If you believe the Spaulding/Ridgon theory

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale, how about telling me how you think Joseph Smith could have taken a Rigdon/Spaulding manuscript (whether or not you think there was one) and dictated it to the scribes? Then we are friends again.

Well, maybe, on one condition --- my very astute wife just

asked me who I was writing to while sitting at my computer,

and I answered back without thinking, "Oh, just some guy

at the FAIR message boards site." Her response: "Well, that

sounds OK, as long as you're sure it's a just a guy!"

Please reassure me I have not told a fib!

Joe Charity?

Pete Charity Jones?

Char Ity, Mrs. Ity's son?

Uncle Dale

[charity]

Sorry. I'm a girl. Well, I was before I got old. But my husband is reading over my shoulder. Does that help?

[mormon fool]

... It certainly could be an elaborate hoax, with props, such as plates, seer stones, etc....

Throughout four decades of discussing the coming forth of the

Book of Mormon with many, many people,I have only very rarely

heard anybody postulate that Joseph Smith, Jr. actually possessed

FAKE Nephite plates.

Uncle Dale,

Prop plates are making a comeback. Dan Vogel has argued for them here on FAIR boards at the beginning of the year.

[Matt Andrews]

They always came back with corrections.

You are describing a very different process than what the S/R theory suggests. It isn't that Smith recited it, and submitted it for corrections to the orignal author.

Honestly, it isn't difficult. Read a chapter of the Hobbit a few times. Go into the next room and recite it. Repeat with the next chapter.

The finished product would likely be a very good story, and if no one had ever read the Hobbit, they would be none the wiser. Would it be exactly like the Hobbit? Of course not. Neither would the BoM be exactly like the manuscript. (The manuscript likely would have had better grammar, and fewer mistakes.)

I'm not saying this is definitely what happened, but it is certainly a possibility.

[The Mormonator]

I don't know that the Rigdon/Spaulding theory is any goofier than the "rock in the hat" theory. I am not calling Joseph Smith a liar, but I'm suggesting that it's not so outlandish to believe that this was an elaborate hoax. Are you suggesting that it could not possibly have been a hoax?

About the "rock in the hat" thing...

Yeah, there is not doubt that it would look quite a bit "goofy" to have a man with his face in a hat looking at a rock. There is not argument there from me at all. But here is my problem with that.

You said:

I don't know that the Rigdon/Spaulding theory is any goofier than the "rock in the hat" theory.

The fact (or opinion I guess) that it may have looked goofy has absolutely no bearing on whether it actually happened.

Clowns are goofy. They say goofy things and they do goofy things. Does it therefore follow that clowns do not exist?

Joseph Smith with his face shoved into a hat may have been the goofiest thing on God's green eath, but that has no bearing on whether the translation actually happened that way.

[Uncle Dale]

Sorry. I'm a girl. Well, I was before I got old. But my husband is reading over my shoulder. Does that help?

Oops!

The harder I try to get ahead of things here,

the deeper the hole I seem to be digging for

myself, Sister!

I shall distance myself from this computerized

temptation and go off to ponder this weighty

new knowledge!!

Uncle Dale

(who has often been compared to Hugh Nibley --

but never yet in a positive sort of way <sigh!>)

[Baeth_Ku]

I have another idea to throw into the fray here: oral composition.

The idea is relatively familiar to those who study epic poetry, especially the works of Homer. The idea is that poets, people who were trained in the craft of story telling, and knew the building blocks or conventions of the craft, could use their knowledge of the tradition to create extremely long poems pretty much on the fly.

People who have recorded these poets "reciting" the same epic on different occasions note that there are differences in the telling that reveal the poet is not really repeating *exactly* the same story every time. Still, each telling is considered the "same poem" by the teller.

We know that Joseph was telling stories about the ancient civilization found in the Book of Mormon long before he retrieved the plates. We know that he was steeped in the Bible. Anyone who is familiar with the text of the Book of Mormon and the Bible can see the many layers of similarity between these two texts. Those who go for the "literal translation of an ancient document" idea attribute this to the shared culture of the Jews and the Lehite group, etc.

Another way of looking at this, and one I find completely plausible, is that Joseph Smith, before he even got to the point of translating the plates, had developed his story-telling craft to an art. He was accustomed to coming up with narratives via inspiration both in the stories he told his family, and in his treasure seeking days, where tales about treasure, and what was happening with that treasure and its guardians, had to be fashioned or revealed as the digging was going on.

Joseph could draw on the Bible, the religious discourse of his environment, his conversations with those around him, and his ability to reveal stories about long-lost ancient peoples to weave them into the Book of Mormon. He had plenty of time between Moroni's first visit and the final dictation of the Book of Mormon to evoke the complex text one encounters in the finished product. Where does the Spalding-Rigdon thesis fit into this? Maybe nowhere. Maybe on the level of one of JS's many influences.

I don't know, but knowing what we do about the ability some have to craft long poetry off the top of their heads, provided they are practiced story-tellers, and knowing the formulaic nature of some aspects of the Book of Mormon, I would not exclude the possibility that Joseph composed the Book of Mormon.

[charity]

The oral historians of some polynesian groups have been known to tell stories of 15,000 words, which seems to be the upper limits of oral ability. The Book of Mormon is longer than that. I think you will find that oral histories do not have the same kind of narrative power and complexity that the Book of Mormon does.

It is amazing to me that people will go to rather outlandish lengths to try to get away from the fact that Joseph Smith translated an ancient document by the power of God.

[dimbulb]

It is amazing to me that people will go to rather outlandish lengths to try to get away from the fact that Joseph Smith translated an ancient document by the power of God.

Wish it was a fact. I'm not sure why it's outlandish to think that a book filled with anachronisms with no solid evidence for its historicity might possibly be a hoax.

[charity]

dim, no anachronisms. They found cement. The plant materials are here, as the Book of Mormon says. There are elephants carved in stone in temple ruins. Nahom is a real place. Bountiful and iron ore. You must not be doing your homework.

[The Mormonator]

Joseph Smith had so many Amazing abilities!!!

What a remarkable man!

I hear there is evidence that suggests he was born on Krypton and not in Vermont.

[dimbulb]

dim, no anachronisms. They found cement. The plant materials are here, as the Book of Mormon says. There are elephants carved in stone in temple ruins. Nahom is a real place. Bountiful and iron ore. You must not be doing your homework.

You've said that about me before. It's kind of irritating, dear.

[charity]

Then what anachronisms do you mean,if it wasn't these common old dead dogs?

[Uncle Dale]

I don't know, but knowing what we do about the ability some have to craft long poetry off the top of their heads, provided they are practiced story-tellers, and knowing the formulaic nature of some aspects of the Book of Mormon, I would not exclude the possibility that Joseph composed the Book of Mormon.

Your view of these possibilities intrigues me, but does

not help me get closer to any identifiable facts.

Prof. Criddle, among the various possible explanations he

sets forth (and then discards), gives us the idea that Joseph

Smith, Jr. had something like a photographic memory.

Possibly a person blessed with that ability PLUS a very

good knowedge of the biblical scriptures PLUS a well

developed story-telling ability, might be able to construct,

mentally, the basic story-line of the Book of Mormon,

its characters, and its use of biblical themes, prophecies,

phraseology, and such --- possibly.

But the book is more than that -- it is also a theological

argument for a complex scenerio that sets the stage for

the foundation of a millennial church, in America, which

will be the "stone" carved out of the mountain, in the

Book of Daniel -- the "Kingdom of God" destined to

encompass and transform the entire world. In his later

years Sidney Rigdon called the Book of Mormon the

foundation of the millennial church, and it looks very

much like that is what its author intended it to be. Or,

I should say author(s) -- a term which matches both

what the book purports to be, and which matches the

explanation put forth by some modern critics, saying

that it is a composite text.

In other words, I can imagine Joseph Smith possessing

the story-telling ability to memorize much of the narrative

(whether from Nephite plates, or from his own imagination,

or from Rigdon's prepared text), and to tell the story in

a compelling way, fully believeable to his scribes ---- but

I cannot possibly imagine his being able to pull together

all that I have mentioned above. It is extremely doubtful

that a story-telling Joseph would have been able to weave

a set of theological arguments for the "restoration" of

the apostolic church in America, in such a way so as to

both parallel the teachings of Alexander Campbell and

those doctrines of Sidney Rigdon which departed from or

extended the Campbellite theology in a unique manner.

Bottom line for me --- When Sidney Rigdon gazed upon

the published Book of Mormon, in November of 1830,

he was seeing his own theology, ecclesiology, historical

viewpoint, and "conversion process" already written into

its pages. All of that material was there for one of two

possible reasons:

(1) God put it there in ancient times and Rigdon was a

true convert, who -- as the D&C says -- paved the way

for the coming forth of Mormonism unknowingly.

or

(2) Rigdon himself put it there, and he was merely a

convert to his own pre-determined beliefs -- having

paved the way for Mormonism very much knowingly,

(whether with God's help or not, I doubt it much matters).

Add in a story-telling Joseph Smith, with remarkable

abilities, if you wish. But, in my estimation, no matter how

talented or capable Smith may have been (and no matter

how much he contributed to the coming forth of the book),

he was not its sole author, as in the Brodie-Vogel paradeigm.

Uncle Dale

[dimbulb]

Then what anachronisms do you mean,if it wasn't these common old dead dogs?

I was thinking in particular of the way the New Testament informs the text, both in the wording and conceptually.

We can talk about swords/macahuitls, tapirs, bees, and all that, if you want.

[charity]

You went over my head with that one. I will have to have that translated.

[charity]

Over on the Spalding Resurrected thread, Craig Criddle mentions that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon from a Rigdon/Spalding manuscript. But he didn't say if the dictating pages were in the hat, or under the hat, and Joseph was peering around the stones through holes in the hat to see them.

[dimbulb]

The obvious problem with your analysis is that, if it was indeed a hoax, why on earth would we trust the accounts of how it was "translated"?

As an analogy, say that I said I could conjure up a genie if you put duct tape over my mouth. Would your next question be "how could you talk through the duct tape?"

[charity]

So you make up the genie story with 11 people stand around watching, and then none of them ever tell, some under pain of death, that it was all duct tape and a wild story? Especially when you just irritated the heck out of most of them and they would have been really glad to stick it to you?

[dimbulb]

So you make up the genie story with 11 people stand around watching, and then none of them ever tell, some under pain of death, that it was all duct tape and a wild story? Especially when you just irritated the heck out of most of them and they would have been really glad to stick it to you?

Here's the problem. You're assuming that the wild story represents what the witnesses actually saw. What if they were convinced they were seeing one process, when they were really seeing another?

Suppose for example, that you arranged for someone to appear amid fireworks dressed as a genie. Would that mean that you actually conjured up a genie? No, but you could probably get some witnesses to swear that you had. And it would be kind of silly to argue about whether you could conjure up a genie with duct tape over your mouth, wouldn't it?

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but my point is that the translation process isn't as problematic as you think it is.

[charity]

I understand the devil's advocate part. So tell me, how did Joseph fool these naive bumpkins not to notice he was reading and dictating a manuscript, when they thought he had his face buried in a hat? I don't recall reading about distracting fireworks.

[dimbulb]

I understand the devil's advocate part. So tell me, how did Joseph fool these naive bumpkins not to notice he was reading and dictating a manuscript, when they thought he had his face buried in a hat? I don't recall reading about distracting fireworks.

That's just it. Maybe it just appeared that he had his face buried in a hat. Who knows? Your problem is that you take the witnesses at face value and assume that they actually saw what they say they saw. My point is that they might not have seen anything like what they described. They just thought they did, as you said.

[charity]

Oh, this is getting more complicated and outlandish as it goes by. I generally tend to believe people, unless I learn something to make me doubt them. So, the conspiracy theory and then witnesses who only think they are seeing what they will say with their dying breath they saw, etc. becomes a lot less believable than angels and an ancient record.

[dimbulb]

Oh, this is getting more complicated and outlandish as it goes by. I generally tend to believe people, unless I learn something to make me doubt them. So, the conspiracy theory and then witnesses who only think they are seeing what they will say with their dying breath they saw, etc. becomes a lot less believable than angels and an ancient record.

Again, it's not all that complicated or outlandish. Eyewitnesses have been known to be wrong. That's all I am saying. You seem to believe that the professed translation method is problematic for a hoax. It's not.

[charity]

I keep offering suggestions, you just say "is not." Ifwe are only going to be is to - is not, then we should move on to something else, don't you think?