If you believe the Spaulding/Ridgon theory

[The Mormonator]

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.

...and he could have also flown to the moon.

[persistent]

Unlce Dale said:

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

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

Yes the link worked. Thank you.

This was an extremely interesting read. I find Emma, despite her denials of polygamy, to be a profoundly strong witness of the restoration. Simply amazing.

I infer, from your previous posts, that you assume that her denials of polygamy should warrent dismissal of all of ther other testimonies and statements. I don't agree. We have strong evidence that she was both opposed to polygamy (and apparently Joseph was nervous about discussing it with her) and that she later accepted it. However, I believe she felt that it was the cause of her husband's murder and that it was a wedge of contention she had with BY who supported it. This, for me, accounts for her denial of it as I see it, especially in this time period when the Utah church was severely persecuted and criticized for open polygamy, as a way for her to get a jab in at BY and simultaneously defend her husband from the criticism.

Her denials read as exactly that: denial. She Had been through more difficulty and sacrificed more for the restoration than perhaps any one else with the exception of Joseph. I believe that, although she accepted it, she violently threw this out of her mind when she believed it caused her husband's death and brought shame on his name. This I can accept and understand, without judging her, and also without impuning her testimony of other things. I have no quotes to substantiate that. This is my own read entirely.

This link is from your own web site. While that causes me pause, I have no reason to doubt it's accuracy (although on it's face I could question the veracity of those who originally published it after her death without anyone's ability to confirm it). I wold ask, however, where did you obtain the original document which you have duplicated here?

Persistent

[Baeth_Ku]

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.

Gee, charity, and here I thought I was simply asking Mr. Auteur to leave me out of the list of those who would call him brainwashed. But, I suppose you are much better acquainted with my thoughts and feelings than I am.

Thanks, too, for acknowledging that I am not the center of the "Joseph-was-a-fraud theories" universe. I would hate to be stuck in the center of a place that I fundamentally disagree with.

charity:

There are only two perspectives on the Book of Mormon.

This is truly enlightening. Having read so many different perspectives on the Book of Mormon, I am glad you have simplified this for me by boiling them down to two. So, the faithful LDS scholar who thinks it is an expansion of an ancient text is, unbeknownst to him, accusing Joseph of being a fraud. I better get on the horn and let him know.

charity:

That is he translated ancient plates by the power of God.

Your faith that Joseph Smith's language and understanding have a one-to-one correspondence with your own is impressive, but, I think, misguided.

charity:

So far, I have seen none that even comes close to plausible.

Well, I don't see much evidence that you are looking. What I see is a person who is demonstrating a stubborn determination not to entertain any options that do not jibe with her preconceived notions about the matter.

charity:

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.

Are you aware of the order in which the text was translated? Why do you suppose Mormon might have to break in and comment?

charity:

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.

If the Book of Mormon fit this description, I might be interested in your challenge.

[The Mormonator]

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) --

He could possibly be referring these links:

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IA/JStrang1.htm

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IA/JStrang2.htm

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/MI/JStrang3.htm

I can still not get to them and I have verified that the problem does not lie with my computer nor with my internet connectivity.

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

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

"substantiated" to your satisfaction.

OK, since you asked.

Concerning your statement on James Strang and his 4 witnesses would you please provide substantiation:

... In that event, four witnesses

testified for the remainder of their lives that the plates

were real and were discovered and brought forth in

a way that could only have been due to supernatural

power, etc. etc.

- BTW, according to http://www.strangite.org/Law.htm there were seven witnesses that signed there names. Did you mean only four testified for the remainder of their lives but three did not? What did you mean?

And would you please substantiate this statement:

...There are perhaps innumerable instances of people

giving a statement that they witnessed something or

another extraordinary in their lives, and then going

on for years, or decades, and never denying that

original testimony.

This leaves your reader asking

Who?

What?

When?

Where?

How?

but with nowhere to go.

If there are innumerable instances, then it should be quite simple to provide substantiation.

Assuming that "something or another extraordinary" would be tantamount to Angelic visitations or things like that.

Someting like this would not quite cut it: "Wow, that Olympic gymast was really extraordinary!"

And here are a few examples of just HOW you might substantiate something:

Thirty-seven years after Oliver Cowdery's death, in a letter to her brother David Whitmer, Elizabeth Cowdery wrote:

"From the hour when the glorious vision of the Holy Messenger revealed to mortal eyes the hidden prophecies which God had promised his faithful followers should come fourth in due time, until the moment when he passed away from earth, he always without one doubt of shadow of turning affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon."

SOURCE: Letter of Elizabeth Cowdery to David Whitmer, Mar 8, 1887, Southwest City, Mo, published by George W.L. Sweich.

- This can be found in "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" by Richard Lloyd Anderson

---> And here is another

Possibly taking place in January 1850, this is Oliver Cowder speaking to Jacobe Gates:

"Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. I am a dying man, and what would it profit me to tell you a lie? I know that this Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind

[Baeth_Ku]

He could possibly be referring these links:

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IA/JStrang1.htm

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IA/JStrang2.htm

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/MI/JStrang3.htm

I can still not get to them and I have verified that the problem does not lie with my computer nor with my internet connectivity.

Funny, I have no trouble accessing them at all.

[Uncle Dale]

Unlce Dale said:

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

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

Yes the link worked. Thank you.

This was an extremely interesting read. I find Emma, despite her denials of polygamy, to be a profoundly strong witness of the restoration. Simply amazing.

Yes, I believe you have discerned much from a brief

glimpse at the end of her life. However, I suggest that

you do not automatically assume that the 1870s "Saints

Herald" always reported accurately or fully in its articles.

In some cases the original, pre-publication text, or even

interview notes, etc. are still available for study in the

RLDS (CoC) Archives. As Dan Vogel has documented in

his "Early Mormon Documents" books, the unedited

texts can be even more interesting than the part published.

I infer, from your previous posts, that you assume that her denials of polygamy should warrent dismissal of all of ther other testimonies and statements.

[The Mormonator]

auteur:

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.

You mean like how FAIR you were to him when you said this:

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.

...Now, what were you saying about being "unfairly prejudicial?"

[The Mormonator]

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.

Your comments make me seriously wonder if you have actually read the book.

[charity]

Baeth_Ku, this is your post: "charity: QUOTE 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."

I think that says that you were assuming I was referring to you. It doesn't say that?

About what Joseph did. In Joseph Smith's history, v 67 he says, "I commenced to translate the Book of Mormon, and he began to write for me." I didn't make up words. Those were Joseph's own. Notice, he did nto say he began to recite a story he had been practicing for years.

You said, "Your faith that Joseph Smith's language and understanding have a one-to-one correspondence with your own is impressive, but, I think, misguided." I'm sorry you must twist and turn what people say. Joseph said he translated the Book of Mormon. That's what I understood he said.

You also said that "I don't see much evidence that you are looking. What I see is a person who is demonstrating a stubborn determination not to entertain any options that do not jibe with her preconceived notions about the matter."

I have read every thing that has come along. I don't find the presentations compelling. For someone who gets on a high horse if someone pressumes to tell him what his is thinking, you sure do a lot of it for other people. Sheeeesssh!

No, I don't know the order the text was translated. And I certainly don't speculate on Mormon's motives, either. He isn't around to ask. And if he were, I wouldn't waste any precious minutes asking him such a silly question.

You don't think the Book of Mormon is 531 pages? Oh, you meant no breaks in the narrative. I meant where stories were left incomplete, or timelines were mangled. I should have been more clear.

[The Mormonator]

charity:

charity:

So far, I have seen none that even comes close to plausible.

Well, I don't see much evidence that you are looking. What I see is a person who is demonstrating a stubborn determination not to entertain any options that do not jibe with her preconceived notions about the matter.

There is plenty of evidence that she is looking. The mere fact that she is on here debating this with you is evidence itself. The fact that she can carry on a lengthy discussion with you about this shows that she has entertained "other" options.

What she has said here is that she has entertained the other options and has not found any of them plausible. And I agree with her on that.

[The Mormonator]

He could possibly be referring these links:

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IA/JStrang1.htm

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IA/JStrang2.htm

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/MI/JStrang3.htm

I can still not get to them and I have verified that the problem does not lie with my computer nor with my internet connectivity.

Funny, I have no trouble accessing them at all.

I'm not making it up. For whatever reason I cannot get to the sites.

It is not reachable to me:

ping lavazone2.com
Pinging lavazone2.com [69.41.137.17] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 69.41.137.194: Destination net unreachable.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 69.41.137.194: Destination net unreachable.
Ping statistics for 69.41.137.17:
   Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 2, Lost = 2 (50% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

Tracing route to lavazone2.com [69.41.137.17]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 1     7 ms     9 ms    10 ms  10.116.146.1
 2     7 ms     7 ms     9 ms  24-116-39-9.cpe.cableone.net [24.116.39.9]
 3    21 ms    22 ms    21 ms  12.127.79.49
 4    42 ms    41 ms    43 ms  gbr2-p70.st6wa.ip.att.net [12.123.44.61]
 5    41 ms    41 ms    47 ms  tbr1-p012601.st6wa.ip.att.net [12.122.12.161]
 6    43 ms    44 ms    46 ms  tbr2-cl10.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.12.113]
 7    49 ms    44 ms    48 ms  ar4-a3120s2.sffca.ip.att.net [12.127.1.189]
 8     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 9   155 ms   166 ms   154 ms  69.41.137.194
10  69.41.137.194  reports: Destination net unreachable.
Trace complete.

[Uncle Dale]

hallelujah!

[Uncle Dale]

...would you please substantiate this statement:

...There are perhaps innumerable instances of people

giving a statement that they witnessed something or

another extraordinary in their lives, and then going

on for years, or decades, and never denying that

original testimony.

...

No, I will not -- and you can quote me on that. I quit

posting in your polling thread and will not respond to

things said or alluded to in that thread here.

If you wish a private discussion, e-mail me. You can

thus correspond with me and "cut & paste" whatever

I might say to you in that conversation into any

on-line document you wish to.

If you wish to generally stay within the bounds of the

topics being discussed by others in this thread, I will

converse with you as though you are a gentleman.

FAIR enough?

Uncle Dale

[Baeth_Ku]

Mormonator:

Your reaction to my post is rather confusing. I don't know how unfair it is to presume that auteur has a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon when I do not know for a personal fact that he has one. I would actually call this generous.

I believe I *was* perfectly 'FAIR' with him when I disagreed with his point of view on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon on intellectual grounds. That is quite different from assuming that everyone on the thread takes such an insulting view of me, which is neither generous nor 'FAIR.' I do view his take on these issues as flawed, but I don't know why this should be so insulting. I have been wrong about intellectual things before, and I assume others are sometimes too. Pointing this out is hardly out of line.

It appears to me that the lot of you are acting kind of thin-skinned. You seem to approach people who do not agree with you as though they are sneaky, up to no good, insulting, or persecuting you, at least from where I sit. The simple fact is that we are people who are open to other possibilities when it comes to the historical record. I have no big aspirations or desire to tarnish Mormonism, prove it wrong, or destroy people's faith. I am here to learn more about Mormon things, from a largely scholarly perspective.

[The Mormonator]

...would you please substantiate this statement:

...There are perhaps innumerable instances of people

giving a statement that they witnessed something or

another extraordinary in their lives, and then going

on for years, or decades, and never denying that

original testimony.

...

No, I will not -- and you can quote me on that. I quit

posting in your polling thread and will not respond to

things said or alluded to in that thread here.

If you wish a private discussion, e-mail me. You can

thus correspond with me and "cut & paste" whatever

I might say to you in that conversation into any

on-line document you wish to.

If you wish to generally stay within the bounds of the

topics being discussed by others in this thread, I will

converse with you as though you are a gentleman.

FAIR enough?

Uncle Dale

If you want the freedom of making such claims without being pestered for your sources, then perhaps this board is not the place for you.

There is no need for this discussion to be made private. Perhaps it should be moved to a different thread, but made private? Nope.

Allow me to introduce you to a few elements on the Board Policy:

"Posts will be judged on a "noise to signal" ratio. Too much noise and too little signal and your posts (and you) will not last long. Noise is defined by sniping, sneering, constant one-liners, nonsubstantive and unsubstantiated posts, taunting, name-calling, vulgarity, excessive chatter and nonstop nitpicking. You are expected to add something to a dialogue not simply pick apart everyone else's comments.

If asked for documentation for your opinion, you will be expected to provide it."

[Baeth_Ku]

mormonator:

...and he could have also flown to the moon.

And, um, this isn't insulting? Or at least irrelevant? I would love to see a moderator's red rubrics under this one, but am disappointed to find them missing. Hmmm . . . .

[Baeth_Ku]

charity:

I think that says that you were assuming I was referring to you.  It doesn't say that?

I'm sorry, is this a question or a statement?

charity:

About what Joseph did.  In Joseph Smith's history, v 67 he says, "I commenced to translate the Book of Mormon, and he began to write for me."  I didn't make up words. Those were Joseph's own.  Notice, he did nto say he began to recite a story he had been practicing for years.

Hmmm. So you are contending that the word "translation" has one simple meaning, the one you assume it has. Since Joseph Smith was not familiar with the secular process of translation from one language to another from personal practice, I would say that more latitude on the meaning of that particular word is a reasonable allowance. The fact that the word has more than one meaning, in any case, is another good reason for allowing it more scope here.

Also, when Oliver fails to translate, and the Lord tells him how, He mentions the step of studying it out in the mind. One could take this direction to be an invitation to engage in divinely guided creativity. It is a possibility.

charity:

I meant where stories were left incomplete, or timelines were mangled.  I should have been more clear.

This is why I brought up the order of translation, which might give the false impression of a remarkable continuity to the book, when in fact the things that were laid out in the end, were more easily harmonized with a beginning that had not been fully composed yet. But since you don't know what order the book was translated in, that probably did not occur to you. And, there are people who have researched the order of the translation process. You might investigate their work if you are interested. The matter does have some bearing on this discussion.

charity:

I have read every thing that has come along. I don't find the presentations compelling.  For someone who gets on a high horse if someone pressumes to tell him what his is thinking, you sure do a lot of it for other people. Sheeeesssh!

Everything that has come into your hands, or everything published or written? The mechanical act of reading is not the same thing as having an open mind to what one is reading. I, of course, do not know how open your mind is to what you are reading. I only know that I am not seeing much evidence of your open-minded approach to the issues here. I do find it odd that you confuse this with assuming what you are thinking.

[Uncle Dale]

Since Joseph Smith was not familiar with the secular process of translation from one language to another from personal practice, I would say that more latitude on the meaning of that particular word is a reasonable allowance. The fact that the word has more than one meaning, in any case, is another good reason for allowing it more scope here.

I tend to agree with what you're saying here -- but I wonder when

it was that the Saints stopped believing that Joseph lacked the ability

of "translation from one language to another from personal practice."

Or, do some contemporary LDS still believe that he could perform

such language-to-language translation with competence? Perhaps

you do not have an answer ready off the top of your head, but it

sounds as though you have at least given this some prior thought.

Have you read the Rev. Henry Caswell's 1842 report of his visit to

Nauvoo, in which the general public there are portrayed as though

they expected Joseph to perform just this sort of translation, and

without benefit of seer-stone or urim & thummim?

http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IL/sign1843.htm#1118

Presently the spirit of prophecy began to arise within him; and he [JS] opened his mouth and spoke. That wonderful power, which enables him to see as far through a mill-stone as could Moses or Elijah of old, had already in the twinkling of an eye, made those rough and uncouth characters as plain to him as the nose on the face of the Professor. 'This Book,' said he, 'I pronounce to be a Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics!'

cf:

Caswell's 1842 "City of the Mormons," pp. 1-36, especially p. 36

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Cas1.htm

I'm also intrigued by Joseph's published words in his 1845 booklet,

"The Voice of Truth," where, in his "Appeal to the Green Mountain Boys."

he seems to show familiarity with numerous "foreign" languages. Then

again, perhaps G. J. Adams or some other helper wrote much of that text,

with a polyglot dictionary or phrase-book in hand?

Were I a Chaldean I would exclaim: Keed' nauh to-maroon lehoam elauhayaugh deyshemayaugh veh aur kau lau gnaubadoo, yabadoo ma-ar'guauoomen tehoat shemayaugh alah. (Thus shall we say unto them: The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.)

An Egyptian: Sa e eh-ni: (What other persons are these?) A Grecian: Diabolas basseleuei: (The Devil reigns.) A Frenchman: Messieurs sans Dieu, (Gentkemen without Go.) A Turk: Ain shems: (The fountain of light.) A german: sie sind unferstandig. (What consumate ignorance!) A Syrian: Zaubok. (Sacrifice!) A Spaniard: Il sabio muda conscio, il nescio ne. (A wise man reflects, a fool does not.) A Samaritian: Saunau! (O Stranger!) An Italian: O tempa! oh diffidanza! (O the times! O the diffidence!) A Hebrew: Ajtaij aol raicu (Thou God seest me.) A Dane: Hvnd tidende! (What tidings!) A Saxon: Hwaet riht! (What right!) A Swede: Hvad skilla: (What skill!) A Polander: Nav-yen-wheo bah poa na Jesus Christus: (Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ.) A Western Indian: She-mo-kah She-mo keh ough-nepgab. (The white man, O the white man, he very uncertain.) A Roman: Procul, o procul este profani! (Be off, be off ye profane!) But as I am I will only add: when the wicked rule the people mourn.

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/184...4Smit.htm#added

Any insight you can supply would be appreciated, friend.

Uncle Dale

[Baeth_Ku]

persistent:

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.

If Joseph were, as I contend, operating mostly through an aural-oral method, I would not be surprised that he did not spend as much time as others reading it. This does not negate the possibility that he spent a lot of time listening to it. Hearing and memorizing by listening is the kind of talent an oral poet would have well developed.

Furthermore, and speaking in terms of text-culture now, if one has a prodigious memory, one does not have to read something repeatedly to remember much of its content. My father has been often praised for his deep study of the scriptures, because he can pull out useful references and quote them with ease. People assumed that he must have studied them a lot, but the truth is that no one in the family ever saw him study the scriptures. Rather, he credited his knowledge to his missionary days.

I am not overly impressed with your example of Joseph's biblical ignorance. Having a prodigious memory is not the same as having a flawless one.

Finally, I am amazed that you guys habitually jump to the conclusion that I am saying Joseph perpetrated a fraud or that the BoM was a hoax. Those characterizations, or rather, caricatures, of my posts have little merit. I am open to a broader interpretation of the history than most, but I do not impugn Joseph or his motives on that basis.

I am not asking you to believe anything. I am here to have an interesting and informative discussion about Mormon issues.

[Baeth_Ku]

Uncle Dale:

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.

I'm curious, Uncle Dale, is there some reason aside from Emma's experience as a scribe, for why you think there was no curtain for Oliver?

Also, isn't Oliver one of those who speaks at greater length about the Nephite relics, including the breastplate with its spectacles? If he were vocal about this point elsewhere, why would he not be confused about the claims made in connection with these instruments, if Joseph never used any devices other than pre-written manuscripts when the two men were working together?

So you think that Oliver colluded with Joseph in a scheme to make use of Rigdon's novel-reply to Spalding's pseudo-historical, anti-Campbellite romance?

Uncle Dale:

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.

I guess I find this problematic because there is nothing fishy about this process, whereas the other raises all kinds of obvious questions. How can we read back, reliably, from this largely innocuous scenario to construct such a theory regarding the translation? Is this pure speculation?

I understand you were trying to satisfy the original request. I am only probing for a little more info.

[Baeth_Ku]

Uncle Dale:

I tend to agree with what you're saying here -- but I wonder when

it was that the Saints stopped believing that Joseph lacked the ability

of "translation from one language to another from personal practice."

Or, do some contemporary LDS still believe that he could perform

such language-to-language translation with competence?

. . .

Have you read the Rev. Henry Caswell's 1842 report of his visit to

Nauvoo, in which the general public there are portrayed as though

they expected Joseph to perform just this sort of translation, and

without benefit of seer-stone or urim & thummim?

My comments are aimed at the early years, before Joseph Smith undertook to study a variety of languages with the assistance of tutors. I personally don't see a great deal to be impressed with in Joseph's use of foreign languages outside of his inspired translations. I also tend to believe that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the papyri in the traditional sense.

Joseph's consistency in describing the process of BoM translation after he did learn to work a little with foreign tongues is probably for the sake of simplicity. I am sure he realized that he did not acquire a little knowledge of Hebrew or German the same way he rendered Reformed Egyptian into English, but what would be the point of sitting every inquirer down to lay out the distinctions in detail?

I am not sure I have read Caswell. I may have. What I guess, however, is that the faithful saints, knowing that the prophet had studied German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc., modeled their assumptions about his "translation" abilities and practices based on their awareness of this fact. In other words, at this point, the field of accepted meaning for this term had narrowed for them. Joseph's wider understanding of translation, however, did not change completely when it came to languages with which he had no traditional familiarity.

Uncle Dale, I am not going to presume to offer you a lot of fresh insights into material you know so much better than I do. What I have to say is impressionistic, and I offer it on that basis. Joseph admired learning, and I believe he incorporated secular learning into his divine translations, probably because he felt like some of the insights thus gained were not fortuitous. His study of Hebrew led to the significant changes in the opening of the creation account in his Abraham. He brags elsewhere about what he thinks the Hebrew in Genesis is really saying, and I think it is no coincidence that Abraham contains this insight as well.

Likewise I think the account of the pre-mortal Council is influenced by his Hebrew studies. The 'one who is like unto God' is, according to my reading, none other than Michael. There is, as I see it, translation going on here, but it is not from Egyptian papyri to English text. Rather it is Joseph rendering knowledge he takes to be revelation into a coherent, inspired narrative about Abraham and his visions.

I think Joseph's enthusiasm for his newly appropriated knowledge, and his self-confidence in the same, sometimes outstripped his real abilities. I think there are times when he was really inspired, like in his translations, and times, like in his "Appeal" that he was being a shameless, and ill-advised, show-off. I am not certain he had enough in the way of traditional language training to show off very much.

[Uncle Dale]

I'm curious, Uncle Dale, is there some reason aside from Emma's experience as a scribe, for why you think there was no curtain for Oliver?

Good question -- and I'm not sure I can answer fully -- but I'll try.

Oliver speaks of handling the "plates" personally. If the purpose of

the reported curtain and the reported cloth covering over the plates

was to keep them from the eyes of the profane (rather like the

ark of the covenant and the "testament" it was said to contain, were

kept from the eyes of the common Israelites, in biblical stories) then,

it would seem that plate-handling Oliver would have been exempt from

needing to have his eyes shielded from the holy record.

The D&C and the LDS/RLDS Histories portray Oliver as being allowed

to enter into the translation process personally -- evidently through

the use of his own divining rod (called in the BoC the rod of nature

and in the D&C, the gift of Aaron). Presumably Oliver would have made

this attempt with the plates at hand -- or even under his divining rod,

much as modern "map dowsers" use their rods to obtain information

from written or engraved information (no matter its language). Again,

Oliver's reported deep involvement with the content of the Nephite Record,

in that failed translation attempt, seems to me to exempt him from the

necessity of a curtain.

Beyond that, I can locate no old statements or testimony wherein Oliver

is said to have performed his scribal duties on one side of a curtain.

Perhaps I have missed something obvious in the historical records --

but, if so, it seems that I am joined in my ignorance by several "Ensign"

and "Church News" illustrators who have pictured Oliver and Joseph

next to the exposed plates (please do not ask for references -- I'd have

to violate copyright to insert such graphics here).

Also, isn't Oliver one of those who speaks at greater length about the Nephite relics, including the breastplate with its spectacles? If he were vocal about this point elsewhere, why would he not be confused about the claims made in connection with these instruments, if Joseph never used any devices other than pre-written manuscripts when the two men were working together?

I long ago stopped accepting Oliver's words as though they were perfect,

established fact. I assume that we can learn much real history from what

he said, but whether or not he is reliable in all his reports, I am not able

to say. Remember, that I come from the Reorganized LDS tradition, where

we tend to be just a touch suspicious of Church leaders and their supposed

constant veracity.

So you think that Oliver colluded with Joseph in a scheme to make use of Rigdon's novel-reply to Spalding's pseudo-historical, anti-Campbellite romance?

I do not know -- truly. I have no testimony to bear of Oliver's veracity, nor

of exactly how he interacted with Joseph Smith. I am open to suggestions

and evidence in that regard. I do believe that Sidney Rigdon could have

formed the necessary theological bridge between Campbellite theologizing

and the Book of Mormon's own theologizing. So far as I can learn, Rigdon's

own beliefs evolved out of Campbellism, but were not "anti-Campbellite" in

EVERY detail. In another thread I have challenged Prof. Craig Criddle to

help me learn more about this evident parallelism in Rigdonite theology

and Book of Mormon theology ----- but, as I stated in that Spalding thread,

the D&C provides its own answer to the question, generally speaking.

And that is, that Rigdon prepared the way for Mormonism, but "knew it not."

I've yet to see any compelling version of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship

theory which leaves Oliver out of the picture totally -- as a dupe or an

ignorant person. The 2005 "Enigma" book portrays Oliver as a sort of

convert of Rigdon's, who introduced Rigdon to Smith (or perhaps to the

Smith family generally, before Alvin's death). I'm still puzzling over those

authors' portrayal, as it makes Oliver out to be a sincere believer in the

latter day work, but also a participant in a secretive process which turned

Spalding's writings into the basis for the Nephite Record. If there IS some

version of the S-R theory which is "true," I cannot fully fathom how their

portrayal could be that "true" one.

Give me a couple more years to study what the Enigma writers, Prof. Criddle

and others are asserting, and then perhaps I can give you a better answer.

http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Enig2005.htm

http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm

Uncle Dale

[Baeth_Ku]

Uncle Dale:

Beyond that, I can locate no old statements or testimony wherein Oliver

is said to have performed his scribal duties on one side of a curtain.

If there is no mention of it, then the greater burden is upon those who assume it is there, no?

I follow your reasoning, and I have no objections.

Uncle Dale:

Remember, that I come from the Reorganized LDS tradition, where

we tend to be just a touch suspicious of Church leaders and their supposed

constant veracity.

Understandably. With that background I am not sure whom I would choose to believe on some matters (e.g. polygamy). I think there was a great deal of sincerity, but I don't think it amounts to the literalist take I see propagated here repeatedly. People defend men like Martin Harris as rational by the contemporary definition, when the man conducted a conversation a deer he took for a manifestation of God. Not too many LDS people today would receive such a testimony well the first Sunday of the month, yet Martin apparently must be reliable in their own terms for some reason.

Question about the implements--plates, stones, breastplate, rod--if Joseph didn't need to look at the plates to translate, why would Oliver? Is it possible that some other means were provided, or that there were other expectations involved?

I need to get some rest. I look forward to further dialogue.

[Uncle Dale]

Question about the implements--plates, stones, breastplate, rod--if Joseph didn't need to look at the plates to translate, why would Oliver? Is it possible that some other means were provided, or that there were other expectations involved?

I'm not sure -- I've just gone back and re-read Larry E. Morris'

2000 BYU Studies article on Oliver's early years and the claims

that his father was in some way associated with the divining-rod

sect of millennial "Israelites" in Vermont, at the turn of the 19th

century. Larry really doesn't answer my questions as to whether

Oliver's father was a divining-rod user or not. My totally wild

guess would be that a practiced diving rodsman would eventually

need no rod at all, to perform his parapsychological or supernatural

occupation. That has already been suggested here, no?

I sincerely doubt that Joseph Smith, Jr. ever had access to the

biblical urim & thummim -- or even to a Nephite breastplate

with "interpreters" attached -- or the sword of Laban, etc. etc.

So my general train of thought now includes those sorts of things

less and less. I have placed pictures of them and spoken of

them here in this thread, because I was taught they were true

holy relics of the Latter Day Saint "Restoration." That is what I

have heard for many years and my mind only gradually has

stopped seeing them in my "mental eye," every time the word

"translation" is mentioned.

So, to shorten this post -- my best guess is that both Joseph and

Oliver evolved into seers who nolonger needed their "training

wheels" of peep-stones and dowsing rods. Joseph progressed to

become the seer whose words might be recorded as divine

revelation -- and Oliver followed in his footsteps only so far

as the point where his words were instruction to the Church, but

could not be recorded in the BoC or D&C as scripture.

For possible "other means" see the vast pile of anti-Mormon

speculation -- if you have the time and patience to wade through

it all. I don't.

Uncle Dale

[Baeth_Ku]

Uncle Dale:

I sincerely doubt that Joseph Smith, Jr. ever had access to the

biblical urim & thummim -- or even to a Nephite breastplate

with "interpreters" attached -- or the sword of Laban, etc. etc.

So my general train of thought now includes those sorts of things

less and less.

I like the way you put this: "ever had access." I prefer to think that JS at the very least truly believed in the existence of plates and the other artifacts. How many times did treasure diggers come up empty-handed? How many times did the same people return to the fields looking for the same, or another treasure? The inability to retrieve the treasure does not necessarily result in an end to belief in it.