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

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, I said was that Martin Harris went to New York as a skeptic. He wanted some assurance that he was not being bamboozled. After all, he was being asked to put up something like three thousand dollars to finance the printing of the Book of Mormon, and would have to mortgage his farm in order to do so.

To call Martin Harris a skeptic is about as bad as calling me a Mormon. Martin was never a skeptic. At most he was slightly apprehensive about forking over so much money which was likely aggravated by his wife's nagging. She was a skeptic. Read Clark's account for how skeptical Martin was before he set out in which Clark states the following after Harris showed him the characters:

My ignorance of the characters in which the pretended ancient record was written, was to Martin Harris new proof that Smith's whole account of the divine revelation made to him was entirely to be relied on.

http://solomonspalding.com/docs1/1842ClkB.htm

So from this, one might conclude that Harris may already have had Isaiah 29 in the back of his mind before he even left. Remember, this is Clark's account as Harris is leaving for Washington and New York city, before he'd even seen Mitchill or Anthon.

Anthon, in his first letter, said that he declined to give any type of written statement, but in the second one stated that he agreed to do so without hesitation.

Yes, this is always picked up on by Mormons as a reason for not accepting Anthon at his word. I am convinced this is not actually a contradiction. "Opinion" is referring to two different things.

In both statements, he said that he tried to dissuade Harris from financing the printing of the Book of Mormon.
Yet, strangely, Harris comes back to Joseph enthused about the project, pronounces himself ready to provide the financial backing to print the Book of Mormon, and even serves as a scribe for Joseph.
So you tell me why Harris went from skeptic to enthusiastic supporter after that trip? Remember that Anthon also stated that Mitchell had not been able to translate the characters (in the first letter) of declined to do so (in the second letter).

As mentioned earlier, Harris was never a skeptic. It appears as though Harris may already have had Isaiah 29 in his mind before he left. Many people testified that Harris had most of the Bible memorized. If so, then Anthon's inability to translate would have been instant verification for Harris. Here's what Clark says. I will quote a lot since he says a lot relevant to this discussion:

How far Harris was duped by this imposture, or how far he entered into it as a matter of speculation, I am unable to say. Several gentlemen in Palmyra, who saw and conversed with him frequently, think he was labouring under a sort of monomania, and that he thoroughly believed all that Jo Smith chose to tell him on this subject. He was so much in earnest on the subject, that he immediately started off with some of the manuscripts that Smith furnished him on a journey to New York and Washington to consult some learned men to ascertain the nature of the language in which this record was engraven. After his return, he came to see me again, and told me that among others he had consulted Professor Anthon,* who thought the characters in which the book was written very remarkable, but he could not decide exactly what language they belonged to. Martin had now become a perfect believer. He said he had no more doubt of Smith's divine commission, than of the divine commission of the apostles. The very fact that Smith was an obscure and illiterate man, showed that he must be acting under divine impulses: -- "God had chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak things to confound the mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised -- yea, and things that are not to bring to nought -- things that are -- that no flesh should glory in his presence." That he was willing to "take of the spoiling of his goods" to sustain Smith in carrying on this work of the Lord; and that he was determined that the book should be published, though it consumed all his worldly substance. It was in vain I endeavoured to expostulate. I was an unbeliever, and could not see afar off. As for him, he must follow the light which the Lord had given him. Whether at this time Smith had those colleagues that certainly afterwards moved, unseen, the wheels of this machinery, I am unable to say. Even after Cowdery and Rigdon were lending the whole force of their minds to the carrying out of this imposture, Jo Smith continued to be the ostensible prominent actor in the drama. The way that Smith made his transcripts and translations for Harris was the following: Although in the same room, a thick curtain or blanket was suspended between them, and Smith concealed behind the blanket, pretended to look through his spectacles, or transparent stones, and would then write down or repeat what he saw, which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket. Harris was told that it would arouse the most terrible divine displeasure, if he should attempt to draw near the sacred chest, or look at Smith while engaged in the work of decyphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris's own account of the matter to me. What other measures they afterwards took to transcribe or translate from these metallic plates, I cannot say, as I very soon after this removed to another field of labour where I heard no more of this matter till I learned the Book of Mormon was about being published. It was not till after the discovery of the manuscript of Spaulding, of which I shall subsequently give some account, that the actors in this imposture thought of calling the pretended revelation the Book of Mormon.

John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way, beginning on page 229
http://solomonspalding.com/docs1/1842ClkB.htm

So as can be seen, John Clark gives us a lot of good information. The first thing to note is that Smith couldn't lose either way. If Mitchill/Anthon pronounce the characters authentic they have what they want. If not, then God is using the foolish to confound the wise. Its a win/win. The only real question is whether Harris was actually an honest dupe. The question is open, but in the end, I think the way things stack up, Harris was probably a dupe. But he seems to have been unusually susceptible and gullible.

Of course, Mormons will seize upon Clark's words here:

After his return, he came to see me again, and told me that among others he had consulted Professor Anthon,* who thought the characters in which the book was written very remarkable, but he could not decide exactly what language they belonged to.

This is obviously an accurate account by Clark of Harris's biased reporting. This directly contradicts Anthon's own account, so we have to choose who's stretching the truth. Not surprisingly I think it was Harris while you and Dan think it was Anthon. I'll go one farther--I have no doubt it was Harris who was stretching the truth. Like I said, the most I can imagine Anthon doing is saying: "Interesting characters, where did you get them?" as he's sizing up the situation. Remember his initial reaction was to think Harris was attempting to hoax the learned. So, of course, he's not going to be forthcoming right off the bat with a man he suspects of trying to pull a fast one over on him. He likely smiled and was congenial to Harris, while at the same time realizing there is a hoax in here somewhere. It was only after Harris had given him more information that Anthon concluded that the hoax was intended for Harris. Once Anthon concluded that, his whole demeanor changed and he then felt an obligation to warn Harris that the man behind the curtain was attempting to cheat him out of his money. But Harris was already convinced the characters were true characters.

When Clark says Harris went "to ascertain the nature of the language in which this record was engraven" it gives us a clue as to Harris' mindset. He was already convinced they were true characters. He just wanted more information from the learned about "the nature of the language." This helps us understand why it was a win/win for Smith. Harris had no doubt about the characters no matter what the learned had to say. Harris just wanted to know if the learned knew anything about the language. When they could not translate the characters, that was all Harris needed to know.

And here again, another independent source, who's getting his information from Harris himself, says a blanket was used during translation for the specific purpose of hiding Smith from his scribe. Again, this apparently only works because Martin is incredibly gullible. Apparently no such blanket was necessary for Emma.

[_GlennThigpen]

As mentioned earlier, Harris was never a skeptic. It appears as though Harris may already have had Isaiah 29 in his mind before he left. Many people testified that Harris had most of the Bible memorized. If so, then Anthon's inability to translate would have been instant verification for Harris. Here's what Clark says. I will quote a lot since he says a lot relevant to this discussion:

Let us see what Martin Harris says about himself.

These things had all occurred before I talked with Joseph respecting the plates. But I had the account of it from Joseph, his wife, brothers, sisters, his father and mother. I talked with them separately, that I might get the truth of the matter. The first time I heard of the matter, my brother Preserved Harris,
who had been in the village of Palmyra, asked me if [I] had heard about Joseph Smith, Jr., having a golden Bible. My thoughts were that the money-diggers had probably dug up an old brass kettle, or something of the kind. I thought no more of it. This was about the first of October, 1827. The next day after the talk with my brother,~ went to the village, and there I was asked what I thought of the Gold Bible? I replied, The Scripture says, He that answereth a matter before he hearth it, it is foolishness unto him. I do not wish to make myself a fool. I don't know anything about it. Then said I, what is it about Joe's Gold Bible? They then went on to say, that they put whiskey into the old man's cider and got him half drunk, and he told them all about it. They then repeated his account, which I found afterwards to agree substantially with the account given by Joseph. Then said I to them how do you know that he has not got such gold plates. They replied I)- him, he ought to be tarred and feathered for telling such a d-d lie!" Then I said, suppose he has told a lie, as old Tom Jefferson said, it did not matter to him whether a man believed in one god or twenty. It did not rob his pocket, nor break his shins. What is it to us if he has told a lie? He has it to answer for if he has lied. If you should tar and feather all the liars, you would soon be out of funds to purchase the
material.
I then thought of the words of Christ, The kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. I knew they were of the devil's kingdom, and if that is of the devil, his kingdom is divided against itself. I said in my heart, this is something besides smoke. There is some fire at the bottom of it. I then determined to go and see Joseph as soon as I could find time.
A day or so before I was ready to visit Joseph, his mother came over to our house and wished to talk with me. I told her I had no time to spare, she might talk with my wife, and, in the evening when I had finished my work I would talk with her. When she commenced talking with me, she told me respecting his bringing home the plates, and many other things, and said that Joseph had sent her over and wished me to come and see him. I told her that I had a time appointed when I would go, and that when the time came I should then go but l did not tell her when it was. I sent my boy to harness my horse and take her home. She
wished my wife and daughter to go with her; and they went and spent most of the day. When they came home, I questioned them about them. My daughter said, they were about as much as she could lift. They were now in the glass box, and my wife said they were very heavy. They both lifted them. I waited a day or two, when I got up in the morning, took my breakfast, and told my folks I was going to the village, but went directly to old Mr. Smith's. I found that Joseph had gone away to work for Peter Ingersol to get some flour. I was glad he was absent, for that gave me an opportunity of talking with his wife and the family
about the plates. I talked with them separately, to see if their stories agreed, and I found they did agree.
When Joseph came home I did not wish him to know that I had been talking with them, so I took him by the arm and led him away from the rest, and requested him to tell me the story, which he did as follows. He said: "An angel had appeared to him, and told him it was God's work."...

(Francis Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America)

Martin started out cautiously and skeptically. At the time that Clark says that Harris visited him, no characters had been translated. That did not start until December of 1827, late in the fall, rather than early, as Clark maintained. I also find it a bit problematic that Clark asserts that Harris thought highly of Clark as a (Episcopalian) minister of Jesus Christ although Harris was non-denominational at that time and did not believe in any of the churches of the time, especially the doctrine of the trinity.

We do not know that the John Clark and Martin Harris interview ever happened. It seems to be more of a conflation of many rumors that had sprung up over the years about the translation process and the finding of the plates, especially exaggerated ones, such as the size of the "spectacles by a man who was on his last legs, infirm of body in the very least and hugely biased also in the very least.

However, you may believe anything you wish. You may believe that John Clark was an unbiased witness with no axe to grind and only speaking the unvarnished truth. You may believe that Charles Anthon also was a paragon of virtue and also telling it exactly as it happened, in spite of contradicting himself if you wish. You may also believe that Charles Anthon was not worried about his reputation and was not attempting to repair damage that had been done to it by stating the facts just a bit differently than they actually happened if you wish. You may believe that Martin Harris lied, and that many of the witnesses to the translation process lied, if you wish. There is no harm in believing is there?

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

On you comments to Glenn:

To call Martin Harris a skeptic is about as bad as calling me a Mormon. Martin was never a skeptic. At most he was slightly apprehensive about forking over so much money which was likely aggravated by his wife's nagging. She was a skeptic.

I think the lost 116-page episode shows Martin’s anxiety to gain his wife’s approval. His interest in Joseph Smith and possibly financing the publication of Joseph Smith’s “translation” was mocked by not only his wife, but most others in Palmyra. He wanted to show them that he wasn’t a fool. So I’m not sure how much was his personal skepticism--a need to prove to himself Joseph Smith’s claims were true--and how much was his need to prove to others. Perhaps a little of both. Every story that shows one can be construed as the other.

Read Clark's account for how skeptical Martin was before he set out in which Clark states the following after Harris showed him the characters:

“My ignorance of the characters in which the pretended ancient record was written, was to Martin Harris new proof that Smith's whole account of the divine revelation made to him was entirely to be relied on.”

So from this, one might conclude that Harris may already have had Isaiah 29 in the back of his mind before he even left. Remember, this is Clark's account as Harris is leaving for Washington and New York city, before he'd even seen Mitchill or Anthon.

It’s quite probable that Clark has conflated some elements from the second interview with the first. Clark dates the first interview to “autumn of 1827,” at which time it’s doubtful that Harris had a copy of the characters. He would get them according to accepted chronology until about Feb. 1828 during a stopover at Harmony, PA, and from there leave for the East. Joseph Smith and Emma don’t even leave Manchester until about Dec. 1827.

Yes, this is always picked up on by Mormons as a reason for not accepting Anthon at his word. I am convinced this is not actually a contradiction. "Opinion" is referring to two different things.

A possible reconciliation of the apparent contradiction would be, as I mentioned in vol. 2 of EMD, in the first telling “he was asked to confirm the genuineness of the characters, where as this [second] time he ways he was asked to deny their authentic quality” (2:384, note 5).

So as can be seen, John Clark gives us a lot of good information. The first thing to note is that Smith couldn't lose either way. If Mitchill/Anthon pronounce the characters authentic they have what they want. If not, then God is using the foolish to confound the wise. Its a win/win. The only real question is whether Harris was actually an honest dupe. The question is open, but in the end, I think the way things stack up, Harris was probably a dupe. But he seems to have been unusually susceptible and gullible.

The problem Harris had was that he thought he was too smart to be fooled. He even tests the Smiths by talking to them individually and concludes they must be telling the truth because their stories match. I guess it didn’t occur to him they all got their stories from Joseph Smith. Harris would probably need little confirmation to run with it. In 1834, Anthon remembered the sample of characters shown him “had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters …” (EMD 4:340). That’s all Harris would need, any disconfirmation would be forgotten by a dupe. It’s called confirmation bias. Anthon’s statement of “anything else but ‘Egyptian Hieroglyphics’” is odd. It would be more like Hieratic or Demotic, but his competence in recognizing them is doubtful.

This is obviously an accurate account by Clark of Harris's biased reporting. This directly contradicts Anthon's own account, so we have to choose who's stretching the truth. Not surprisingly I think it was Harris while you and Dan think it was Anthon. I'll go one farther--I have no doubt it was Harris who was stretching the truth. Like I said, the most I can imagine Anthon doing is saying: "Interesting characters, where did you get them?" as he's sizing up the situation. Remember his initial reaction was to think Harris was attempting to hoax the learned. So, of course, he's not going to be forthcoming right off the bat with a man he suspects of trying to pull a fast one over on him. He likely smiled and was congenial to Harris, while at the same time realizing there is a hoax in here somewhere. It was only after Harris had given him more information that Anthon concluded that the hoax was intended for Harris. Once Anthon concluded that, his whole demeanor changed and he then felt an obligation to warn Harris that the man behind the curtain was attempting to cheat him out of his money. But Harris was already convinced the characters were true characters.

I think Anthon was taken off guard, and I think he was making some offhanded statements about characters he recognized. When Anthon gave his negative conclusion, Harris wasn’t listening and probably only wanted to know if he could translate it. He was in search of someone who could translate it. He didn’t doubt Smith had copied them from the plates; he wanted someone to translate them. Mitchell evidently didn’t suspect a hoax, but admitted he was “unable to understand” them and sent him to Anthon. Possibly Harris wanted to see if the learned could translate the book. Smith knew they couldn’t before Harris even left. Harris was going to learn that the plates could only be read by the gift of God.

When Clark says Harris went "to ascertain the nature of the language in which this record was engraven" it gives us a clue as to Harris' mindset. He was already convinced they were true characters. He just wanted more information from the learned about "the nature of the language." This helps us understand why it was a win/win for Smith. Harris had no doubt about the characters no matter what the learned had to say. Harris just wanted to know if the learned knew anything about the language. When they could not translate the characters, that was all Harris needed to know.

I think that’s right.

And here again, another independent source, who's getting his information from Harris himself, says a blanket was used during translation for the specific purpose of hiding Smith from his scribe. Again, this apparently only works because Martin is incredibly gullible. Apparently no such blanket was necessary for Emma.

This was only the period before translation had begun, when Joseph Smith was supposedly copying the characters from the plates and they were being shielded from view. Perhaps some preliminary translating was done, but whenever Harris talks about being a scribe it’s the head in hat. It makes sense therefore that Clark and Anthon are the only ones to talk about Joseph Smith behind a blanket.

On your comments to me:

Glad we're on the same page for a change. Apparently it just takes overwhelming evidence before you allow your inner skeptic to come out and play. : )

I tend to be conservative with the sources, except when I’m writing an interpretive biography.

Correct. I think Joseph knew he couldn't lose either way. I think he had Isaiah 29 in the back of his mind before Harris even left. But the intent was for Harris to see Dr. Mitchill, not Dr. Anthon. Mitchill had already seen similar characters when he was presented with the Detroit manuscript a few years earlier. I think Joseph Smith knew this and that is why Mitchill was the intended target. He may have been thinking if Mitchill remembers some of those characters there is a chance he will pronounce them authentic characters.

If Joseph Smith had Isa. 29 in his mind, he apparently didn’t intend to capitalize on it until he did the rewrite of the opening portion. I find that odd. There was a chance he wasn’t going to mention Isa. 29 at all. I’m also not sure Joseph Smith knew about his uncle and the Detroit MS. Mitchell had wide reputation in NY for this type of thing.

Agreed. See... you can be a reasonable skeptic when there is no alternative. ; )

It also helps when there are two texts to compare. It’s simple literary criticism. Skepticism isn’t a privileged position.

As you know, the current Anthon transcript does not match Anthon's description. So either this page was only a part of what Anthon saw or it was not what Anthon saw. In any event, Anthon flatly tells us that some of the characters resembled true characters but with corruptions mixed in. (by the way... remind you of anything?) And he also tells us point blank that he saw through the trick instantly. There is no reason for Anthon to say anything positive to "encourage" Harris. He's suspicious from the start. The most I could see him saying is something like: "Interesting. Where did you get these?" all the while knowing it was a hoax. That is exactly how his description reads.

Notice also that Anthon’s doesn’t match Clark’s description either. Nevertheless, I don’t think Anthon would invent his description since he could easily be proven wrong. No Mormon as far as I know of ever challenged Anthon’s description—not even Joseph Smith or Harris. Orsamus Turner claimed in 1851 that an informant told him that upon returning to Palmyra from the East, Harris had exhibited “the manuscript title page” of the Book of Mormon and remembered that it contained “concentric circles, between above and below which were characters” (EMD 3:52), although this could have been influenced by reading Anthon’s description. LDS Archives has a single sheet in Cowdery’s handwriting with Book of Mormon characters not on the Anthon transcript, suggesting that there were more characters than on that sheet. Possibly Joseph Smith made more than one copy, or the one we have was torn from a larger sheet.

He never changed his opinion on the characters. It was consistently skeptical. He only changed his opinion on who the hoax was intended for.

Possibly he didn’t. He said he could tell at first glance it was a fake. I’m not sure he could do that. He was a classical scholar, and didn’t know all languages. It seems one would hesitate long enough to find out the provenance of the document before deciding.

Well not surprisingly we disagree on that and you and Glenn are disagreeing with what Anthon says for himself.

See my comments above. I don’t think we’re that far off each other. I think we agree Harris’s reasoning skills were weak.

[_Roger]

You may believe that Charles Anthon also was a paragon of virtue and also telling it exactly as it happened, in spite of contradicting himself if you wish.

Glenn, how bad is it to contradict one's self? Careful how you answer. ; )

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

I think you don't like my analogy because it hits too close to reality. ; ) The wife analogy is spot on when it comes to Emma's testimony. You want us to believe the best about a witness who's not only heavily invested in the cause, she's even married to the magician.

No, Roger. Your expansion on the analogy goes way beyond reason. Emma’s possible belief that Joseph Smith corrected her spelling can be seen as an elaboration of what really occurred. Whereas your addition contradicts what occurred, and because you are in control of it you make sure there’s no way to explain it using the same standards and logic use in real-life situations. If Emma did the same thing you describe, we should expect here to say while she was dusting and moving the plates she had a peak and saw them as plain as day. If she really wanted to help Joseph Smith, why didn’t she lie about something more important? You opened this line of questioning by suggesting it in your analogy.

If your point was to show that dupes do what the quote says, then we have no disagreement. I was in agreement with the quote on that from the beginning. Your objection was that I was allegedly taking the quote too far and using it in a non-applicable way, but I'm not. I agree with the quote and the quote supports my point that the uncorroborated testimony of dupes is probably not going to be very reliable. But it's an even more unreliable situation when you have religious dupes or even accomplices who do all that the quote says and sometimes do so intentionally.

But then the quote allows me to explain any elaboration—no matter how absurd—as an honest mistake. If you object, then you must admit you went too far in your analogy, because you changed what could explain Emma’s mistake to what is no longer applicable. In other words, my analogy helps explain Emma’s words, but yours doesn’t because you are trying to force the conclusion that Emma lied. Your analogy is heavy-handed manipulation. Not very convincing.

Despite the vociferous disputing, when it comes right down to it, the difference between your position and mine is not that large. You are arguing that your Book of Mormon witnesses do not intentionally consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means. I disagree. I am saying that those elements are intentional. BUT I am also saying even if you're right and they were not giving unreliable reports intentionally, it doesn't make much difference because they still give unreliable reports and it's pretty difficult trying to read minds and figure out how much of an unreliable report can be trusted.

I wonder if you know how much like a Mormon apologist you sound sometimes. Richard Anderson gives basically the same arguments for any anti-Mormon source. Mikwut is saying right now—I guess I’m not the only one with lawyer-like moves. Historians don’t throw out entire accounts because some part of it may be deemed inaccurate. Obviously, there is a lot of support for the core of the story—head in hat, reading sentence by sentence, the scribe reading back, Joseph Smith occasionally making corrections, etc. Miraculous elements are interpretations made by the witnesses that are not true to nature, but true to the scribes’ memory and interpretation—that’s history too. Arguing intentionality is always going to be more difficult—it entails mind reading. You need good evidence for that.

Moreover, you are assuming what you're trying to prove. You're pointing out illustrations of what honest dupes do and then using that as an illustration of what you think the Book of Mormon witnesses were doing because you assume they were honest dupes. But honest dupes are not the only ones who consistently omit crucial details, add others, change the order of events, and otherwise supply reports that make it impossible for any reader to account for what was described by normal means.

That’s the point I was making with Marg, who was assuming Emma was a liar because she described impossible things. I was arguing that lying wasn’t the only conclusion to make.

Accomplices do that too. And if they're good, they will be even more convincing than honest dupes. That's exactly what the accomplice for the faith healer I mentioned was doing when he put on his dramatic show. I can't read his mind and speak to his intent other than to say it seems reasonable to think he likely knows he's putting on an act so he must be intentionally adding drama in order to make it appear impossible for any observer to account for what happened by normal means.

That's what I am convinced the Book of Mormon witnesses were doing. They were intentionally adding supernatural elements to their accounts in order to bolster the miraculous element--whether they actually believed the claims or not we'll probably never know. That is analogous to Blaine's wife telling us she sees him putting his hand through windows all the time without a newspaper. That is exactly the situation we have with the Book of Mormon witnesses. It's extremely difficult to try to separate the miraculous element out of that kind of testimony in the hopes of finding truth, when the miraculous element was intentionally put there in order to bolster the claim--and the crazy thing is you have to admit that it was, because we have David and Emma testifying to the same miraculous thing.

It’s not any more difficult than contradictory accounts about any ordinary event. Multiple witnesses tend to have different and contradictory elements. So we handle Emma’s and David’s accounts in the same way. Anderson would dismiss all of Hurlbut’s affidavits on the same grounds. At any rate, I have already separated out the miraculous for you several times.

An observant skeptic looks at the newspaper and says, look, Mrs Blaine, if he puts his hand through windows all the time without newspapers, why did he use one for this trick? And when she comes back with what appears to be a lame answer, we know we're on to something. We may not have figured out the trick, but we're on the right track. The newspaper was used on purpose to conceal something.

Everything a magician does is on purpose. Movements that look spontaneous are the ones you watch more closely. With mental tricks, it happens in the mind of the believer. What you call lying is the effect of a mental illusion.

In exactly the same way, the blanket (Whitmer) curtain (Anthon) was used to conceal something. The blanket/curtain is used on purpose and is an essential element to pulling off the trick. Therefore the testimony of anyone who claims to be able to walk behind the blanket and observe only what was claimed to have happened out in the open is suspect. The fact is Whitmer flat out admits the purpose of the blanket was block the view of the public. That's as close to a confession as we're probably ever going to get.

You can’t ignore the explanation that Whitmer gave for the blanket. It was not to block the scribe or anyone living in the home from seeing Joseph Smith with head in hat. Whitmer was clearing up misconception about the blanket, not confessing.

[_GlennThigpen]

You may believe that Charles Anthon also was a paragon of virtue and also telling it exactly as it happened, in spite of contradicting himself if you wish.

Glenn, how bad is it to contradict one's self? Careful how you answer. ; )

It all depends on the individual situation. And there be a difference between contradiction and inconsistency.
I know where you are going with this, so fire away.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

It all depends on the individual situation. And there be a difference between contradiction and inconsistency.
I know where you are going with this, so fire away.

If you know where I'm going with this, then let's cut to the chase... how can you be critical of what appears to be a contradiction (but probably isn't) in a trivial detail in Anthon's reports, when there is a glaringly unresolvable contradiction in Smith's accounts?

[_Roger]

I think the lost 116-page episode shows Martin’s anxiety to gain his wife’s approval. His interest in Joseph Smith and possibly financing the publication of Joseph Smith’s “translation” was mocked by not only his wife, but most others in Palmyra. He wanted to show them that he wasn’t a fool. So I’m not sure how much was his personal skepticism--a need to prove to himself Joseph Smith’s claims were true--and how much was his need to prove to others. Perhaps a little of both. Every story that shows one can be construed as the other.

I'm getting nervous. I think we might be agreeing too much.

It’s quite probable that Clark has conflated some elements from the second interview with the first. Clark dates the first interview to “autumn of 1827,” at which time it’s doubtful that Harris had a copy of the characters. He would get them according to accepted chronology until about Feb. 1828 during a stopover at Harmony, PA, and from there leave for the East. Joseph Smith and Emma don’t even leave Manchester until about Dec. 1827.

What are the implications if Clark's chronology is correct?

A possible reconciliation of the apparent contradiction would be, as I mentioned in vol. 2 of EMD, in the first telling “he was asked to confirm the genuineness of the characters, where as this [second] time he ways he was asked to deny their authentic quality” (2:384, note 5).

Essentially that is my take on it. In the first instance he is asked to give "an opinion" which to me implies a professional opinion, as in a favorable judgment about the genuineness of the characters probably on Columbia's letterhead. Harris was convinced these were true characters and he wanted a certificate from the learned concurring. In the second instance Anthon gives a warning to Harris to beware of rogues which then prompts Harris to ask again for his opinion about the paper, to which Anthon complies to show that he knows the whole thing is a hoax. No formal favorable opinion, but yes to a written personal opinion (probably not on Columbia's letterhead) about the hoax.

The problem Harris had was that he thought he was too smart to be fooled. He even tests the Smiths by talking to them individually and concludes they must be telling the truth because their stories match. I guess it didn’t occur to him they all got their stories from Joseph Smith. Harris would probably need little confirmation to run with it. In 1834, Anthon remembered the sample of characters shown him “had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters …” (EMD 4:340). That’s all Harris would need, any disconfirmation would be forgotten by a dupe. It’s called confirmation bias. Anthon’s statement of “anything else but ‘Egyptian Hieroglyphics’” is odd. It would be more like Hieratic or Demotic, but his competence in recognizing them is doubtful.

I think Anthon was simply saying these were anything but genuine characters.

I think Anthon was taken off guard, and I think he was making some offhanded statements about characters he recognized.

I think that's a stretch. Anthon doesn't know Harris from Adam. All he knows is that a respected colleague sent this humble-looking farmer to see him without giving any formal opinion of his own. Mitchill apparently doesn't give Anthon anything to go on. That had to raise red flags for Anthon. I do not think Anthon trusted Harris at the beginning. So I see no reason for Anthon to give Harris anything positive, other than, perhaps, as I said, "Interesting characters, how did you get them?"

Just the fact that Anthon might have said something as innocuous as that, would have been enough for Harris to interpret as a positive response.

When Anthon gave his negative conclusion, Harris wasn’t listening and probably only wanted to know if he could translate it. He was in search of someone who could translate it. He didn’t doubt Smith had copied them from the plates; he wanted someone to translate them.

Again, we agree.

Mitchell evidently didn’t suspect a hoax, but admitted he was “unable to understand” them and sent him to Anthon.

Yes! And I think that's because he had seen similar characters a few years earlier when he had been presented with the Detroit manuscript.

Possibly Harris wanted to see if the learned could translate the book. Smith knew they couldn’t before Harris even left. Harris was going to learn that the plates could only be read by the gift of God.

Agreed.

And here again, another independent source, who's getting his information from Harris himself, says a blanket was used during translation for the specific purpose of hiding Smith from his scribe. Again, this apparently only works because Martin is incredibly gullible. Apparently no such blanket was necessary for Emma.

This was only the period before translation had begun, when Joseph Smith was supposedly copying the characters from the plates and they were being shielded from view.

Well what if that interpretation is off? Doesn't Joseph Smith himself try to argue in his 1838 account that he indeed had translated some before the Harris trip? Indeed, he would have to thus argue in order to have Anthon pronounce the translation the best he'd ever seen.

Perhaps some preliminary translating was done, but whenever Harris talks about being a scribe it’s the head in hat. It makes sense therefore that Clark and Anthon are the only ones to talk about Joseph Smith behind a blanket.

Sure but both of them (especially Anthon!) got the information directly from Harris. The 116 page loss was still in the future when these men interacted with Harris. That loss changed things. After that loss, Harris was simply restating the acceptable party-line, head in hat routine.

You really should at least consider this, Dan. You have at least three independent sources admitting a blanket/curtain was used. Maybe you know of even more? It is an incredible stretch to really think David Whitmer is simply saying the blanket was used to give Smith some privacy from a public who was hounding him. In fact he doesn't even say that! If that was his intent, he failed! Maybe it was a Freudian slip. Regardless, he admits the purpose of the blanket was to prevent the public from seeing what was going on. The result is that we then have no alternative but to just take him at his word that nothing fishy was going on behind the blanket. That just doesn't add up.

Now we see that a blanket was used to separate Harris from Smith in the beginning. You can't argue that it was used to give Smith some peace and quiet from Harris! Of course not. It was used because there was something that Harris was not supposed to see.

I honestly don't know how you can conclude anything else?

If Joseph Smith had Isa. 29 in his mind, he apparently didn’t intend to capitalize on it until he did the rewrite of the opening portion. I find that odd.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? How do you know it wasn't in the Book of Lehi?

There was a chance he wasn’t going to mention Isa. 29 at all. I’m also not sure Joseph Smith knew about his uncle and the Detroit MS. Mitchell had wide reputation in NY for this type of thing.

If he had made some kind of Isaiah 29 fulfillment insertion into the Book of Lehi, then it makes perfect sense that he would not go back to it until the rewrite which was supposed to be a retelling of the same story in different words.

I think he knew all about the Detroit manuscript.

He never changed his opinion on the characters. It was consistently skeptical. He only changed his opinion on who the hoax was intended for.

Possibly he didn’t. He said he could tell at first glance it was a fake. I’m not sure he could do that. He was a classical scholar, and didn’t know all languages. It seems one would hesitate long enough to find out the provenance of the document before deciding.

Whether or not he knew at first glance is somewhat irrelevant. He certainly is not going to trust Harris right off the bat but will instead be suspicious--and that's exactly how his own account describes it. I can't imagine him saying anything positive about the characters, when he flatly denies doing so, and we know there is no such thing as reformed Egyptian. The notion that he gave a favorable opinion and then changed his mind comes from an unreliable, biased source which was rewritten (in a contradictory manner!) for a specific purpose... that of claiming that even the learned secretly knew these were true characters but their anti-Mormonism (which wasn't even in existence yet!) prevented them from admitting it. The whole 1838 account is nothing but blatant propaganda. And the 1832 account is about the same except that it attempts to capitalize off the learned's inability to read the characters.

The reliable sources here are Anthon's and Clark's.

See my comments above. I don’t think we’re that far off each other. I think we agree Harris’s reasoning skills were weak.

Harris's reasoning skills were indeed weak. But what is even more clear is that Joseph Smith was willing to use whatever he could to get what he wanted. In some ways he was pretty cunning and in others he seems incredibly naïve. Did he simply forget that he had written a contradictory account 6 years earlier? Apparently so.

That's why to me, his evil-men who want to steal his Lehi book in order to alter the words is pretty stupid--unless he knows the manuscript already had blatant alterations on it. In that case, we could agree that your boy-genius was using his head.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

It all depends on the individual situation. And there be a difference between contradiction and inconsistency.
I know where you are going with this, so fire away.

If you know where I'm going with this, then let's cut to the chase... how can you be critical of what appears to be a contradiction (but probably isn't) in a trivial detail in Anthon's reports, when there is a glaringly unresolvable contradiction in Smith's accounts?

Which account of Joseph's are you speaking of? The Anthon incident? Point out what you are talking about.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Which account of Joseph's are you speaking of? The Anthon incident? Point out what you are talking about.

Apparently you don't know where I'm going with this. : )

In Joseph's 1832 history there was no translation. Anthon could not read the characters and that is why Isaiah 29 was allegedly "fulfilled." In Joseph's 1838 history Anthon is not only presented with characters, he's also presented with a translation that he can read and, lo and behold, he pronounces the best he's ever seen.

Not so coincidentally, Joseph was working on the Book of Abraham "translation" in 1838 so an endorsement from a learned guy like Anthon would have come in handy at that point.