Book of Abraham Evidence?

[Hyrum Page]

Richard Lyman Bushman has brought up the fact that Joseph used three methods of translation.  The seer stone, urim and thumim, and direct translation.  Joseph had later develped the gift to translate without the use of these instruments.  Although it was never directly stated, it was implied (and has been for quite some time) that the majority of Joseph's translation (when Oliver was his scribe during that brief three month period) was direct translation.  The seer stone and urim and thumim were school masters, if you will.  I think that your statement that Joseph didn't use the plates themselves very much is unfounded.  You assume he spent most of his time gazing in a hat.  And we all know what happens when we assume!

Richard "Lyman" Bushman, as opposed to that other Richard Bushman who writes about American history? Just pulling your leg. But seriously, the Lyman makes it sound so much more impressive (as if a historian of his stature needs any help in that regard).

While an interesting theory, I don't see that there is any way to demonstrate how the stone and Urim and Thummim were merely "schoolmasters." While it is satisfying to imagine everything progessing in a linear fashion from Joseph the farmboy who played with seerstones to Joseph the prophet of God, it is useful to remember that he acquired his first seerstone at roughly the same time he had his First Vision and that he went on a treasure hunt to Salem after the Church had been founded. In other words, the distinction between magic and religion, as John Gee has correctly pointed out, is at best a problematic issue.

Finally, I do believe my point still stands. If he did not need to look at the plates, why could he not work on the narrative before he possessed them?

[Dale]

Was there a pre-existing secret Book of Mormon manuscript or not in the critics view of things? I never wrote anything in school in one setting. And honestly I do not know of anyone who has. But composing an in depth outline in your head, and composing an large book on paper are two difficult tasks. But imagine being denied paper, and pen & having to only use your minds outline only & dictating to scribes your entertaining story? I doubt you could get done with 12 pages without looking like a fool in need of starting over.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, it suggests to me that JS was made aware of things related to the contents of the Book of Mormon before he actually engaged in the translation process.

Well, here's what Lucy Mack actually says:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined.  He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship.  This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

Now, this seems to me to represent the kinds of things that one might see in a vision. Nothing is said about plot, but much is said about things and visible processes.

Yet the text of the Book of Mormon is about ideas, doctrines, and narrative. Strikingly, it says virtually nothing about ancient American dress, and very little about ancient American modes of traveling. (And, by the way, it doesn't seem that much would need to be said to convey to 1820s Americans the character of "the animals upon which [ancient Americans] rode" if those were simply familiar horses.) The Book of Mormon describes not a single building "with every particular." It says relatively little, even, about the specifics of ancient American religious worship.

In other words, Lucy Mack Smith's comment seems to provide little evidence for the idea that Joseph was concocting the plot that became the Book of Mormon. It does suggest that he might have had the occasional visionary tutorials with Moroni that he claims to have had.

You say you are asking for evidence. What you seem to mean is that you are asking for evidence you can't possibly explain in another way.

I think that evidence, to be useful to a particular question, should make one line of thinking or one hypothesis more plausible than another. I don't think that merely waving in the direction of Lucy Mack Smith's comment comes even close to demonstrating that Joseph was working on a plot outline for the Book of Mormon for four years and two months.

Richard "Lyman" Bushman, as opposed to that other Richard Bushman who writes about American history? Just pulling your leg. But seriously, the Lyman makes it sound so much more impressive (as if a historian of his stature needs any help in that regard).

Richard Lyman Bushman is how his name happens to appear on the Joseph Smith biography.

If he did not need to look at the plates, why could he not work on the narrative before he possessed them?

He evidently did need the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone. (When Martin Harris once substituted a different but similar stone, Joseph was baffled and unable to translate. Or so Harris says.)

[charity]

I have read this before, where Lucy Mack Smith told about the amusing stories, etc. "and the animals upon which they rode."

Wouldn't this phrase indicate something other than horses? Obviously there were animals which were ridden. If they had been horses, why would that have been amusing or interesting? Horses were what everyone had. If we were talking about people riding around in cars, wouldn't we say cars? Not the vehicles we ride around in?

[why me]

I can understand it if there is frustration on this thread. As I related, James has a prepackaged set of ideas that he is throwing out for responses and he does get a response.

The way I look at it, prepackaged ideas neatly rapped with a bow and a ribbon is a very attractive package. No doubt about it....many will buy that package. And yet, when forced to show evidence, the package is left with nice sounding words but no substance.

On this thread, the apologists have asked for evidence but little evidence was forth coming and the comparison that James did offer with the fantasy book, did not fly very far...in other words, James' example was a lead balloon. The difficulty comes when the person does not admit the lead balloon but rather holds his or her guns and claims: 'hey look!...my balloon is flying high in the sky and it looks beautiful.'

James seems not to acknowledge any counter-claim on the threads and does not engage the idea. What to do? Nothing. There is very little to do about this. I am sure that he has his very set beliefs and nothing will move him an inch in a different direction. But he has a great package, I suppose.

The book of mormon is an interesting piece of literature. I hope that the critics do not mind me calling it literature because in my opinion it is literature. Here, on this thread we now have a debate about this book which will probably go the same way as the book of abraham.: in a circle.

I find the book of mormon amazing. How did it come about? We have all had this discussion before. Uncle Dale weighed in with his package,,,apologists weighed in with their package,,,and critics weighed in with their package. And yet, the critics did not 'win' their case regardless of the package they presented. This was not because the apologisists failed to see their point of view but rather because the critics case had holes.

This says something about the book, itself. What a marvelous feat for Joseph Smith. Here we have a boy...dreaming a book in his head...writing it in secret for four years...why?...to form a new religion that will conquer the world and make a name for himself. He divices a plan of angels and gold plates...while working on the farm, digging rocks and searching for treasure and begins to put it to paper, in secret. Perhaps a couple of conspirators are in on it but these conspirators more or less remain silent about it.

And here is JS writing the book at the Whitmers or in the woods or in the 'library' or in the outhouse...out of site from the public...drooling at the mouth for the power that he will soon have when he presents the book to the public. (Now of course, he will need witnesses, scribes, the duplicity of his wife, his family, etc). But that seems to be no problem for the money digger.

The paper, the ink that is needed he gets from the whitmers. These people know that JS will be successful in duping not only the public but also God. (Remember, this book if written by JS will be one of the must blasphemous books ever to be written...and any religious believer will consider all those involved to be sons and daughters of the devil.) But no matter, the whitmers, sidney ridgon, oliver cowdery, and all the other witnesses of divine intervention do not mind this. After all they will have much to gain from the book. .

My gosh isn't this a great story? And here we have JS dedicating his life to such a scheme. Allowing his children to die for his plot for power and fame. Now I know that we have other interpretations out there about the book and how it was written: spaulding, the golden teapot , view of the hebrews etc. but still I have to hand it to Smith...he was a genius...either he wrote the book after careful study or Rigdon wrote it and used Joseph as a dupe (but how would that explain the pearl of great price?)...a dupe that would not only go along with the whole story...but would die for it and allow his family to suffer for the duplicity and of course allow his brother to die for the cause as well...And of course JS when he was about to meet his maker...the maker that he duped....lets out an agonizing heartfelt cry to that same god. (or is that a myth?)

I find both possiblities hard to believe. The plates seem the most logical way of explanation...but I am no genius. In truth, no one and I mean no one has yet proven the bofm false...it still sits tall in the saddle like...somewhat old for wear, and a little bruised from life...but just like John Wayne, it still sits tall in the saddle.

How can this be explained rationally?

[why me]

You need to google the exit stories of people who leave the LDS Church.

[charity]

why_me, the seed of doubt has to fall on good ground. The faithful do not provide the good ground. Alma 32 contains a great sermon on faith. It seems to me that the opposition is also true. A person can take a seed of doubt, and nourish it, and watch it grow. The question which may be the important one to God is if we want doubt to grow or for faith to grow.

[Dale]

I have read some of these these exit stories. I left the LDS myself. I am LDS turned Community of Christ. (RLDS) I think I sometimes mention my faith to much. But I don't want people to think I am deceptively claiming to be still LDS so I try & clarify the difference. I have no desire whatsoever to go to these exit story places & leave my story. I just feel that some of these persons who leave such testimonies in those places have an axe to grind. Personally my advice for them is to lay the axe down so we can get down to reasonable kind discussions of issues.

Plus since I still retain my Book of Abraham belief I doubt they would want to allow me to have a positive voice there.

[juliann]

I just feel that some of these persons who leave such testimonies in those places have an axe to grind.

You just nailed what these stories really are. They are every bit as faith based and religion infused as any other testimony they mock. They just have their own version of being born again. Why they can't see that is what is worrisome as they attempt to instruct others.

[Hyrum Page]

Now, this seems to me to represent the kinds of things that one might see in a vision.

I agree, but they do not preclude narrative. Lucy Mack does not focus on narrative issues, yet some of the items to which she refers would naturally involve narrative. For example, witnessing modes of warfare and worship, since they are comprised of prolonged series of actions, could easily become the basis of stories: things witnessed becoming narratives.

Strikingly, it says virtually nothing about ancient American dress, and very little about ancient American modes of traveling.

[Daniel Peterson]

I agree, but they do not preclude narrative.

Evidence that simply doesn't preclude something scarcely deserves to be trotted out as strong evidence for that something.

"Did X happen?" "Yes! And the proof is that Y is compatible with it!" That's the kind of reasoning that FARMS is often accused of employing. The fact that we don't actually make that kind of argument has apparently left a vacuum into which others are rushing.

Why must they all appear there in order to constitute evidence of the process of the BoM's production? Does an author include all of his notes in the final draft? Do you?

But there is no evidence of any preliminary draft. That's what I was asking for. That's what Mighty C thinks he was supplying. But that's what he didn't supply.

I would say that her comments provide "some evidence" for the idea that Joseph could have begun the composition of the Book of Mormon in advance of retrieving the plates.

Evidence that he "could have" is not evidence that he did. That he "could have" is logically possible even without supporting evidence. Mighty C thought he was supplying evidence that Joseph began the composition before the period normally accepted for that. But he didn't. Lucy Mack Smith's statement is compatible both with the idea of advance plotting and with the idea of no advance plotting. But a piece of evidence that doesn't make one theory more probable than the other is not a relevant piece of evidence when the task at hand is to distinguish between the two theories.

You are the one who insists on evidence of plot formation.

Mighty C brought up the idea of plot formation. He even mentioned his remarkable knowledge of the plots of the old Star Wars movies, as evidence that it would be easy for him to write a quarter-million word book on the subject within two months or so. I believe that he may be working on that very project even as we speak.

Richard Lyman Bushman is how his name happens to appear on the Joseph Smith biography.

So tell me, Dan. When exactly did you lose your sense of humor?

Back when Joseph Smith wrote a fictional Book of Mormon.

He evidently did need the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone.

Did he? Or was it that he was already trained in the use of a seer stone? Was it the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim that he needed? One or the other? Both? Why both or why not both?

Are you unfamiliar with the Martin Harris story? Joseph apparently could not translate without either a seer stone or the Urim and Thummim. He used each of them at different times. He clearly seems not to have needed both together.

[Hyrum Page]

Evidence that simply doesn't preclude something scarcely deserves to be trotted out as strong evidence for that something.

Which is why I didn't stop there. I went on to say that modes of worship and warfare provide some evidence of narrative formation.

"Did X happen?"  "Yes!  And the proof is that Y is compatible with it!"  That's the kind of reasoning that FARMS is often accused of employing.  The fact that we don't actually make that kind of argument has apparently left a vacuum into which others are rushing.

And if your first statement had been true, you might have a point.

But there is no evidence of any preliminary draft.  That's what I was asking for.  That's what Mighty C thinks he was supplying.  But that's what he didn't supply.

The Lucy Mack Smith quote is evidence that he knew about elements involved in the Book of Mormon before he engaged in translating. I would call this mental drafting with divine assistance. It is true that MC did not supply evidence of any kind of drafting. That is why I supplied it. This does not mean that I agree with MC in all particulars.

Evidence that he "could have" is not evidence that he did.  That he "could have" is logically possible even without supporting evidence.  Mighty C thought he was supplying evidence that Joseph began the composition before the period normally accepted for that.  But he didn't.  Lucy Mack Smith's statement is compatible both with the idea of advance plotting and with the idea of no advance plotting.  But a piece of evidence that doesn't make one theory more probable than the other is not a relevant piece of evidence when the task at hand is to distinguish between the two theories.

Well, my idea of what was going on is not precisely the same as MC's. Knowledge of modes of warfare and worship implies the existence of some level of narrative. Lucy Mack Smith's statement suggests that Joseph was involved in the process of working on the contents of the Book of Mormon in advance of retrieving the plates. It certainly increases the likelihood he was over the likelihood he was not.

Mighty C brought up the idea of plot formation.  He even mentioned his remarkable knowledge of the plots of the old Star Wars movies, as evidence that it would be easy for him to write a quarter-million word book on the subject within two months or so.  I believe that he may be working on that very project even as we speak.

And I am sure he will pick up on this line of argument should he want to. I am not MC, and this is not my position.

Back when Joseph Smith wrote a fictional Book of Mormon.

I'm sorry. What can I do to help you out? Tell you he didn't?

Are you unfamiliar with the Martin Harris story?  Joseph apparently could not translate without either a seer stone or the Urim and Thummim.  He used each of them at different times.  He clearly seems not to have needed both together.

Talk about nit-picking.

[Dale]

I just feel that some of these persons who leave such testimonies in those places have an axe to grind.

You just nailed what these stories really are. They are every bit as faith based and religion infused as any other testimony they mock. They just have their own version of being born again. Why they can't see that is what is worrisome as they attempt to instruct others.

We have a vocal ex-Community of Christ crowd. They tend to become Evangelicals. They get recruited to lecture on the errors of their former faith. They are no doubt sincere about the doubts & questions, and issues they were having. But if I resolved my questions enough to retain Book of Mormon belief they could have also. But I see some ex-Restoration people as discussing issues with a bit of hostility that sometimes bothers me. I really am for only friendly discussions as the negative I am right & you are wrong kind of discussion is no benifit to them, or me.

On the Book of Abraham discussion about evidence we get a lot of difference of opinion. I admit & can't convince some people, and I accept that. Maybe some day we can come to agreement.

[James Clifford Miller]

As usual, Daniel has a fair amount of valid points. As a regular participant on "The Board That Cannot Be Named," I see a fair amount of the kind of nonsense he mentioned.

However, the point is still valid, I think, about FARMS being mentioned in exit stories as a reason for leaving the Church by exmormons. And, rather than being like those medieval scholars who sat around in their cloisters arguing over how many teeth a horse had, using logic and quoting obscure sources, why not just go out and find some horses and count their teeth? Why not log onto those exmormon websites and read the comments yourself? And maybe count how many mention FARMS as helping them decide to leave the Church. And maybe read their reasons?

Just a suggestion.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[Daniel Peterson]

Which is why I didn't stop there. I went on to say that modes of worship and warfare provide some evidence of narrative formation.

They don't, necessarily. A snapshot would tell you a lot about a mode or worship or a mode of warfare. A very brief video clip would tell you even more, but would fall far short of any kind of significant narration.

The Lucy Mack Smith quote is evidence that he knew about elements involved in the Book of Mormon before he engaged in translating. I would call this mental drafting with divine assistance.

On the basis of what evidence? You can call it anything you like, of course, but Lucy Mack Smith's comment provides no evidence for "mental drafting." At most, it provides some facts that might be consistent with "mental drafting."

It is true that MC did not supply evidence of any kind of drafting. That is why I supplied it.

Please give me a link to the place where you provided this supposed evidence.

Knowledge of modes of warfare and worship implies the existence of some level of narrative.

I have some knowledge of modes of worship in Italian Catholicism, and a vague idea, from having seen the Swiss Guards at the Vatican many times and been in a few Renaissance-period armories in Italy and Austria and the United Kingdom, of the mode of warfare during the Renaissance. Nonetheless, I have not the slightest idea for the plot of any novel about warfare and worship during the quattrocento.

Lucy Mack Smith's statement suggests that Joseph was involved in the process of working on the contents of the Book of Mormon in advance of retrieving the plates.

No it doesn't. It is consistent with that idea, but it is also consistent with his own account.

It certainly increases the likelihood he was over the likelihood he was not.

No it doesn't.

Are you unfamiliar with the Martin Harris story?

[Dale]

You can't jump from being an imaginitve story teller to converting your story into book form easily. Let's take a writer blind-fold them & tell them to dictate a perfect large book to us? Could they do a good several hundred page book without having to extensively re-write it later?

[DonBradley]

You can't jump from being an imaginitve story teller to converting your story into book form easily. Let's take a writer blind-fold them & tell them to dictate a perfect large book to us? Could they do a good several hundred page book without having to extensively re-write it later?

I'm not sure what on earth blindfolding has to do with it. Joseph Smith had the sentences he dictated read back to him as he went along.

Also, some writers do not revise. By her own account, at least, Arundhati Roy composed her remarkable, Booker-Prize-winning novel The God of Small Things without making any revisions. (This was her first book, btw.)

Don Bradley

[Hyrum Page]

They don't, necessarily.

[Daniel Peterson]

They don't, necessarily.

[DonBradley]

If what you said was a nit, then my contradiction of it, I suppose, is nit-picking.

I can't help picturing here that supreme example of cooperation in the animal kingdom - primate grooming.

Hyrum P,

I agree with Dan P that what Lucy describes is consistent with a visual experience that JS was recounting. But I'm not sure why it would merely limited to snapshot. Jonathan Thompson, a believer in Joseph Smith's ability as a seer, recounted his seeing through the stone two Indians fighting over a treasure, the first murdering the second, and the spirit of the second becoming the guardian of the treasure. If JS was reporting seeing narratives through the stone in a treasure-digging context, I'm not sure why he wouldn't have reported seeing narratives in BoM-recovery context as well. And seeing their "mode" of warfare suggests seeing actual fighting - i.e., battles, campaigns. These too would be narratives. Most such narratives would probably be brief, and, if the information were purely visual, would not include such details as the names of the individuals and groups participating. But IF Joseph Smith later composed the Book of Mormon narrative, such stories would almost certainly have served as grist for the mill. If Joseph saw or reported seeing fine details of Nephite material culture and lifestyle, and specific events in their history, he could very well have seen or reported seeing the building of ships in the Old World, a migration from the Tower of Babel, the destruction of entire peoples, the coming of Christ, etc. - i.e., elements that would provide a larger narrative framework within which to place the more specific narratives.

And whether he saw these major elements of the narrative framework or not, Joseph Smith is supposed to have learned the broadest outlines of BoM history from the angel in 1823 - e.g., that Israelites had come to the New World, divided into groups, kept records, waged wars of extermination, etc. These reports coupled with the cultural and likely small-narrative reports he offered his family from September to November 1823 would have provided a nice beginning point for plotting out the narrative as a whole over the next four a half years, on the hypothesis that JS composed the book gradually over that time.

This actually isn't what I think happened, but I find it a plausible scenario. Whether the Lucy Mack Smith reports provide "evidence" for the scenario is not, IMO, the important question. What they clearly do show is that JS would have had material to work with as early as 1823, if he were composing the narrative gradually over time.

Don Bradley

[Hyrum Page]

But, as a matter of fact, an angelically bestowed vision does seem to me comparable to a multi-media extravaganza.

[why me]

As usual, Daniel has a fair amount of valid points.

[Hyrum Page]

And whether he saw these major elements of the narrative framework or not, Joseph Smith is supposed to have learned the broadest outlines of BoM history from the angel in 1823 - e.g., that Israelites had come to the New World, divided into groups, kept records, waged wars of extermination, etc. These reports coupled with the cultural and likely small-narrative reports he offered his family from September to November 1823 would have provided a nice beginning point for plotting out the narrative as a whole over the next four a half years, on the hypothesis that JS composed the book gradually over that time.

I guess that pretty much settles it then. Whether from the material reported to Lucy Mack Smith et al. or the other sources you allude to, there was plenty of material provided before the plates were retrieved to contribute to the final product--the English translation of the Book of Mormon.

[DonBradley]

Another point to be noted here is that evidence is anything that makes a hypothesis more (or less) likely. While JS's reporting details of Nephite worship, warfare, and the like in 1823 is not evidence that helps us decide between the gradual-composition hypothesis and the antiquity hypothesis, these are not the only two theories, and this information does constitute evidence strengthening the former hypothesis, since the gradual composition of the Book of Mormon by JS from 1823 to 1828 or 1829 is more probable if JS definitely possessed information he could work from in 1823 than it would be if he did not clearly have such information.

IOW, Lucy Mack Smith reports don't constitute evidence useful in deciding between the antiquity hypothesis and 1823-1828 composition hypothesis. Since these are not the only two hypotheses, and since the latter hypothesis is decidedly more likely given the Lucy Mack Smith report, it still has value as evidence favoring that hypothesis over and against the total field of possible hypotheses.

Don Bradley

[Hyrum Page]

Another point to be noted here is that evidence is anything that makes a hypothesis more (or less) likely.

This is my understanding of the term. I am getting the feeling that some require that a single evidence independently prove something before it can be considered evidence. Until then it is only "consistent" with a hypothesis. I am puzzled by this.

IOW, Lucy Mack Smith reports don't constitute evidence useful in deciding between the antiquity hypothesis and 1823-1828 composition hypothesis. Since these are not the only two hypotheses, and since the latter hypothesis is decidedly more likely given the Lucy Mack Smith report, it still has value as evidence favoring that hypothesis over and against the total field of possible hypotheses.

Yes. And my point is not that Joseph Smith simply composed the Book of Mormon out of whole cloth. I am more interested in what the term "translate" can mean. I know that it has been taken in the sense of rendering text of one language into another language, but the Lord's instructions to Oliver Cowdery, for instance, suggest something far more creative and interesting:

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.

Here we see someone who has no knowledge of the ancient language in question pondering deeply about what the text says. Such an exercise must involve a great deal of imagination. The confirmation of the Spirit provides direction in the choices the "translator" makes. Given the fact that Joseph Smith was already given the background or outline of the history of these ancient Americans, his choices in translation (i.e. the formation of the narrative) would have been much more informed than Cowdery's. The "translation" process Smith engages in is obviously much more complicated than most seem to conceive it.