If you believe the Spaulding/Ridgon theory

[dimbulb]

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?

I thought your suggestions amounted to "oh, now you're getting outlandishly silly."

Maybe I should just ask you: what reason do we have to believe that Joseph was actually dictating scripture when he had his face buried in the hat? Why do the accounts of the method differ? Why are the stories of angels and seer stones more reasonable than the idea that it was intentional fraud?

[charity]

Because angels and seer stones and ancient scriptures require honest, God-fearing people, truthfully telling what they saw and felt.

The conspiracy theories require wicked men willing to take advantage and cheat and fool and ridicule people they called their friends. And the friends to be so gullible and dumb as to be almost not able to walk and talk.

If I didn't have a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon as a translated volume of ancient scriputre, and of Joseph Smith the Prophet, I would still choose to believe in the good over the evil in people.

[dimbulb]

I don't call a small group of people (possibly just one) setting up a hoax a "conspiracy theory" (makes one think of black helicopters and Alger Hiss).

If I didn't have a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon as a translated volume of ancient scriputre, and of Joseph Smith the Prophet, I would still choose to believe in the good over the evil in people.

That's really it in a nutshell. You believe because you believe. You choose to accept the word of Joseph Smith and the others because you believe that they were honest men. And you have had some sort of spiritual experience that confirms it to you.

But let's be clear. This is not about plausibility of differing explanations. It's about trust and feelings.

I don't have a problem with that, but stop telling me I'm being illogical because Joseph couldn't dictate with his face in a hat unless he was telling the truth.

[charity]

Fair enough. (But the hoax thing we are talking about is Rigdon and Spalding or his heirs, and Joseph, and Oliver, at the very least. And the reason that most people who assume hoax think others had to be in on it, is that they don't see how Joseph Smith at the state of development he was at that period of time, could have done it by himself.) But I won't argue the point any more. We had a good time with it.

[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. 

I'm going to make an attempt -- and I'll be refering to the

image I have inserted below.

This is the way I was taught in RLDS Sunday School, that the

"translation process" was typically carried out -- Joseph has

the plates of the Nephite Record in front of him and he is

wearing the Nephite breastplate with the urim & thummim

attached.

Joseph peers through the magical lenses, and he sees the

Reformed Egyptian characters changed into English, one

word at a time. After Joseph has correctly called out that

translated word and his scribe has written it down correctly,

God allows the next word to be translated, etc. etc.

On the other side of a curtain is Joseph's scribe -- except in

the case of Emma Hale Smith, who says that she translated a

few pages, while Joseph made use of a seer stone, in his hat,

with the plates either covered by a cloth, or not there at all.

Emma says that when she was scribe there was no curtain.

OK -- so far so good.

Now, back to the picture. Notice that Oliver Cowdery is sitting

on one side of a curtain, and Joseph on the other. But, I do

not believe this depiction is accurate for Oliver's work. When

he acted as scribe, there was no curtain. So imagine the scene

with no curtain.

Next remove Joseph, the breastplate, and replace the plates

with a "Nephite Record" composed of sheets of paper, with

the text written in English ---- and Oliver sits there copying

from that written English text, a second text in his own hand.

Here I have described how the scene would have looked when

Oliver was producing the "printer's copy" manuscript from the

previously composed "dictated" manuscript.

Now -- one last step -- visualize the same process used to

produce the "printers" manuscript (Oliver alone at the table)

being used to produce about 95% of the earlier "dictated"

manuscript ---- only "dictated" would be an incorrect title,

as nothing substantial out of that 95% of the text would have

been "dictated" by anybody.

That's about the best I can do to describe what you asked for.

Cheers,

Uncle Dale

[dimbulb]

Fair enough. (But the hoax thing we are talking about is Rigdon and Spalding or his heirs, and Joseph, and Oliver, at the very least. And the reason that most people who assume hoax think others had to be in on it, is that they don't see how Joseph Smith at the state of development he was at that period of time, could have done it by himself.) But I won't argue the point any more. We had a good time with it.

I don't agree at all that Joseph wasn't capable of writing the book. I've read some of his other writings from 1829-1830, and he's pretty coherent, even without a scribe.

[Dale]

What kind of writings are we talking about? I could see him composing small documents without difficulty. But try & create a hefty volume on the spot without an already completed pre-existing manuscript would be a great accomplishment. And if he had a pre-existing manuscript he must have had a photo-graphic memory because he was able to dictate it to his scribes.

[dimbulb]

What kind of writings are we talking about? I could see him composing small documents without difficulty. But try & create a hefty volume on the spot without an already completed pre-existing manuscript would be a great accomplishment. And if he had a pre-existing manuscript he must have had a photo-graphic memory because he was able to dictate it to his scribes.

I agree with you. He would not be able to create such a document off the top of his head. His writing the book of Mormon would have to be a long process of incorporating various sources, such as his father's dream (the iron rod) and lots and lots of the Old and New Testament and then working from a manuscript. Your proposed process seems reasonable.

[Mighty Curelom]

Hmm....using printer's plates as props...never thought of that but it makes sense to me.

As for the Rigdon theory--I just don't buy it. First, the BoM reads like an oration; it reads like spoken word, not like a carefully crafted and edited manuscript. All of the many tangents, non sequiturs, and dead ends point to the BoM as an "off-the-cuff" sermon. Note that I'm not suggesting that JS composed the BoM word for word in his head, memorizing the entire 500 pages. A good speaker needs only a couple notes to talk about a familiar topic for hours. And a great speaker doesn't even need that. If there was anything JS was familiar with, it would have been his own theological musings.

Secondly, there are too many parallels between JS's life and BoM characters. One character is described as "mighty in speach, but not mighty in writing"--just like JS described himself. Dan Vogel's book details many of these parallels.

Third, the original BoM ms was littered with back-woods, hick speak. Characters didn't wander; they went "a-wandering." There have been something like 3000 corrections to the BoM in an effort to purge the hick-speak from its pages. This isn't something we'd expect to see if JS was merely dictating another man's manuscript.

[dimbulb]

We would expect it if he were dictating his own manuscript.

[dimbulb]

Sorry about that. I shouldn't post at 1:30 in the morning.

[Uncle Dale]

As for the Rigdon theory--I just don't buy it. First, the BoM reads like an oration; it reads like spoken word, not like a carefully crafted and edited manuscript.

Sidney Rigdon was generally considered to be

the greatest Campbellite orator on the Western

Reserve of Ohio. As I recall he was also described

by some people as being the most eloquent preacher

west of Buffalo. I don't have a source handy, but

I think those sorts of descriptions of him were

published, even during his own life time.

He was described as a particularly compelling gospel

preacher, standing in a pond or stream, speaking

off the cuff to surrounding auditors, inviting them

to believe that Jesus was that Christ, repent and

immediately be baptized by him, so that they

could have their sins washed away and receive

the gifts of the spirit.

In short, not unlike the missionary sermonizers

whose compelling religious rhetoric flows all

through the Book of Mormon.

Uncle Dale

[dimbulb]

My ancestor was one of his congregants who joined the LDS church shortly after Brother Rigdon did. So, I suppose I owe a lot to Sidney Rigdon, as I would not be here had he not been involved in the church.

[Mighty Curelom]

Sidney Rigdon was generally considered to be

the greatest Campbellite orator on the Western

Reserve of Ohio....In short, not unlike the missionary sermonizers

whose compelling religious rhetoric flows all

through the Book of Mormon.

What I'm suggesting is that the BoM contains tell-tale signs of it being the product of dictation, ie oration. I'm sure Rigdon was quite a fine speaker, being a preacher and all. But in order for Rigdon's oratory skills to have any explanatory relevance with respect to the oratory style of the BoM, we would have to postulate that Rigdon dictated the stories to a scribe who put the sermons in writing. Why would Rigdon, being a literate man and having no reason to avoid writing, prefer to dictate his story? JS has a reason for dictating; what about Rigdon? If Rigdon really wanted to impress people, surely he wouldn't just peal off a sermon--dead ends, tangents, and non sequitors and all--without going back and editing it before handing it off to Joseph, would he?

[dimbulb]

It really is kind of an odd text, isn't it? It bears the hallmarks of being a dictated, off the cuff text in many ways. Sometimes I'm not sure what to make of it.

[Uncle Dale]

Sidney Rigdon was generally considered to be

the greatest Campbellite orator on the Western

Reserve of Ohio....In short, not unlike the missionary sermonizers

whose compelling religious rhetoric flows all

through the Book of Mormon.

What I'm suggesting is that the BoM contains tell-tale signs of it being the product of dictation, ie oration. I'm sure Rigdon was quite a fine speaker, being a preacher and all. But in order for Rigdon's oratory skills to have any explanatory relevance with respect to the oratory style of the BoM, we would have to postulate that Rigdon dictated the stories to a scribe who put the sermons in writing. Why would Rigdon, being a literate man and having no reason to avoid writing, prefer to dictate his story? JS has a reason for dictating; what about Rigdon? If Rigdon really wanted to impress people, surely he wouldn't just peal off a sermon--dead ends, tangents, and non sequitors and all--without going back and editing it before handing it off to Joseph, would he?

An excellent point --- somebody ought to go

through the book with a red pen and mark those

sections of the text that appear to have been

written down as transcripts of oral presentations.

I wonder is anybody has ever seriously thought about

this possibility --- that certain sections of the text are

not a result of a careful dictation from a prepared

sermon, or a pre-written theological argument, etc.;

but are instead examples of transcription "on the fly,"

taken down while a speaker was performing something

like an oration -- with all the sorts of literary "artifacts"

that we might expect from such an uncertain process.

Of course the presence of any such "transcriptions"

in the book would not preclude that other portions

were carefully constructed, written narratives,

descriptions, epistles, theological essays, chaismus,

etc. -- some of which might well have been dictated

in a methodical, controlled manner.

I need to think about all of this for a while --

Uncle Dale

[charity]

I have recounted to you my experience with "orators." Even fine public speakers do not speak like the Book of Mormon reads. I transcribed many 45 minute long orations. You simply do not understand what orations are really like in black and white, in print, even when they are really compelling and engrossing when listened to.

[USU78]

I don't call a small group of people (possibly just one) setting up a hoax a "conspiracy theory" (makes one think of black helicopters and Alger Hiss).

Interesting to pair Alger Hiss (now proven by Kremlin archival dox to have been a Sov spy as alleged and as convicted) and Black Helicopters, especially in this context.

Must think this through.

[dimbulb]

Interesting to pair Alger Hiss (now proven by Kremlin archival dox to have been a Sov spy as alleged and as convicted) and Black Helicopters, especially in this context.

Must think this through.

It was late. Give me a break.

[Baeth_Ku]

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.

I don't see how your example is very helpful. JS had what, 90 days of discontinous translation time to produce the text? The Iliad and Odyssey are how long? As for narrative power and complexity, the Homeric tradition is arguably one of the most powerful and complex story traditions in Western literature. Your objection amounts to very little of an objection when you get down to it.

charity:

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.

If my suggestion and your statement were mutually exclusive propositions, this might be pertinent. It is not.

[Baeth_Ku]

Uncle Dale:

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.

To begin with, I apologize that I have not brought you any closer to the facts, but I was primarily addressing charity's initial inquiry, and in particular her "suggestion" regarding a non-existent 500 page manuscript. Given the hypothetical presented, it seemed reasonable to offer another hypothetical in response.

Now, there *is* evidence that Joseph began telling detailed stories about the Book of Mormon peoples long before he engaged in the translation process. I would count this as part of a composition process. What are we to make of this? If the evidence is credible, then certainly Joseph did not have to wait for Rigdon or a Spalding manuscript to start the Book of Mormon odyssey (pun intended).

My hypothesis was about the question of mechanics. I have not seen anything solid about the physical process of BoM translation that would contradict accounts of Joseph looking at a stone in his hat. With all the evidence that has been mustered in favor of a Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis, one of the pertinent questions remains--how Joseph got the material to the scribes.

Unless we assume that he relied entirely on a photographic memory, that he had manuscript notes in his hat with a hole(s) in it for lighting, that Joseph found another way of deceiving his scribes about the process, or, finally, that they colluded with him in a hoax, then we are left with the account we have. All of these assumptions are exactly that--assumptions. Adding my own may not be helpful to you, but the implicit assumption you bring to the table about the mechanics of the process are no better founded. Do we have eye-witness accounts of Rigdon's role in the tranlation process?

Having said this, I must say that I prefer the idea that he employed mixed-compositional method. I think it is pretty clear that Joseph used texts, like the Bible, during part of the process. It could be that the theological passages to which you refer required written source material. Still, one can look to theological passages in the D&C to find material that is quite similar to theological stuff in the BoM. One can be so immersed in a world of ideas that it does not require a textual crutch to extemporize within it.

[Uncle Dale]

...With all the evidence that has been mustered in favor of a Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis, one of the pertinent questions remains--how Joseph got the material to the scribes....

It's hard to respond to another poster here, when I already

agree with about 90% of what he/she has to say.

Back a ways in this thread I addressed the scribes question --

or I thought I did. Perhaps my RLDS Sunday School lesson

drawing of Joseph Smith wearing the Nephite breastplate

got charity and others laughing so hard that they were not

inclined to respond.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/TRANS2.gif

But, to summarize that previous posting of mine in a couple of

sentences ---- Could not the "dictated" manuscript have been

produced in much the same manner that the "printers" BoM

manuscript was evidently produced? That it, by Oliver Cowdery

sitting down at a table and copying a pre-written English text

onto new sheets of paper in his own handwriting --- and perhaps

with Joseph Smith looking in on Oliver's work now and then, to

supervise the secretive "translation" process?

Yes, I know, such an explanation does not well account for

the 5% of the "dictated" manuscript written down by scribes

other than Oliver -- and such an explanation just pushes all

the questions about various textual oddities one manuscript

generation back in time, without accounting for their origins.

But, doesn't my model of what "might" have happened, supply

at least one logical explanation.

Uncle "was Cowdery really a true believer?" Dale

[auteur55]

Wow what a thread. The theories about the true origin of the Book of Mormon become more absurd with the passing of time.

[charity]

When people make light of the effort it would take to produce the Book of Mormon it makes me laugh.

If you take any of the witnesses to the translation process seriously, this is what happened. Joseph Smith produced over 647 pages of text. (The present Book of Mormon, plus 116 pages lost. ) That is about 325,000 words. (I counted 3 random pages in the Book of Mormon, and they are each a little over 500 words.) In about 65 working days.

A person who practices many years can committ about 15,000 words to memory as a whole piece.

Since Joseph Smith, by no one's account, read from a prepared manuscript, he was either making it up as he went along, or reciting from memory. I don't know anyone who could seriously suggest that a book of the complexity of the Book of Mormon (groups leaving the main group, returnings, the number of names of people being consistent --Hebrew among Lehi's group, not among the Jaredites--geography, methods of warfare, seasons, etc.) was made up as he went along.

If he was memorizing an already written manuscript each night before reciting it the next that, that would be about 5,000 words a day. Can you memorize 10 pages of the Book of Mormon at all, much less in a few spare hours? For 65 days in a row?

[auteur55]

Charity its good to know i'm not crazy. Please reconfirm to me the absolute ludicrous nature of these fraud theories. It boggles the mind to think that sensible, educated people can actually believe Joseph Smith was capable of pulling this thing off. He brought nothing but misery into his life for producing that book. How am I supposed to swallow these theories. Maybe i'm just brainwashed.