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

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Sigh ....okay so now I don't know who J. L. Traughber is but according to them D. Whitmer never said Smith used the spectacles ..he only said Smith used the seer stone.

However this is not consistent with what Oliver the main scribe claimed.

Traughber was a friend of David Whitmer. He was correcting inaccurate reporting of Whitmer’s statements. Cowdery was being vague, which is why I followed his statement with

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).

The term “Urim and Thummim” was used generically for any seer stone. Lancaster explained:

Cowdery, like Whitmer, could never have been present when the Nephite interpreters were used and, like Smith, makes the “seer stone” synonymous with the Urim and Thummim. …
During the time that the Book of Mormon was being translated, Smith received revelations through what he later called the Urim and Thummim. In this period “Urim and Thummim” refer to the seer stone. …
By 1838, when he began dictating his autobiography, he chose not to [p.110] describe translation in a way which would emphasize a mechanical view of revelation. Instead, when pressed about the method of translation, he would carefully state that it was done by “the gift and power of God.” Beyond this he would never elaborate.
In keeping with this decision, Smith used the term “Urim and Thummim” to cover all instruments used to determine the will of God. It appears that the identification of the Nephite interpreters with the biblical Urim and Thummim was made only gradually. The words “Urim and Thummim” are never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Commandments, or early newspaper accounts, and first appear, in reference to the Book of Mormon, in the Evening and the Morning Star and the Messenger and Advocate in 1833 and 1834. By 1835 the term “Urim and Thummim” had been incorporated into the Doctrine and Covenants. Thereafter, in discussing his history Smith euphemistically used “Urim and Thummim” to include both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone.
--See http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=5070

[_marg]

It’s your poor reasoning skills and lack of source-critical training that puts you so easily off track. Didn’t you read the introduction?

Stick with the issues Dan ..don't simply write ad hominem remarks without warranting your accusations.

quoteDue 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.


This was an easy mistake for reporters unfamiliar with the nuances of Mormon history to make. This problem is well known and discussed in the essays I mentioned at the beginning of the excerpts I provided. You have to be able to glean the important facts from imperfect sources.

Dan you have not accounted for the discrepancy between Cowdery and Smith's claim of spectacles versus some of the witnesses claim to a seer stone.

Obviously there is a discrepancy..which you have ignored. That discrepancy was not CAUSED by the reporters.

[_Roger]

Dan writes:

Strange logic! Joseph Smith is pretending to read the translation, so to interpret that pretence as evidence that he was reading something is nutty.

Huh? I had to read this three times... and I still wonder what you are trying to say. How is it "nutty" to allege that someone might actually be reading something when they are trying to convince someone else they are actually reading something?

What you can't figure out is how he could read something while allegedly putting his head in a hat. The fact is, you don't know how Smith did what he did any more than we do. And we don't have his hat to examine. Good magicians don't want the secrets to their tricks getting out. But the hat was a white stove-top hat. It may have had holes in it, for all we know. Some of the "seer" stones evidently did. In any event, white straw may be significant in that it would allow light to penetrate. I'm not saying that is what happened. Who knows? But we agree that every time Joseph put his head in his hat he did so as part of a show to deceive people and we don't know for sure exactly how he pulled off the deception. He may have had more than one technique. But how you can go from that to dogmatically asserting he absolutely could not have been reading is unclear.

She lied about Joseph Smith correcting her spelling, but told the truth about Joseph Smith spelling words out. So, it sounds like you think Emma was a dupe, and that her description of Joseph Smith reading with head in hat is true.

I doubt if Emma was a complete dupe. She sure knew more about polygamy than she let on, even though she hated it. I also doubt that she was privy to all of Joseph's Book of Mormon production secrets. But there is little doubt in my mind she would have only reported what she felt would help the cause and could easily have lied to protect it.

marg is correct to point out that if Joseph had something written to reference her statements make sense, whereas if not, one has to come up with a fairly complicated explanation that:

Remember, you are reading statements given by those whom Joseph Smith had convinced he had supernatural powers to see whatever he wanted in his stone.

How?

When I did magic, the one thing I noticed was when one of my friends was telling another friend the trick I had shown them, it was told in such a way as to make it more miraculous than it was. In fact, they way it was described would have been impossible to do. Also, Emma is drawing on memories that are twenty-eight-years-old, and they are being reported by Briggs sixty years after that.

So? Does that mean he did not put his head in a hat and rattle off sentences? Did the reporter mess that part up?

Nevertheless, David Whitmer made a similar statement to Eri B. Mullin and James H. Hart. It was Joseph Smith’s job to convince people he was translating by a gift from God—it worked!

And how did he do that?

Most likely the claim is based on a few instances of Joseph Smith’s having the scribe read back and spelling a new name, changing the spelling, and explaining that that was why the sentence didn’t disappear from the stone.

And the dupes were so gullible they just bought it? No questions asked? But had they known there was anything fishy going on they surely would have honestly and accurately reported that to us in detail to the best of their ability?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
What you can't figure out is how he could read something while allegedly putting his head in a hat.
...

The Ohio State Journal.
Vol. XLVI. Columbus, June 4, 1856. No. 10.

The Deseret News (Mormon) is "down on" the practice of young men
who have a piece of looking-glass fixed in the inside of their hat, and
who, pretending to be praying with their face in their hat, are quietly
and slyly looking at the faces of the girls [seated] behind them
reflected in the glass.


UD

[_Roger]

Reporting from Lancaster, Dan notes:

By 1838, when he began dictating his autobiography, he chose not to [p.110] describe translation in a way which would emphasize a mechanical view of revelation. Instead, when pressed about the method of translation, he would carefully state that it was done by “the gift and power of God.” Beyond this he would never elaborate.

Again... my question is: why the need for such secrecy? Under Dan's logic Joseph Smith is such a good con man he can just put his head in a hat and rattle off meaningful dialog for hours on end. He was so good at this that he had convinced several everyday, honest folk (who were no more susceptible to miraculous claims than anyone else--under Dan's logic) that he could actually do what he appeared to be doing. That list necessarily includes Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, David Whitmer and the entire Whitmer household, apparently all of the rest of the Smiths, and Joseph Knight. These everyday folk were somehow convinced that Joseph Smith could simply place his head in his hat and rattle off meaningful dictation for hours on end. To support this, Dan quotes even the skeptics like Morse allegedly claiming they witnessed Smith doing the same thing on many occasions. When asked how the alleged disbeliever Morse accounted for it, Morse answers that he did not know to which his RLDS questioners responded that Smith must have had a "prodigious memory." Indeed, that seems to be Dan's only option, other than automatic writing, which itself seems to lack natural explanation.

So... if Joseph could do all that at will, then why the need for secrecy? Why was a blanket put up to shield Joseph from anyone? Why not invite the public? The more the merrier! People pay to see David Copperfield or Chris Angel! Joseph Smith claims to be receiving revelation from God and yet Dan agrees with me that he was actually something of a magician, merely putting on a show, and that he was so good at it, he had multiple witnesses who spent hours on end, day after day observing him convinced he could do what he claimed to be doing! And if not, they surely would have reported it!

Given that, why the need to hold back something from public view? Whitmer's testimony does not make sense in that light. Nor does Lancaster's:

he chose not to [p.110] describe translation in a way which would emphasize a mechanical view of revelation.

??? Why not? Everyone claimed that all he had to do was put his head in a hat and open his mouth.

[_Roger]

UD wrote:

The Ohio State Journal.
Vol. XLVI. Columbus, June 4, 1856. No. 10.

The Deseret News (Mormon) is "down on" the practice of young men
who have a piece of looking-glass fixed in the inside of their hat, and
who, pretending to be praying with their face in their hat, are quietly
and slyly looking at the faces of the girls [seated] behind them
reflected in the glass.

Gives a whole new meaning to meditation and prayer!

But that sparks a thought... if Smith is setting next to a table, why not attach a ms page to the bottom of the table and then read the reflection in the stone? I suppose the answer to that is that Joseph's stone was not reflective. Do we know that for sure?

I suppose another drawback would be that the reflection would appear backwards.

Obviously something was going on. Either Joseph had a "prodigious memory" or there was some trick being employed.

But the important point is this... under the Joseph has a super memory scenario--which at this point seems to me to be Dan's only option--he can presumably do that at will and convince honest folks. So then there is no need to hide anything.

Whereas, if there is a trick being employed, the more people who witness the trick, the more likely someone will figure it out.

[_Roger]

I'd like to see the page photographed in infra red and ultra violet,
which might bring out the detail a bit better. I had an opportunity
to examine the actual document in 1980 -- under a magnifying
glass in strong light -- and I'm fairly certain it was an 1813. Also
I'm fairly certain that the handwriting is not Spalding's. Certainly,
I reject the absurd explanation that he was writing to his parents,
who were deceased by that time.

Ah yes, it's coming back to me now.

The most logical explanation I can come up with, is that the page
was NOT blank, when Spalding folded it and included it in a sewn
folio signature, some time before mid-1816. Why he chose to
include such a partly damaged page in his manuscript, I cannot
guess -- but at least he was able to make full use of the other
three pages of the folded sheet.

Is it certain that the date, whether 1812 or 1813 was actually a part of the letter?

The thing that makes this more confusing is the numbering of the pages which includes the letter page. It would seem that the pages were numbered before being used and that the letter was written after the page was numbered, no?

As to the use of what I call the "redundant that" in the Book of
Mormon: the occurrences do not drop down to zero in the pages
attributed to the "large plates," but the frequency there, prior to
mid-3rdNephi, is relatively low. Its frequency of use in the latter
part of the "large plates," and in the "small plates" is much higher.

It is not a "double that" -- the word is redundant because it is
unnecessary and does not match our use of the word in modern
English. I would not call its use an error -- but it is part of the
faux KJV simulation that intensifies in lockstep with the switch over
to "wherefore."

Do we know how "and it came to pass" charts across the text? This might be one instance where we might anticipate it's frequency to be fairly consistent since the S/R witnesses allege that Spalding used it excessively.

I might look into the link Dan posted when I get a chance and see if I can figure out how to search for phrases.

The wherefore/that occurrence patterns do not supply the sum
total of vocabulary changes found in the text, beginning towards
the end of the "large plates" and continuing/intensifying when we
get to the "small plates."

If your responders cannot recall such patterns, perhaps they
would be well advised to take a short vacation from posting here,
and spend that time re-reading the 1830 Book of Mormon.

Sounds like homework.

[_marg]

Marg,

Sigh ....okay so now I don't know who J. L. Traughber is but according to them D. Whitmer never said Smith used the spectacles ..he only said Smith used the seer stone.

However this is not consistent with what Oliver the main scribe claimed.

Traughber was a friend of David Whitmer. He was correcting inaccurate reporting of Whitmer’s statements. Cowdery was being vague, which is why I followed his statement with

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 in a previous post I commented on your follow up statement that essentially it is ridiculous to use Emma to back Cowdery ..when she apparently lied.

Cowdery was the main scribe for what ...90% of the scribal work?, and he doesn't mention the stone glowing words and Smith stopping him when he had written or spelt the words wrong. His explanation of the process is not consistent with the other scribes and witnesses.

The term “Urim and Thummim” was used generically for any seer stone. Lancaster explained:
Cowdery, like Whitmer, could never have been present when the Nephite interpreters were used and, like Smith, makes the “seer stone” synonymous with the Urim and Thummim. …

Ad hoc fallacy Dan. Lancaster arguing that Urim and thummin couldn't be used according to Smith's initial claims...so the ad hoc explanation is that the urim and thummin spectacles are the same as a seer stone. Did Smith or Cowdery ever say or explain that?

I think Smith and Cowdery didn't want the explanation to the translation process going down in history that he used a seer stone and Cowdery at least thought the spectacles Urim and thummin was more believable being as they are mentioned in the Bible (although they aren't spectacles). And so he years later he attempted to change the explanation for the translation, but it doesn't mesh with initial Book of Mormon witness claims.

During the time that the Book of Mormon was being translated, Smith received revelations through what he later called the Urim and Thummim. In this period “Urim and Thummim” refer to the seer stone. …

Dan ...Smith didn't receive revelations ..he claimed to receive revelations. Did he stick his head in a hat with the spectacles to receive his claimed revelations? Did he actually ever claim to use a Urim and thummin?

By 1838, when he began dictating his autobiography, he chose not to [p.110] describe translation in a way which would emphasize a mechanical view of revelation. Instead, when pressed about the method of translation, he would carefully state that it was done by “the gift and power of God.” Beyond this he would never elaborate.
In keeping with this decision, Smith used the term “Urim and Thummim” to cover all instruments used to determine the will of God.

I see ..so he dropped the hat as part of the schtick when it came to revelations ..but I'm still uncertain whether or not Smith ever claimed to use a Urim and Thummin or whether that is something others assumed.

It appears that the identification of the Nephite interpreters with the biblical Urim and Thummim was made only gradually. The words “Urim and Thummim” are never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Commandments, or early newspaper accounts, and first appear, in reference to the Book of Mormon, in the Evening and the Morning Star and the Messenger and Advocate in 1833 and 1834. By 1835 the term “Urim and Thummim” had been incorporated into the Doctrine and Covenants. Thereafter, in discussing his history Smith euphemistically used “Urim and Thummim” to include both the Nephite interpreters and the seer stone.
--See http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=5070

[/quote]

Did Smith ever say ..that the seer stone ..was the same as the Urim and thummin? Did Cowdery? Because if not, this sounds to me like Mormon apologetic spin...an ad hoc fallacy to explain away the problematic discrepancy between claims by Book of Mormon witnesses of a seer stone being used for translation, and Cowdery's claim to a Urim and thummin and perhaps D. Whitmers claim as presented by a reporter of a Urim and thummin.

They are not the same thing no matter what spin someone wishes to present.

[Guest]

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)

Dan is that you screaming, if so it doesn't help. Cowdery didn't assert a seer stone Dan..and I don't recall him mentioned the characters on the plates. I'm not sure if those are your words or someone elses.

Unfortunately D. Whitmer is not a credible independent reliable witness. He's the same guy testifying to seeing angels and hearing god in the Book of Mormon witness statements. He has a vested interest. Nothing in the above that you have quoted is reliable.

The problem Dan is that extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence... D. Whitmer's say so for the claims he makes is not good enough. Having other witnesses with vested interest saying the same sort of things is also not good enough.

If Smith had called in the local respected judge and perhaps some other professional and had they observed over extended periods of time and made notes and then later compared to what they read in the Book of Mormon..then that would be good evidence...that might commensurate with the claims.

[_Roger]

During the time that the Book of Mormon was being translated, Smith received revelations through what he later called the Urim and Thummim. In this period “Urim and Thummim” refer to the seer stone.

Dan ...Smith didn't receive revelations ..he claimed to receive revelations.

marg, we're just supposed to accept that Dan's shorthand does not accurately reflect what Dan really thinks. And we're also supposed to know the difference without the need to trouble Dan for clarification.