If you believe the Spaulding/Ridgon theory

[charity]

Oliver copying off a manuscript written by Rigdon while Joseph watched? That doesn't pass the chuckle test at all.

Now to reply to the idea that Joseph was a fantastic storyteller, who could just rattle off 325,000 words off the top of his head. Again, you take the storytellers art too lightly.

I wish someone could come up with a reasonable alternative to the real event, that we could discuss.

[Uncle Dale]

Oliver copying off a manuscript written by Rigdon while Joseph watched?  That doesn't pass the chuckle test at all.

I'm not following your response here. I am not saying

that Joseph would have merely "watched," but that he

would have supervised the production of the "dicatated"

mansucript in a way similar to his supervison of Oliver's

copying out the "printer's" manuscript.

We all know that Oliver performed that second task, while

residing with the Whitmers, near Waterloo, New York. Nobody

here has thus far questioned my presentation of how Oliver

reproduced that secondary manuscript from the first one,

which first task he began with Joseph at Harmony, PA in 1828.

At Harmony Oliver was involved in the translation process

itself -- there are D&C passages and LDS/RLDS Church

History chapters on God's allowing Oliver to attempt to

translate a few pages from the Nephite Record -- and how

he failed to do that. In that event we have Oliver deeply

involved in the manuscript production process, if only for

a couple of days, and we have Smith participating in what

must have been essentially a supervisory role, with no

curtain between them.

Joseph used the urim & thummim to translate, while

Oliver used his own divining rod, or "gift of Aaron"

So, other than the fact that a few people might "chuckle,"

(rather than actually respond to the historical model I have

outlined), in what way is my model illogical or impossible?

Remember -- I come from the RLDS religious heritage,

where we had so many of Joseph Smith's descendants

hanging around that we could hardly count them all.

From as early as a couple of years after the organization

of the RLDS Church, its leaders (mostly the Smith family)

rejected the Book of Abraham as an ancient text. Emma

Smith herself, a scribe of Joseph's, is never known to have

born testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham.

Smith family tradition and RLDS leaders' implicit teaching

has been that the BoA was created by scribes, such as

F. G. Williams and W. W. Phelps -- perhaps from some

pre-existing English text -- under Joseph's supervision.

Coming from such a religious background, it is just natural

that I would project what I've been taught about the production

of the Book of Abraham and the BoM printer's manuscript,

back upon the secretive production of the dictated manuscript.

Doesn't my historical model at least deserve a paragraph or

two of serious consideration, even in its refutation?

Uncle Dale

[charity]

Because what you suggested is acceptance of an open fraud.

[Uncle Dale]

Because what you suggested is acceptance of an open fraud.

Again, I cannot comprehend your answer.

The Reorganized LDS acknowledge (either explicitly or implicity)

that the so-called "translation" of the Book of Abraham is more

or less "an open fraud." They have never acknowledged that book

as genuine scripture or even as a genuine ancient text. Probably

Bro. Dale, who posts here now and then. will admit that much, I

will suppose. If hundreds of thousands of Latter Day Saints of the

reorganized stripe can accept the BoA as something like "an open

fraud," and not lose their testimony of the latter day work, then

I would think that such an implicit admission by them (and by the

sisters, brother, in-laws, wife, and descendants of JS) would open

the way for our accepting the BoM as being a similar "holy fraud."

People around the world honor "holy books" that we Latter Day

Saints would call "apocryphal" or "pseudopigraphic;" that is,

they are made use of in worship and doctrine by sincere

believers, but the Saints have never acknowledged that such

"non-canonical scriptures" were actually written by the men whose

names are attached to them -- "Ethiopian Book of Enoch," Coptic

Gospel of Thomas," etc. etc.

But, I will try to follow your concise logic for just a moment.

Granted, most faithful LDS would not accept an "open fraud"

as part of their religion. But is there any additional reason why

non-hostile "outsiders," such as Gentile historians and students

of American religion should reject the model I've outlined here

as being an impossibility?

Sincerely,

Uncle Dale

[charity]

You suggested there is a viable alternative to wit: Joseph Smith placed a manuscript written by someone (Sidney Rigdon or others) in front of Oliver Cowdery and asked him to copy it. This was done in public view of others who lived in the house. So presummably other people passing by could have witnessed this copying from manuscript to manuscript. That was the open fraud. That is what I meant.

Why should non-LDS reject that model? Because in subsequent years, the story is none of the people who witnessed the production of the Book of Mormon manuscript ever said a word about it really coming from some previous manuscript. And the principal actors all stated that the Book of Mormon came from the translation off of metal plates.

[Pem]

Dale,

As an non-hostile outsider, I can't reject the model as being and impossibility. I have a question in regard to what Charity stated:

This was done in public view of others who lived in the house.

Is there any information that states that the translation process was conducted in a controlled manner? That is, was the public, as Charity puts it, allowed to come and go as they please, or was it regulated by JS and OC?

Also, and perhaps this is for another thread, what might the motive(s) have been for pulling off a fraud such as this?

[The Mormonator]

Dale,

As an non-hostile outsider, I can't reject the model as being and impossibility.  I have a question in regard to what Charity stated:

This was done in public view of others who lived in the house.

Is there any information that states that the translation process was conducted in a controlled manner? That is, was the public, as Charity puts it, allowed to come and go as they please, or was it regulated by JS and OC?

Also, and perhaps this is for another thread, what might the motive(s) have been for pulling off a fraud such as this?

Joseph and Oliver charged people to come and see it all. $50 bucks a pop!!

You asked:

Also, and perhaps this is for another thread, what might the motive(s) have been for pulling off a fraud such as this?

$50 bucks a pop was the motive. That was a heck of a lot money back then.

[USU78]

Re Oliver's "Gift of Aaron." This is the scriptural reference Rabbi Dale was referring to:

D&C 8:6 Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; 7 Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you.

This enigmatic statement has been used by certain folks to assert that the "Gift of Aaron" was a dowzing or divining rod.

Oliver the Water Witch?

The gift, however, is not the rod itself. The rod is a tool for focusing the person on the gift itself, just as JSJr.'s seer stone had no power in itself, but was merely a tool for focusing his attention on the true gift of G-d.

We citified folks are too far removed from the land to understand the significance and power natural world objects can have, and what an aid they can be to those who are closer to the land. We do poorly to be critical of those who relied (at least for a time, apparently) upon such props.

I'm reminded, of course, of the dowzing scene in Steinbeck's East of Eden, in which the old man doing the dowzing (he's successful, BTW) admits he doesn't even know if it's the forked stick doing the bending of itself or him doing the bending of the stick because of what he sees in the lay of the land but has no conscious knowledge of. All he ultimately knows is that without the stick to focus his mind, he can't find water.

[charity]

My dad, who was an atheist who had been Christian Science, could douse water. He hardly ever did, but I have seen him do it. Strange.

[dimbulb]

I see dead people.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

As an non-hostile outsider, I can't reject the model as being and impossibility.  I have a question in regard to what Charity stated:

This was done in public view of others who lived in the house.

Is there any information that states that the translation process was conducted in a controlled manner? That is, was the public, as Charity puts it, allowed to come and go as they please, or was it regulated by JS and OC?

Also, and perhaps this is for another thread, what might the motive(s) have been for pulling off a fraud such as this?

Perhaps the most detailed account of what went on in "the house"

mentioned by charity, is given in the 1994 book by Newell & Avery,

entitled "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith." I believe that substantial

portions of that text are available on-line at the new Google-Print

web-site.

In 2000 I was present in the RLDS Temple at Independence, when

Valeen Tippetts Avery and other students of Mormon history spoke

and answered questions before a largely RLDS audience. At that

time Ms. Avery admitted that "faithful LDS" were often discouraged

from reading the "Emma" book, by the LDS Church leaders. Val

herself was excommunicated from the LDS Church for reasons

directly associated with her participation in having her Emma research

published ---- so, probably most of the FAIR members will not want

to discuss the book's contents.

Prior to their writing the Emma book, these two authors also wrote

and saw published an article in the 1980 Utah Historical Quarterly,

entitled "The Lion and the Lady: Brigham Young and Emma Smith."

Listening to the questions and answers in that 2000 meeting, I came

away with the impression that one reason Newell & Avery were "ex-d"

was because they have backed away from Brigham Young's old

accusations regarding Emma -- that she was a very wicked woman

who had attempted to murder her husband at Nauvoo, and who was

just about the most untrustworthy woman on the face of the planet.

Read Newell & Avery's article and book, and form your own opinions

of the primary witness to events in what charity calls "the house."

See also Valeen Tippetts Avery's very interesting 1998 book:

"From Mission to Madness; Last Son of the Mormon Prophet,"

which I believe is also largely on-line at Google-Print. On page 99

of this biography of Emma's son, David H. Smith, Avery reports:

"...in front of her sons Brigham called her [Emma Hale

Smith] "a liar, the damndest liar that ever lived."

This is the primary witness of events in the house on the Hale property

at Harmony where Joseph, Martin, Oliver and Emma (along with one

of her brothers on occasion) were occupied in the "translation" work.

Charles Millard Turner, in his PhD dissertation, "Joseph Smith III and

the Mormons of Utah," provides confirmation of Avery's reporting in

his Chapter VI:

After Alexander [Hale Smith's] visit to Salt Lake City, Brigham Young vented

his spleen at the Semi-annual Conference. He reiterated in public a long

list of calumnies against the Smith family. Emma Smith he called the

"damndest liar that ever lived," one who had raised her sons in lies..."

cf Oct. 1866 issues of the Deseret News and this primary document:

"Remarks by President Brigham Young at the Semi-Annual Conference,

G. S. L. City, October 7, 1866," LDS Library-Archives, Salt Lake City.

Father Hale, on whose property the house resided in by Joseph and

Emma had been built, seems to have had ready access to his

son-in-law, in that same house, during the initial period of Book of

Mormon translation.

"the house"

In 1834 Father Hale gave this sworn testimony before a Justice of the Peace:

I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr., lived, and where he and Harris

were engaged in their translation of the Book [1828]. Each of them had a

written piece of paper which they were comparing, and some of the words were

"my servant seeketh a greater witness, but no greater witness can be given him."

There was also something said about "three that were to see the thing" -- 

meaning I supposed, the Book of Plates, and that "if the three did not go

exactly according to the orders, the thing would be taken from them." I

enquired whose words they were, and was informed by Joseph or Emma,

(I rather think it was the former) that they were the words of Jesus Christ.

I told them then, that I considered the whole of it a delusion, and advised

them to abandon it. The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret,

was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his

hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same

time hid in the woods!

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1820.htm#050134

So, it appears that the two main residents of "the house" charity identifies

at Harmony were Joseph and Emma Smith. Emma's family members

evidently stopped in on occasion, but did not live there, so far as I can

discern. While Martin Harris was acting as Joseph's scribe, he appears

to have lived in "the house." For at least a few days Martin's wife Lucy

came to stay also. Add to that list the name of Oliver H. P. Cowdery, and

I think I have listed all the major residents and on-lookers.

If folks wish to believe Emma's testimony about what happened in

"the house," I would only caution them to read her obviously dishonest

denials of polygamy. We need not accept Brigham Young's word for

the fact that Emma lied about very crucial secret matters in Mormon

history -- we can match her denials of Nauvoo polygamy against the

combined testimony of dozens of her Nauvoo contemporaries, and

against the conclusions of about 99.9% of all reputable historians who

have reported upon the Smith family's secret polygamy at Nauvoo.

This particular subject has been especially troubling to me over the

past few years. I left the RLDS (CoC) Church for a combination of

reasons, but one of those reasons was directly attributable to 40

years of my hearing my LDS relatives and friends telling me that

there really was no basis for the initial foundation of the RLDS Church,

as the "JS was not a polygamist"-proclaiming organization centered

about the very dishonest Emma Smith and her sons.

Perhaps charity can here come to my aid, by listing any other

witnesses to the "translation" process at Harmony, who were not

just miscellaneous, random visitors, having no close nor continued

observation of the events transpiring in "the house."

Uncle Dale

[persistent]

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.

The problem with this is that Joseph was NOT steeped in the Bible! His mother recorded that he was the least likely of his siblings to read and study the bible, or any other book for that matter. Your theory is that he practiced making it up, but that does not jive with the history we have on what happened.

In addition, Emma recorded that, during the translation of 1 Nephi, when he translated the portion about Nephi and his brothers hiding outside the walls of Jerusalem, he stopped and asked "Did Jerusalem have a wall"? He didn't even know it. If he were steeped in the bible, as you say, this should be something he would be very familiar with.

Joseph never exhibited behavior, that I am aware of, that indicated he was perpetrating a hoax. In order for him to have done so, his entire family, including Emma, the 3 witnesses, those of the 8 witnesses that were not his family, and a few others would all have to have been in on it. No one from his inner circle ever came out and "exposed" him even though many left the church.

It is a stretch of monumental proportions, in my mind, for someone to suppose that Joseph Smith made up the book of mormon (or memorized and copied from Sidney Rigdon, who BTW, would have had to have known Joseph before they supposedly met and who no doubt would have fought for the copyright by exposing Joseph when he left the church), staged a false translation while in the midst of persecution on a personal and social level, mysteriously convinced 11+ people to claim they saw the plates, convince countless others that they had miraculous visions and heard the voice of God, sacrificed personally on a physicall, financial and personal level, all to pull off some hoax about a ficticious people that never existed. You can assume what you like, but for me, my vote falls on the simplest notion which is that he translated a record by the gift and power of God.

BTW - if you read his own personal writings, you will easily conclude that there is NO way this guy wrote the BoM, so Sidney or someone must have, and I have equal doubts about this as I would fully expect that they would have claimed the inspiration and purported the hoax in the place of Joseph.

One final thought: Joseph had so many accounts attributed to him of compassion and forgiveness, sacrifice and mercy, that one would need to conclude that he suffered from serious dillusional effects if you were to overlay this on top of the character of a man that would perpetrate a hoax so elaborate and involved as that necessary for the anti-Mormon assumptions about the BoM origins to be true.

What is more, you have to impune the character of all the witnesses who were either "duped" by him or who were complicit in his "lie".

You are simply asking too much to expect me to believe that Joseph was not who and what he claimed to be: A Prophet, Seer and Revelator!

[persistent]

Uncle Dale

Type less, substantiate more! Broken links, assumptions of what we can assume or conclude, and rumors of things you heard or know but cannot substantiate do not constitute backup for your views or arguments. Your authoratative tone and fluency in church history is impressive but everything else is not. Your prolific accusatory posts that lack substantiation make me want to ignore your posts completely. If you want your thoughts to be seriously considered, you must be seriously considerate of those who participate here. That inlcudes consice points and something other than a broken link or "I think we can conclude" types of remarks.

No offense intended. I just get turned off every time I see your post.

Persistent

[USU78]

I left the RLDS (CoC) Church for a combination of reasons, but one of those reasons was directly attributable to 40 years of my hearing my LDS relatives and friends telling me that there really was no basis for the initial foundation of the RLDS Church, as the "JS was not a polygamist"-proclaiming organization centered

about the very dishonest Emma Smith and her sons.

I'm sorry to hear that. My own views on Emma were clarified by, of all things, Scott Card's treatment of this difficult issue in his novel Saints fka A Woman of Substance. In it Emma, upon Joseph's death, was faced with the unhappy task of going forward. At first, she's more than happy to admit the polygyny and just hate the sister wives. Problem was, the main character (a stand-in for Eliza Roxy Snow) was one of her best friends, if not her best friend, and a sister wife. She solved the emotional dilemma by denying the polygyny and keeping the friend, even if it was to be an absent friend.

We should not judge our Elect Lady too harshly. She lived an impossibly hard life. How would we have fared faced with her trials?

There's a lovely scene in the new Work and the Glory movie, where Emma's holding the now perished infant while Mother Smith takes the tar and feathers off Joseph's back and chest. I cannot but weep for Emma in those moments. Did she know then what she faced? Is that why she cannot give up the corpse of her baby so cruelly exposed because the mob would have at Joseph?

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale

Type less, substantiate more! Broken links, assumptions of what we can assume or conclude, and rumors of things you heard or know but cannot substantiate do not constitute backup for your views or arguments. Your authoratative tone and fluency in church history is impressive but everything else is not. Your prolific accusatory posts that lack substantiation make me want to ignore your posts completely. If you want your thoughts to be seriously considered, you must be seriously considerate of those who participate here. That inlcudes consice points and something other than a broken link or "I think we can conclude" types of remarks.

No offense intended. I just get turned off every time I see your post.

Persistent

No doubt you do, my friend -- no doubt you do.

But it would be a good favor to all, if you would say

which link is "broken" -- (as all work for me from my

computer) --

And, if you wish to have something "substantiated," then

say just what that something is, and HOW it might be

"substantiated" to your satisfaction.

The major point I was attempting to make in my last posting

here was NOT that we should ignore the reports of those

people who were very often in "the house," but that we

should weigh the evidence that they provide, in light of

what else we can learn about them and their reputations

for accuracy, honesty, and objectivity.

I would be happy to consider Lucy Harris' testimony in

the same way that we might consider Emma Hale Smith's

testimony.

Or, I would be happy to consider the various and sundry

testimonies of Martin Harris in the same way that we might

consider those of Father Hale. -- etc., etc.

FAIR enough?

Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

We should not judge our Elect Lady too harshly.  She lived an impossibly hard life.  How would we have fared faced with her trials?

An excellent point -- however, were I to try step into her

long-vacated shoes and make some decisions about helping

found a church in opposition to Brigham Young, I believe

I would have done two things differently (either directly, or

indirectly, through her son/prophet Joseph Smith III, as

Emma appeared wont to do).

(1) Admit that Brigham Young had just as much authority to

lead the fragmented Church as anybody in the Smith family, and

probably more -- as there never was an official doctrine of Smith

family descent or succession in the First Presidency (no matter

what Mike Quinn or others may have uncovered as possible

theoretical options in that troubled succession).

(2) Admit that Brigham Young had not created polygamy, nor

authored the LDS D&C section on that practice; but, rather that

at least the lion's share of that "revelation" was penned by none

other than Joseph Smith, Jr.

Had Emma allowed such truth and light to come forth, no doubt

her son would have gathered a much smaller following about

him in 1860 --- but then again, Dale R. Broadhurst would not

have, in later years, been repeatedly lied to by RLDS officials

who knew d__n well that Joseph, Hyrum and William Smith

practiced polygamy at Nauvoo. And that same Broadhurst

fellow would not have subsequently been counseled to keep

his polygamy "facts," to himself and join in on the continued

RLDS lying about this and related subjects -- a practice that

should be all too evident to any rational person who studies the

matter for about 30 seconds.

And speaking of stepping into somebody's shoes, can you

imagine being in my own, when I sat down with a class of

teenage CoC members, several times in a row, who were

asking what the "true" story of the RLDS Church really was?

Those young people were no idiots -- they brought with them

to class questions sparked by conversations with their

friends at school, (in this high-percentage LDS town), some

of which are directly relevant to our FAIR discussion now.

'nuff said.

Uncle Dale

[USU78]

We should not judge our Elect Lady too harshly.  She lived an impossibly hard life.  How would we have fared faced with her trials?

And excellent point -- however, were I to try step into her

long-vacated shoes and make some decisions about helping

found a church in opposition to Brigham Young, I believe

I would have done two things differently (either directly, or

through son/prophet Joseph Smith III, as she was wont to do).

(1) Admit that Brigham Young had just as much authority to

lead the fragment Church as anybody in the Smith family, and

probably more -- as there never was an official doctrine of Smith

family descent or succession in the First Presidency (no matter

what Mike Quinn or others may have uncovered as options).

(2) Admit that Brigham Young had not created polygamy, nor

authored the LDS D&C section on that practice.

Had Emma allowed such truth and light to come forth, no doubt

her son would have gathered a much smaller following about

him in 1860 --- but then again, Dale R. Broadhurst would not

have, in later years, been repeatedly lied to by RLDS officials

who knew d__n well that Joseph, Hyrum and William Smith

practiced polygamy at Nauvoo. And that same Broadhurst

fellow would not have subsequently been counseled to keep

his polygamy "facts," to himself and join in on the continued

RLDS lying about this and related subjects -- a practice that

should be all too evident to any rational person who studies the

matter for about 30 seconds.

'nuff said.

Uncle Dale

I fear it is not Emma and her ad hocs that're the problem here, but rather the continued adherence to an untenable position by people whom many (if not most) Reorganites trusted without question. The feelings of betrayal must have been excrutiating.

A sad day for our flatlander cousins.

These family squabbles are the reason I abhor taking divorces any more. And hate estate fights.

In this particular family fight the stakes have been frighteningly high.

I'm gratified the heat has lessened, but the cost to my flatlander cousins has been, I'm afraid, much, much too high.

Gotta skip, Dale. Be well. I'll be back tomorry.

R

[persistent]

Uncle Dale Said:

But it would be a good favor to all, if you would say

which link is "broken" -- (as all work for me from my

computer) --

And, if you wish to have something "substantiated," then

say just what that something is, and HOW it might be

"substantiated" to your satisfaction.

I am looking at your prolific posts on this thread and others. You seem to like to see the sound of your own voice in print. Make your point and move on, like you did in your reply to me. That 2+ paragraph answer is appreciated.

If you can point to quotes I can look up independently, then I would consider such "substantiation". You have posted links in other threads that did not work. In addition, the fact that they came from your site does not engender trust in them on my part and does not constitute being "substantiated". This is like say the bible is true because the bible says so. Saying it doesn't make it!

You have a knack for impuning character very subtly. This is cunning ad hominen against people of the past who are not here to defend themselves. To be clear, you attempt to present evidence of ill character against individuals like Oliver Cowdry (other thread) Emma Smith etc., and then imply that we cannot trust them or their accounts. This then leaves you or others free to conclude what you will despite their recorded statements to the contrary. I find you wise as a serpent and equally as dangerous.

On the point: Despite your attempts to impune the character of Emma, you have provided nothing to convince me that we should not accept her accounts of what happened. Her supposed "lying" about personal matters concerning her marriage does not cause me to question the veracity of her prior, or even later, accounts of the translation process. Please provide evidence as to why her accounts are unreliable if you would like this to be considered.

Persistent.

[Uncle Dale]

On the point: Despite your attempts to impune the character of Emma, you have provided nothing to convince me that we should not accept her accounts of what happened. Her supposed "lying" about personal matters concerning her marriage does not cause me to question the veracity of her prior, or even later, accounts of the translation process. Please provide evidence as to why her accounts are unreliable if you would like this to be considered.

Thank you for your thoughtful crtitique -- I will give

all your suggestions due consideration.

But before you accuse me of saying incorrect things about

historical persons, please also be careful to "substantiate"

your claims about me and what I have done here.

If you can find ANY link here at FMB posted by me, which

does not function correctly, from a properly operated computer,

please provide the URL, so it can be corrected. I can find none.

Probably nothing I can say here will convince the vast majority

of faithful LDS that they should give the testimony of Emma

Hale Smith just as critical a scrutiny as that LDS writers and

historians have given to that of Lucy Harris or Father Isaac Hale.

I need not provide multiple source citations just to express

that as my own studied opinion.

Only a few people were in "the house" on a regular basis. Charity

said that non-LDS investigators of Mormon history should reject

my "dictated" manuscript "translation" model, based upon the

reliable information that we can gather from those people who were

in "the house." That's OK by me. How do we begin to do that?

Do you care to contribute just a little to this joint effort of convincing

the Gentiles of charity's recently expressed conclusion?

On the point: Despite your attempts to impune the character of Emma, you have provided nothing to convince me that we should not accept her accounts of what happened. Her supposed "lying" about personal matters concerning her marriage does not cause me to question the veracity of her prior, or even later, accounts of the translation process. Please provide evidence as to why her accounts are unreliable if you would like this to be considered.

More than 400,000 past & present RLDS lied to and convinced they were in the

"one true church," largely based upon Emma's influence and her published

testimony does not seems like such small, personal matter to me, dear friend.

Let me know if this link works for you, then I can supply more later:

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm#100179

Uncle Dale

[The Mormonator]

Uncle Dale

Type less, substantiate more! Broken links, assumptions of what we can assume or conclude, and rumors of things you heard or know but cannot substantiate do not constitute backup for your views or arguments.  Your authoratative tone and fluency in church history is impressive but everything else is not. Your prolific accusatory posts that lack substantiation make me want to ignore your posts completely. If you want your thoughts to be seriously considered, you must be seriously considerate of those who participate here. That inlcudes consice points and something other than a broken link or "I think we can conclude" types of remarks.

No offense intended. I just get turned off every time I see your post.

Persistent

hallelujah! I'm not alone. I was beginning to wonder.

[Baeth_Ku]

charity:

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

OK. I am not certain how you think I have done that, but I believe your claim about your own feelings.

charity:

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.

We have credible evidence that Joseph Smith began learning about the Book of Mormon peoples years before the translation process began. It appears to me, and to other reasonable people out there, that it is entirely possible Joseph Smith worked on the Book of Mormon outside of those 65 days of translation. What about all that time before the translation began? What about the time between the loss of the first manuscript and the recommencement of the translation process? Would the witnesses to the translation process necessarily have known about these other efforts on the composition?

I think it is possible they may not have known about his previous work on the composition, if there were such work. My main point is that it is possible. You may not believe that Joseph worked at those times, but it is possible that he did. Thus, it is possible that he worked years, not 65 days, on the Book of Mormon.

charity:

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

Your understanding of oral composition is pretty poor. The idea behind oral composition on the Homeric model is that a person who is well acquainted with a repetoire of stories and conventions composes on the fly. While this method requires a prodigious memory, it does not require a photographic memory, and such a poet does not reproduce the same text everytime. The poet knows the stories. The poet knows the conventions. The poet is prepared at a moment's notice to give a fresh composition at any time.

In other words, it is not a matter of committing 15,000 words to memory. It is about knowing how to compose on the spot using the building blocks one has acquired over time. Such a person could craft a poem in excess of 15,000 words. Your objection does not work.

In short, what I am saying is that Joseph Smith could have built a repetoire of BoM stories over the years between the first appearance of the angel and the time of translation. He could have organized the arc of the larger narrative as well. In this I give Joseph Smith the greatest compliment with regard to his prodigious talent and hard work. I'm not making light of anything.

[japanguy]

Well I for one appreciate Uncle Dale and his posts. I enjoy considering varying points of view. We sometimes can't see reality because of our own preconceived notions. To oftenmormons and anti mormons get blinded and can only see half of the picture. It takes observing the whole picture to see it. Being open minded is a blessing.

And if some of you don't like his posts then just don't read them. Why do you have to complain like kindergarters? Whine Whine Whine

Japanguy

Please leave out name calling and goading. This board is mostly self monitoring except for the most offensive posts, and individuals are not discouraged from bringing others in line. You were fine right up until the last sentance. (Moderator)

I understand that we need to be civil and all. But what was Uncle Dale doing wrong? Absolutely nothing!! Two different board members complained about his post being to long. This just seems childish to me. They were both making fun of his posts and whining that they had to read them, when they can just pass them by if they don't want to read. So I feel all they were doing was whining.

Japanguy

[Baeth_Ku]

auteur:

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.

Of course you aren't crazy. You have a perfectly reasonable faith in the things you have been taught and the testimony you have presumably received through the Holy Spirit. The only problem I see in your thinking is that you accept a flawed intellectual premise--namely, that if the production of the Book of Mormon doesn't match the traditional view, the only other option is that it is a fraud.

You are certainly welcome to hold onto this mistaken view. Still, it is possible that one can come to a better understanding of who Joseph was and what he was doing by exploring different historical theories regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I further maintain that it is possible to do this without being unfairly prejudicial toward Joseph Smith, or without abandoning one's faith.

And . . . your sarcastic statement about being brainwashed seems indiscriminately pointed toward everyone on this thread who does not hold the traditional historical view about these issues. So, are you saying that I think you are brainwashed? Count me out on this one sir, and try to be a little more "FAIR" to us in the future.

[Matt Andrews]

charity wrote:

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?

I think you are still missing the idea. No one is suggesting Smith 'memorized' and regurgitated word for word from a manuscript. Perhaps there were times when he memorized bits, but it would be very simple to read 10 pages of the Book of Mormon a few times, walk into another room and repeat the story as you remember it.

Would it come out exactly right? No. But no one gets to see the original manuscript to compare, so they'd have no idea. So Smith has a decent memory, and remembers the key points. Add in some pointless, meandering filler, and voila, you've got 10 pages of the Book of Mormon.

Aside: (If you happen to be charismatic/devious enough to try to pass it off as inspired by God, you could develop a following just as many have done before (and will again). In time, people could be poring over your words, finding hidden meanings where there were none, and playing 'parallelomania' with other texts/cultures they think support their rather curious beliefs.)

The theory doesn't require that Smith make anything close to a perfect transcription of the manuscript. The manuscript is a guide, and Smith says what he can remember. The result would be filled with Joseph's poor grammar, and perhaps even a few more egregious mistakes to be corrected later on.

Frankly, I'd guess that many people could follow this process and produce a (reproduced) book of complexity and length similar to, if not superior to, the Book of Mormon. Probably anyone on this board if they had enough free time on their hands and enough incentive to do it.

-------------------

edit: Baeth_Ku's comments two posts ago were dead on. It appears, however, from the next post that charity isn't even reading his comments.

-------------------

As an off-topic comment, I personally don't think a manuscript theory, while plausible, is necessary. It's just not that intricate a book that he couldn't have made it up himself. Groups coming and going and showing up again days later don't make this any more difficult than the bedtime stories many parents make up for their kids every night.

[charity]

Baeth_Ku, you take everthing personally. I do not think you are the center of the universe of the Joseph-was-a-fraud theories. This thread had been going for many pages before you put in an appearance.

There are only two perspectives on the Book of Mormon. Either Joseph did what he said he did. That is he translated ancient plates by the power of God. Or he lied about that and some other mechanism was responsible for the Book of Mormon. What those other mechanisms are don't really matter in the basic argument.

However, those who believe he lied about what occurred, are left to come up with some plausible, alternate theory. So far, I have seen none that even comes close to plausible.

One of the least plausible is that Joseph was able to recite stories on the fly for at least 531 pages. Especially given the fact that this narration does not start at the beginning and proceed to the end in a seamless fashion. Mormon breaks in the with Words of Mormon a few chapters in. There are the groups that go out hunting for the land of first inheritance, whose story is brought back to the weave later. There are the abridgements.

I challenge anyone who wants to be taken seriously on this theory show us one other instance of a 531 page text which has been dictated by anyone, with no breaks in the narrative. When the narrator stops for the night, he picks up the next day without having to have the previous days work read back.