports that Harris was seeking proof before investing, I think it calls into question his credibility and indicates he could very well have been lying..since there is no way Smith could know with his head in a hat whether Harris was writing anything incorrectly. And when one adds that to Harris's other claims to the extraordinary "Martin harris Who Bore testimony of the angle [angel]"..the indications are he's not reliably truthful.

[_Roger]

Dan:

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?

The data is not mine. I do not have a searchable 1830 Book of Mormon text. Instead of making this an us against them thing, why can't we work together on this? Do you have or have access to a searchable 1830 Book of Mormon text? If so, I'm sure you can find hundreds of patterns, some of which may negate what I see in Dale's chart.

I do not know what patterns will emerge at this point, other than the limited information I have seen which includes the data in Dale's chart. So it is entirely possible that you could come up with patterns that are fairly evenly distributed across the entire text.

My reason for wanting to focus on error patterns or colloquialisms, is based on the common sense logic that whoever is using a particular error or speech pattern is likely doing so subconsciously and is therefore not likely to vary the usage in so striking a pattern as can clearly be seen in Dale's chart where, under Nephi priority (for Glenn) it appears frequently at the beginning then drops off entirely and then comes back again at the end; or, under Mosiah priority (for the rest of us) it is non-existent and then appears frequently.

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?

First, I appreciate that you are at least thinking about it now. I realize that Metcalfe wasn't postulating different authors and that his interpretation of the evidence is an obvious shift in preference by the same author. The reason for the shift in preference, however, is unclear. For some reason, Joseph Smith simply decided to start using wherefore over therefore. I am suggesting that an unintended conclusion of Metcalfe's observation is simply more than one author. In that case, the shift does not represent a consistent change in usage by one author based on a hypothetical change in preference, but rather the work of more than one author.

The reason I think they follow a similar pattern is clear... just look at the chart! The frequency of "wherefore" occurs at high levels at the beginning and end of the text, but not in the middle. Same thing for the redundant that.

My suggestion is that with each new piece of data that is added to the mix and conforms to a similar pattern, the more difficult it is to explain the data as a shift in preference by one author. Your author must shift his preferences for a number of phrases and words (some of which appear to be unconscious errors) at the same general location in the text and he then goes on to consistently follow the new preferences in each instance.

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.

That's a fair observation and I think I agree with it. That would seem to support the notion that Rigdon and/or Smith/Cowdery was adding much of the religious material while Spalding's ideas (or at least something other than Smith/Cowdery) served as the historical framework--but this would not be very obvious until we come out of the 116 page replacement section since that section was totally re-written. That seems to be what we are seeing in Dale's chart. It is noteworthy that Spalding never uses the phrase "wherefore" and, beginning in the Book of Mormon section coming out of the rewrite--the first section that would represent the fewest redactions between us and Spalding, wherefore drops off and therefore becomes dominant.

Do you have a better explanation?

If I had a searchable 1830 Book of Mormon text and some time, I could look for the distribution of errors--or patterns of speech--such as the "a going" phrase or the "them for those" substitutions. As it is, I do not.

[_Roger]

marg wrote:

Dan she's actually a very good witness for the S/R position. She establishes herself as a liar by claiming something which could not have happened, and then goes on to describe a process that is not Smith simply dictating but rather reading off of material.

Excellent points.

[_marg]

Roger thanks I remember some of it now. And I believe Glenn posted a copy of the date of the letter written and it looks as if the date was 1812 instead of 1813...so there is some discrepancy unresolved on that.

[_marg]

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).

Dan whose words are these, yours? And what is your source? Cowdery said he had a dream/vision of Jesus and plates? He's quite a risk taker, isn't he? Drops his job to take on being a scribe in a matter of a few days. And who was going to support him financially or did he do this because of a dream and he's so charitable?

]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).

And Emma also said that Smith read with his head in a hat off the stone and couldn't even read words so he would spell them and she also said that despite him not looking at what she was writing if she made any spelling mistakes, he'd correct her. So emma is not a very believable reliable person.

Now we have Cowdery who says nothing about the process until 1848, almost 20 years afterwards..and he doesn't mention that famous hat nor the seer stone but now it's the Urim and Thummim...yet he's supposed to have been the main scribe.

What you are writing Dan, says less about the evidence than it does on your poor critical thinking non-objective evaluation of the evidence. I realize complete objectivity for an historian is impossible but blatant non critical evaluation and acceptance at face value of individuals making extraordinary claims who have a vested interest in a fraud..is NOT acceptable.

I don't know what your reasons and motivators are Dan, but you are not objectively and fairly critically evaluating this evidence, in any reasonable manner whatsoever.

I can't believe that you are actually using Emma to back up Cowdery.

And I suppose you are going to argue that Cowdery used the words Urim and Thummim (spectacles) in replacement for the seer stone with head in the hat, because they served to perform the same job.

Dan the evidence above is extremely poor evidence in support of the process of head in the hat with seer stone. Cowdery had a vested interest, he also didn't describe the process as others had and the information he gave was very minimal and unconvincing.

[_marg]

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.

I see Dan. So the fact that he's claiming to know something ..as if he has first hand knowledge..something that could not have possibly occurred....no words appeared in "Brite roman Letters on a stone...and yet....you conclude from his statement, 'well since he had the opportunity therefore what he says is evidence in support of the head in the hat schtick for the entire Book of Mormon.

I can't believe this.

[_marg]

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.

Have researchers other than those okayed and essentially working for the Church examined the handwritings of these 2 unidentified scribes?

Who has been ruled out as possible scribes and who made that decision? Who are considered the possible scribes and on what grounds?

As far as S/R theorists accounting for those writings ..from the sounds of it the writings are part of the 116 lost pages replacement. It's consistent with the S/R theory because the S/R theory suggests there are a number of contributors.

The question is why aren't those handwritings identified? Perhaps whoever wrote those pages purposefully disguised their handwriting..Rigdon?

As far as what occurred at the Whitmer home, didn't you write that they wrote in the room upstairs and other times downstairs but with a blanket for privacy?

I like Mark Twain's sarcastic comments as to their credibility.

to the 3 Book of Mormon witnesses, Cowdery Harris and D. Whitmer's statements:

Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either.



To the other 8 CHristian, Peter, John Jacob Whitmer & Hiram Page and Joseph Sr, Hyram and Samuel Smith

"And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."

[_marg]

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)

Dan the problem is that Elizabeth, David Whitmer’s sister and wife of Oliver Cowdery had her entire family's reputation and name on the line if she were to disagree with the claims which had been made.

For any of these people related and involved, saying anything which went against what had been claimed by the originators for the translation process, would have negative repercussions for all family members currently living and into the future. And they would have known that.

They simply are not good reliable witnesses having a vested interest in protecting their families physically, their family's name and reputation in the present and into the future, and for some they had at the beginning a vested interest in benefits of power, prestige and employment/potential financial returns.

by the way Dan, Oliver claimed the Urim and Thummin spectacles were used...so did they glow words as well and were they used with the hat or without?