A Bible! A Bible! How Would Js Hide A Bible?

[DonBradley]

look emma, no eyes!!

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the Bible down on the floor between Joseph's boots?

Don

[Jerubaal]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the Bible down on the floor between Joseph's boots?

Don

Actually, it's hidden beneath the floorboards, and he is looking through the cracks.

[Chris Smith]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the Bible down on the floor between Joseph's boots?

Don

I think he had it printed on the inside of his contact lenses.

[DonBradley]

Actually, it's hidden beneath the floorboards, and he is looking through the cracks.

Well, he did hide the plates under the floorboards once, so why not a Bible...?

CK:

I think he had it printed on the inside of his contact lenses.

OK. I'm going to take this as my working hypothesis.

But it raises another important question--why did the angel provide Joseph Smith with spectacles for reading the plates? Surely the inhabitants of the celestial world had already discovered contacts!

Don

[Jaybear]

Don, is it fair to say that you believe the BOM was a fraud, but that you have ruled out, in you mind, the possibility that Oliver was part of the fraud.

Oliver didn't have a farm. So why spend all that time trying to dupe him?

Wouldn't it be easier for JS to find a co-conspirator, than to spend endless months pretending to read the book of mormon out of the bottom of the hat to an honest, but gullible scribe?

Didnt the process speed up considerably, when Oliver was the scribe, rather than Martin (the one that owned a farm). How does one become more proficient at reading words which appear at the bottom of a hat.

Wasn't the blanket put up not between oliver and JS, but so that people walking past, couldn't see what was happened?

Is it a coincidence that after Martin (the one the farm) leaves the group, Oliver, JS and David then claim they were visited by the angel bearing the plates?

What is the possiblity that JS can convince three scribes (and Whitmer) that God would strike them dead if they looked at the plates. I realize that LDS readily believe that story, and know that JS was telling the truth, but that's because they already believe JS is a prophet. At this point in history, he had done nothing to convince a rationale skeptical person that he had gold plates, but that God wouldnt let anyone but JS see them.

Don: I agree that large conspiracies become unmanageable. This is one reason I reject the Spalding theory. It's also a reason I don't think there was a conspiracy surrounding the translation of the plates or the Book of Mormon witness testimonies.

I disagree, especially when the conspirators are friends and family members. That is why during the course of a trial, the judge will instruct a jury that they are not compelled to accept the testimony of an alibi witness at face value.

[It occurs to me . . .]

I think he had it printed on the inside of his contact lenses.

I think a palm pilot in the hat is the easiest explanation. Easy to see in the dark, the full text of the KJV right there at hand . . . if the Lord could make a Liahona, surely He could provide!

[It occurs to me . . .]

I think a palm pilot in the hat is the easiest explanation. Easy to see in the dark, the full text of the KJV right there at hand . . . if the Lord could make a Liahona, surely He could provide!

Here I found an early prototype made completely out of butter, I think this demonstrates that the theory is possible in his time and place:

[Jerubaal]

I think he had it printed on the inside of his contact lenses.

I'd go with the "written on a grain of rice" theory.

[DonBradley]

I'd go with the "written on a grain of rice" theory.

Wait! Wasn't the recently translated sealed portion written on the back of a gold bug?!

HMMMMM...

[The Nehor]

It's also important to note that plagiarism is a modern invention. The Ancients didn't cite sources all the time. The Bible sometimes does, sometimes doesn't. Also the Book of Mormon gives full credit for the text to Isaiah.

[DonBradley]

Don, is it fair to say that you believe the BOM was a fraud, but that you have ruled out, in you mind, the possibility that Oliver was part of the fraud.

You could put it that way.

Oliver didn't have a farm. So why spend all that time trying to dupe him?

Did everyone Joseph converted have a farm? I can't see why gaining investment in the Book of Mormon should be assumed Joseph Smith's only motive.

Wouldn't it be easier for JS to find a co-conspirator, than to spend endless months pretending to read the book of mormon out of the bottom of the hat to an honest, but gullible scribe?

I don't know. Would it be easier? And how do you know? Also, would it be as effective? Would it be less--or more--dangerous to the project? If we're going to argue from ungrounded assumptions about what would be easier, then what's to stop someone else from making an opposing assumption?

Didnt the process speed up considerably, when Oliver was the scribe, rather than Martin (the one that owned a farm).

Actually, no--at least not that we know of. Dan Vogel has shown that Joseph Smith's description of the "116 pages" of the lost manuscript was actually based on the 116-page length of the text used to replace that manuscript (the "Small Plates"). IOW, we don't know the length of the manuscript dictated to Martin Harris, and therefore have no basis for comparing his copying rate with that of Oliver Cowdery.

Wasn't the blanket put up not between oliver and JS, but so that people walking past, couldn't see what was happened?

To the best that we can tell, there was only a blanket up for part of the time that Martin Harris acted as scribe. No one else reports a blanket, and some other scribes deny the presence of a blanket. Harris' accounts, however, sometimes report a blanket and sometimes appear to describe a translation process with no blanket.

Is it a coincidence that after Martin (the one the farm) leaves the group, Oliver, JS and David then claim they were visited by the angel bearing the plates?

I'm not sure this would have the special significance you obviously give it. But as long as we're bringing conspirators on board, why not have Martin Harris be one of them? He potentially stood to profit from the sale of the book, as his wife and sister-in-law/cousin both testified he intended to do.

And once you start bringing David Whitmer on board as a conspirator, I think you lose a great deal of credibility. While your theories may sound good to you standing at a considerable distance from the specifics of early LDS history, they jibe poorly with the nitty-gritty. David Whitmer is overwhelmingly left out of conspiracy theories because 1) he didn't stand to gain anything from the Book of Mormon, and, in fact, didn't gain anything, although he sacrificed a great deal, and even bore testimony of the book before a mob threatening to shoot him; and, 2) his testimony over more than half a century was absolutely firm and unwavering, convincing everyone who has left any record of hearing his testimony that he believed it. Scores of interview reports are available, and have been published by Lyndon Cook and Dan Vogel. These are not difficult to get hold of; and I doubt that you'd consider David Whitmer a conspirator if you read them.

What is the possiblity that JS can convince three scribes (and Whitmer) that God would strike them dead if they looked at the plates.

You appear to assume that Joseph Smith had average or below-average skills of persuasion. Where did you get that idea? Joseph Smith had already convinced a number of treasure diggers that he had a genuine gift and had located numerous treasures--although not one of these was ever actually obtained; and he later brought tens of thousands to his banner. And you don't think he could convince Cowdery and Whitmer? Who were these guys--Voltaire and Tom Paine? They weren't fools, but also weren't noted for their religious skepticism. I don't see the insuperable obstacle you do here.

I realize that LDS readily believe that story, and know that JS was telling the truth, but that's because they already believe JS is a prophet. At this point in history, he had done nothing to convince a rationale skeptical person that he had gold plates, but that God wouldnt let anyone but JS see them.

You make an excellent point here--Joseph Smith had not yet established himself as a prophet. This was the task that faced him at this early point in his religious career. Where I think you go astray is in assuming that the only way he could realistically have done this is by bringing on co-conspirators. This view may indicate one-track thinking on this issue on your part, but it evidences little else.

I disagree, especially when the conspirators are friends and family members. That is why during the course of a trial, the judge will instruct a jury that they are not compelled to accept the testimony of an alibi witness at face value.

What friends exactly do you think were co-conspirators? Cowdery and Whitmer both met Smith during the translation period, and each was a convert before ever meeting Joseph Smith and becoming his friend.

BTW, you're confusing proposing possible motives of an alleged co-conspirator with actual evidence for their playing a part in a conspiracy.

I'd encourage you, Jaybear, to dig further into early Mormon history. As I said before, what looks black and white and simple from a distance is much grainier and more complex up close. Simple "it's obvious" shoot-from-the-hip theories are no substitute for analyzing the evidence. The devil, or God, or maybe even Joseph Smith, is in the details.

Don

[ed2276]

Ed,

Thanks for the heads up on Mike's article. He has obviously done a fair amount of "homework." It would be very convenient for me if Mike had covered the issue comprehensively, but he has not.

Here a few things I see that Mike has overlooked:

First, the notion that Joseph Smith used a Bible in the translation is not a criticism. It was proposed over a century ago by LDS General Authority B. H. Roberts.

Second, translation and transmission errors of the King James Version are perpetuated in the Book of Mormon. This has been extensively documented by David P. Wright in his paper in American Apocrypha. Some of these errors have been acknowledged by LDS scholar John Tvedtnes in his lengthy review of BoM Isaiah variants.

Third, despite disclaimers to the contrary, the italics are an obvious issue. The research papers cited by Royal Skousen show that about 40% of the variants in Book of Mormon Isaiah are at the italicized portions of the KJV text. Since only approximately 2% of the total KJV Isaiah text is italicized, variants occur at these points at a rate 20 times that expected by chance, indicating a clear relationship between italics and variants. Notably, Tvedtnes again acknowledges the BoM text's reaction to some of the KJV italics.

Fourth, none of the translation witnesses deny Joseph Smith's use of a Bible--none of them comment on it at all. The witnesses state that Joseph Smith used the seerstone, and read the translation from it. But this general method in no way precludes his having occasionally employed another. Only a fraction of the Book of Mormon text (I believe about 5%) is in the form of extensive biblical quotation, meaning that if Joseph Smith had used a KJV for these portions, he would still have used the seerstone 95% of the time. The latter method would thus be the one observed by most of the translation witnesses, and the one observed most even by those who did observe the occasional use of a Bible.

Only two of the translation witnesses comment on the possible use of a source text of any kind. Emma Smith states that her husband used no manuscript while she acted as his scribe. And David Whitmer, in response to the Spalding theory, states that Joseph Smith did not use a pre-written manuscript. Neither of these testimonies denies that Joseph Smith used a Bible. From the specifics of Emma's testimony, we learn that she was the scribe for the opening section of the lost Book of Lehi. Since we have no indication that this section included Bible quotations, there is no reason to see her testimony as precluding the use of a Bible for later portions of the manuscript dictated to other scribes. And David Whitmer explicitly addressed only Joseph Smith's use of a previously written manuscript, like the Spalding manuscript. This is unrelated to whether Smith employed a Bible in dictating the biblical sections of the Book of Mormon.

Other translation witnesses, including the scribe for the biblical portions of the Book of Mormon--Oliver Cowdery--simply left no testimony on the matter at all, leaving completely open the possibility that a Bible was used.

Given the Book of Mormon's reaction to the KJV italics, we would be driven to posit the use of a King James Bible even if the translation witnesses denied its use. But, in fact, they do not.

It's quite implausible to me that God would have so disproportionally tinkered with the KJV italics, and left in a number of KJV errors, while transmitting BoM Isaiah to Joseph Smith through the seerstone. So I, like B. H. Roberts, John Tvedtnes, and others, am stuck with Joseph Smith sometimes employing a King James Bible in the Book of Mormon dictation process. The question then becomes not if, but how. And that's the question that interests me here.

Regards,

Don

Hi Don ,

Thank you for the reply. You do make some good points to consider.

As for Emma , you make a good point as to the limited time she acted as scribe for a

that limited portion of the text , which may not have contained many , if any , biblical text. It may have , we simply don't know because the text is lost to us. So , at least for that smaller portion of the translation Emma's witness of Joseph that "He had neither manuscript nor book to read from." would tend toward this being a utilization of only the seerstone , which she said was the only method he employed during that time "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."(."(Royal Skousen (1990), â??Towards a Critical Edition of the Book of Mormon,â? BYU Studies v30:1 (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, Winter, 1990), 41-69.)

It also seems that when Emma wasn't actually translating she was at times in the room while translation was on-going. Emma said ," Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work."(supra , pg 51) and during those periods of time she denied Joseph had used any other source material.

David Whitmer also reported that Joseph had no other means at his disposal while translating. â??Mr. Whitmer emphatically asserts as did Harris and Cowdery, that while Smith was dictating the translation he had no manuscript notes or other means of knowledge save the seer stone and the characters as shown on the plates, he being present and cognizant how it was done.â?(Lyndon W. Cook ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Grandin Book Co., 1993). While there is no explicit denial by Whitmer that the Bible was used as a reference in the translation process , his statement which was exclusionary of "other means of knowledge" except for the seerstone and the gold plates themselves would imply that the Bible was excluded as a source.

Still , I remember from my reading , but I can't remember where , that there was a time when Joseph was translating from the plates using the seer stone and came across the fact that Jerusalem was a walled city. Astonished at the revelation that Jerusalem had walls around it , Joseph stopped translating until he and his scribe , I don't remember who that was , found a Bible and Joseph confirmed that Jerusalem did indeed have walls around it. It must have been in the early stages of translation as the mention of the walls of Jerusalem is found at 1 Ne. 4: 4

Now when I had spoken these words, they were yet wroth, and did still continue to murmur; nevertheless they did follow me up until we came without the walls of Jerusalem.

So , there is evidence in that anecdote that Joseph had a Bible available as a reference resource early in the translation process. How extensively he used it in the actual translation process , if he used it at all , is , as you note , an open question.

I have not seen all of the statements made by all those who had acted as scribe or had witnessed the translation so I don't know whether they in some cases or no case specifically deny the use of a Bible as a translation resource. If they just gave a general statement that manuscripts were not used then you are right , an argument from silence cannot be made that a Bible was not used anymore than the opposite argument can be made the the Bible was used. In such a case we would have a stalemate , with no means of knowing one way or the other.

I'll have to do more research into the matter , as you have given me some good points to look at...italics etc.

I would just point out one thing which did impress me in my reading as it relates to whether Joseph may have used the Bible as a reference. That would be in the comparison between Jesus' statments in the biblical Sermon on the Mount with His statements in the BoM Sermon at the Temple. The comparison text would be Matthew 5:22.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment

This is given in the BoM at 3 Ne. 12: 22 as ,

But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment

It is believed that the KJV inclusion of "without a cause" in the text of Matthew is an errant reading and in the earlier translations such as the Tyndale and Luther Bibles the phrase "without a cause", was exluded. Joseph , if he used a bible as reference material for this passage , would have had to have used a version which did not contain this phrase , as opposed to using the KJV. Now , the question needs to be answered , how many versions of the Bible did Joseph have available to him at the time he was translating? Did he have Wycliffe , Tyndale , Luther or some other translation which excluded "without a cause" from the text? Why did he use the KJV at one point as a reference and then switch to using a different bible translation as reference material later in the BoM?

Interesting questions.

Please forgive the tone of my earlier posts doubting the value of your thread. Sometimes...many times...I start out of the gate from a position of rashness. A fault I am trying to correct.

[DonBradley]

Hi Ed,

I don't think I took offense at the tone of your earlier posts. If I did, I've forgotten. In any case, I appreciate both your apology and the very friendly tone of your latest post.

I can understand Latter-day Saints being offended at my posts, or doubting the value of the questions that interest me. I am definitely a nonbeliever, and my interest in Mormonism is intellectual rather than spiritual. Because I've previously come to a position of nonbelief, I necessarily now reason as a nonbeliever. And since I hold a fairly secure belief that Mormonism is human in origin, I look for naturalistic explanations of things Latter-day Saints will find supernatural explanations for. But for this same reason, I'm no longer particularly interested in the debates over whether Mormonism is true. I don't want to build a case that Mormonism isn't what it purports to be, or engage in fruitless arguments over the issue. Rather, I want to understand Mormonism, in terms that make sense to me given the conclusions of my earlier inquiry into its truthfulness. As such, I bat around the details of earliest Mormonism in terms of my own questions, perspectives, and interests, while acknowledging that there is plenty of room for faith.

My approach to the use of a Bible in the Book of Mormon necessarily builds on my view that the latter is a 19th-century work. But many of the same questions might naturally arise for Latter-day Saint interpreters. And there's no reason why a Latter-day Saint can't reconcile the use of a KJ Bible in the Book of Mormon with its divine inspiration and the antiquity of its primary source.

I've worn myself out this evening, but will get back to responding to your post tomorrow.

Regards,

Don

[Jaybear]

I don't know. Would it be easier? And how do you know? Also, would it be as effective? Would it be less--or more--dangerous to the project? If we're going to argue from ungrounded assumptions about what would be easier, then what's to stop someone else from making an opposing assumption?

Isnt that the point raised by your question, "How would JS hide a bible?". You are saying, its one thing to presume that JS had the gift to weave a story, but its quite another to presume he had extraordiary ability to memorize text. That would be much harder. Don, are you the only one that is allowed to draw on experience and common sense, to decide what would be "easier" than memorizing biblical texts, and therefore provides a better explanation for how the King James bible worked itself into the Book of Mormon. If so, then why even ask the question.

As I see it, once you come to the conclusion that JS was a con man, you must also reject the "miracles" that OC claimed to have witnessed. You can then either assume that OC was duped, or was a coconspirator. To say the either or just the latter assumption is ungrounded, ignores the fact the assumpiton is GROUNDED in the fact the the book of mormon is not authentic.

[Jaybear]

You appear to assume that Joseph Smith had average or below-average skills of persuasion. Where did you get that idea?

Wait a minute. Above you were critical of me for having assumed that it would be easier for JS to PERSUADE others to join in on a conspiracy than to DUPE them. Now you are chastizing me for underestimating JS's persuasive skills.

Where I think you go astray is in assuming that the only way he could realistically have done this is by bringing on co-conspirators. This view may indicate one-track thinking on this issue on your part, but it evidences little else.

I did not say it was the "only way," I said it would be easier to bring in a coconspirator, than to fool someone day in and day out. I accept the possibility that OC was duped, I just don't think its the best explanation.

What friends exactly do you think were co-conspirators? Cowdery and Whitmer both met Smith during the translation period, and each was a convert before ever meeting Joseph Smith and becoming his friend.

When a magician invites an audience member on stage and asks, "have we ever met before," do the audience member ever say yes?

Oh that is right. 170 years after the fact, there is no "evidence" that they met before, ergo they must be telling the truth.

[DonBradley]

Isnt that the point raised by your question, "How would JS hide a bible?". You are saying, its one thing to presume that JS had the gift to weave a story, but its quite another to presume he had extraordiary ability to memorize text. That would be much harder. Don, are you the only one that is allowed to draw on experience and common sense, to decide what would be "easier" than memorizing biblical texts, and therefore provides a better explanation for how the King James bible worked itself into the Book of Mormon. If so, then why even ask the question.

The difficulty of memorizing lengthy texts is part of everyday experience. The relative difficulty of converting a new adherent to the fact that one is a prophet and finding a co-conspirator to one's prophetic claims is not. If you're going to argue from relative difficulty, you'll want to do more than merely assume that it's just obvious the latter is much easier than the former when there is nothing obvious about this at all. To find someone who is willing to build his life around your prophetic claims, although he knows they are false, and will do so at great sacrifice, but without any obvious payoff, doesn't seem nearly as easy to me as it does to you.

Oliver Cowdery didn't profit financially from the Book of Mormon. In fact, he struggled just to get by for the rest of his life after getting involved with it. And David Whitmer was similarly left out of the financial loop on the Book of Mormon 'conspiracy.' Don't conspirators usually get a share of the take??

Your inability to imagine a nonconspiratorial explanation for the Mormon involvement of Cowdery and Whitmer doesn't constitute evidence of their participation in a conspiracy.

As I see it, once you come to the conclusion that JS was a con man, you must also reject the "miracles" that OC claimed to have witnessed. You can then either assume that OC was duped, or was a coconspirator. To say the either or just the latter assumption is ungrounded, ignores the fact the assumpiton is GROUNDED in the fact the the book of mormon is not authentic.

Fair point! But the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud doesn't dictate whether one should believe that Oliver Cowdery was genuine convinced or part of a conspiracy. This is still to be decided on the grounds of other evidence. He cannot simply be assumed a co-conspirator because he didn't have money and Martin Harris did.

I admit that Oliver Cowdery is the most likely co-conspirator if there was a conspiracy. But, again, this doesn't mean there was a conspiracy.

If, as you suggest, Oliver Cowdery was in on a "con," we would expect subsequent events to reveal his pecuniary motivation, etc. Instead, we find that Cowdery was willing to undertake lengthy missions to the Indians and serve in the church without financial compensation, and that he maintained his Book of Mormon testimony even when doing so could only damage his career as a lawyer in non-Mormon Tiffin, Ohio.

And Oliver Cowdery's 1829 letters, including one to Joseph Smith, far from revealing a co-conspirator, reveal a mind enamored with the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Read them and judge for yourself.

To repeat, whatever may be "obvious" when the events of early Mormonism are viewed from a great distance, the details complicate things considerably. And it is those details, rather than the broadest, most impersonal outlines, that must be used to build a compelling case for Oliver Cowdery as either convert or conspirator.

Don

[Jaybear]

If, as you suggest, Oliver Cowdery was in on a "con," we would expect subsequent events to reveal his pecuniary motivation, etc.

Not necessarily. If OC was in on the "con", I would expect two things. One he would approach the event as an "outsider" who had no overt connection with JS. Two, any financial consideration he received for his role in the conspiracy would be kept under the table.

Moreover, pointing out that oliver struggled financially, is relevant, only if his financial struggle was expected.

At the time this venture was concocted, the best selling book in history was the bible. JS was writing a new bible, one in which he held the copyright.

If you're going to argue from relative difficulty, you'll want to do more than merely assume that it's just obvious the latter is much easier than the former when there is nothing obvious about this at all. To find someone who is willing to build his life around your prophetic claims, although he knows they are false, and will do so at great sacrifice, but without any obvious payoff, doesn't seem nearly as easy to me as it does to you.

You are conflating what happed, with what Oliver might have expected his role in the conspiracy might entail. Did Oliver think he was helping to write a Book, which would be sold for great profit, or did he understand he was gettting in on the ground floor of a new religion? Finding someone to conspire for the former, would be much easier than for the latter.

By suggesting that JS would have to find someone "willing to build his life around [his] prophetic claims." you are not weighing the alternatives, you are putting your thumb on the scale, deliberately making the alternative to your theory more challenging.

Instead, we find that Cowdery was willing to undertake lengthy missions to the Indians and serve in the church without financial compensation, and that he maintained his Book of Mormon testimony even when doing so could only damage his career as a lawyer in non-Mormon Tiffin, Ohio.

And Oliver Cowdery's 1829 letters, including one to Joseph Smith, far from revealing a co-conspirator, reveal a mind enamored with the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Read them and judge for yourself.

First, admitting that he participated in a scheme to defraud others, would do far more damage to his legal career, as it would be grounds for his disbarment, not to mention imprisonment. As a general rule, people do not make public confessions of crimes, unless its serves their better interest, ie reduced sentence, parole.

How many bank robberies do you think are solved because criminal want to clear their conscience.

As for the letters, I would agree with you. If the letters were private, sent with the understanding that they would never be made public, then the sentiments expressed in the letter would offer compelling (but not necessarily conclusive) evidence to support your assumption that OC was duped.

How did they become part of the public record? Do you have a link to these letters?

To repeat, whatever may be "obvious" when the events of early Mormonism are viewed from a great distance, the details complicate things considerably. And it is those details, rather than the broadest, most impersonal outlines, that must be used to build a compelling case for Oliver Cowdery as either convert or conspirator.

Don

The devil is in the details. My mind is not closed to the possibility that OC was duped or as you say converted. The letters you mentioned are not only a start, but if sent in private would be (to me) be the most compelling evidence on this issue. I would enjoy reading them.

Bear in mind that to support your theory that he was "converted", JS would have had to have duped him into believing, among other things, that:

1. God would strike him dead if he looked at the plates without permission;

2. JS was reading words on a stone in his hat;

3. It was acceptable to use a corrupted KJV bible, in the book of mormon, when the alternative was taking the effort to translate from a original source via divine means.

4. He was visited and baptized by John the Baptist,

5. Angels appeared in the woods and showed him the plates.

Admittedly, I am a natural skeptic, and a lawyer so perhaps I underestimate man's capacity, especially those with a legal mind, to be duped.

At the same time, are you willing to admit that your perception of JS persuasive powers might be influenced by the fact that for part of your life, you yourself believed that JS was a true prophet,and OC was a true follower?

[Sargon]

The whole proposal set forth seems almost like an oxymoron. On the one hand, Oliver was an intelligent and pious man whom Joseph was smart enough to fool into thinking that he was a prophet even while they copied straight from the KJV of the bible. On the other hand, Joseph was stupid enough to think he could fool anyone into thinking that he was prophet after doing a thing like that.

In other words, the whole idea of tricking Oliver seems pretty foolish on Joseph's part, and if he was smart enough to pull that off, he should have been smart enough to not try it in the first place.

Sargon

[DonBradley]

Not necessarily. If OC was in on the "con", I would expect two things. One he would approach the event as an "outsider" who had no overt connection with JS.

So Oliver's apparently having not met Joseph Smith previously becomes evidence that he had known him previously and had formed a conspiracy? This is neither the most obvious nor the most likely interpretation.

Two, any financial consideration he received for his role in the conspiracy would be kept under the table.

In this case it was kept so far under the table that Oliver remained poor.

Moreover, pointing out that oliver struggled financially, is relevant, only if his financial struggle was expected.

???

Could you restate that in another way?

At the time this venture was concocted, the best selling book in history was the bible. JS was writing a new bible, one in which he held the copyright.

YES! Very good.

This plays into Joseph Smith's motives. But he alone held the copyright. It was not held by a pair, a group, a church. It was held by Joseph Smith individually.

You are conflating what happed, with what Oliver might have expected his role in the conspiracy might entail.

But you are merely guessing that Oliver ever expected a pay-off; and Oliver stayed with the church for several impoverished years, and even maintained his testimony of it when this was decidedly not to his advantage.

Did Oliver think he was helping to write a Book, which would be sold for great profit, or did he understand he was gettting in on the ground floor of a new religion? Finding someone to conspire for the former, would be much easier than for the latter.

Perhaps. But the Book of Mormon fails to show signs of having been composed by Oliver; Oliver did not hold the copyright and was not included in the January 1830 contract stipulating who got the proceeds from the Book of Mormon; appears to have not received money from the sale of the Book of Mormon; and maintained his testimony of it under adverse circumstances long after he could have hoped to profit by its sale, assuming he ever expected such a thing.

By suggesting that JS would have to find someone "willing to build his life around [his] prophetic claims." you are not weighing the alternatives, you are putting your thumb on the scale, deliberately making the alternative to your theory more challenging.

Actually, what I'm doing is painting a fuller picture of Oliver Cowdery's post-1829 life. Cowdery served missions to Indian Territory for the Book of Mormon; lived in relative povertry while devoting himself to the LDS church; identified himself as a witness to the Book of Mormon throughout the remainder of his life; bore testimony as a witness when it was against his own interest; and built his late-life plans once again around Mormonism.

First, admitting that he participated in a scheme to defraud others, would do far more damage to his legal career, as it would be grounds for his disbarment, not to mention imprisonment.

Are you sufficiently familiar with the laws of Ohio at the time period to make this determination? Besides, Cowdery would not have needed to admit "trying to defraud" others. He could merely state that Smith had deceived him; that he'd hallucinated; etc.

As a general rule, people do not make public confessions of crimes, unless its serves their better interest, ie reduced sentence, parole.

How many bank robberies do you think are solved because criminal want to clear their conscience.

Again, Oliver Cowdery would not have needed to confess a "crime" in order to free himself of the burden of his Mormon past. But rather than confess or merely try to skirt the issue, he reiterated his testimony.

BTW, if you don't think Oliver Cowdery could have made a better living by exposing the Mormon "conspiracy," then you're apparently not sufficiently familiar with the popularity of early Mormon expose's. E. D. Howe's 1834 book was enormously influential. John C. Bennett, who published a very successful book, traveled on the national lecture circuit, and went on to continuing career success thereafter. And several others published expose's of Mormonism during the 1830s and 1840s, suggesting that it was a financially remunerative field.

As for the letters, I would agree with you. If the letters were private, sent with the understanding that they would never be made public, then the sentiments expressed in the letter would offer compelling (but not necessarily conclusive) evidence to support your assumption that OC was duped.

How did they become part of the public record? Do you have a link to these letters?

You're right to include a caveat that the letters need to have not been intended for public distribution. The November 6, 1829 letter to Joseph Smith was written during Cowdery's copying of the Printer's Manuscript, and actually cites passages in the chapters Cowdery is otherwise known to have then been transcribing. (The connection of the transcription work to the content of the letter has been noted previously, and is explored thoroughly in a forthcoming paper by Grant Underwood.)

Since there was no church at the time, and since, on your reconstruction, Cowdery should not have been expecting an ecclesiastical career, but only profit from the sale of the book, there would have been no reason for Cowdery to believe his letters would become part of some official record. And, indeed, Cowdery's letters were never published or quoted by JS, OC, or the church itself.

The relevant letters are as follows:

Letter of Oliver Cowdery to Hyrum Smith, 14 June 1829, Fayette, New York

(copy in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, LDS archives)

(Letter of Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, 22 October 1829, Harmony, Pennsylvania

(copy in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, LDS archives)

Letter of Oliver Cowdery to Joseph Smith, 6 November 1829, Manchester, New York

(copy in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, LDS archives)

Letter of Oliver Cowdery to Joseph Smith, 28 December 1829, Manchester, New York

(copy in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, LDS archives)

I have not yet located the texts of the letters online. They are contained in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, Volumes 1 and 2. If Dan returns to this thread, he may be able to point us to online texts.

The devil is in the details. My mind is not closed to the possibility that OC was duped or as you say converted. The letters you mentioned are not only a start, but if sent in private would be (to me) be the most compelling evidence on this issue. I would enjoy reading them.

OK, cool. I do think you would find them interesting, if nothing else.

Bear in mind that to support your theory that he was "converted", JS would have had to have duped him into believing, among other things, that:

1. God would strike him dead if he looked at the plates without permission;

While there are some early non-LDS sources claiming that JS warned that death was the penalty for unauthorized viewing of the plates, this reason isn't given in the relevant JS revelations or accounts from early LDS. OC was certainly told that God didn't want them to be shown, and may have simply believed this. And there is biblical precedent for persons being forbidden from seeing and viewing certain items, and being struck dead if they violate these prohibitions. So the idea needn't have been as alien to persons of a thoroughly biblical culture as it is to us.

2. JS was reading words on a stone in his hat;

Numerous persons of Smith's acquaintance were willing to invest money, time, and back-breaking labor on the belief that he had the gift of seeing things through his stone. They could be convinced, but Oliver Cowdery...? Oliver had apparently himself made use of a divining rod, and thus does not appear to have been skeptical of such things.

3. It was acceptable to use a corrupted KJV bible, in the book of mormon, when the alternative was taking the effort to translate from a original source via divine means.

This is actually a good one, and the topic of this thread. And, yes, I believe Oliver Cowdery was quite convinced of this.

4. He was visited and baptized by John the Baptist,

Visited, yes; baptized, no. JS and OC claimed to have received a visitation from John the Baptist, and to have then baptized one another.

On OC's belief in this, and how the experience came about, you may be interested in the recording of my 2006 Sunstone presentation.

5. Angels appeared in the woods and showed him the plates.

Yep.

Admittedly, I am a natural skeptic, and a lawyer so perhaps I underestimate man's capacity, especially those with a legal mind, to be duped.

Understood.

But I don't think your natural skepticism tells us whether Oliver Cowdery was a natural skeptic. Nor is it obvious to me that a person who later pursues a career in law is a natural skeptic. Are you, perhaps, familiar with the LDS scholars and apologists Richard L. Anderson, John W. Welch, and our very own Confidential Informant, all of whom are lawyers, and all of whom trust Joseph Smith implicitly, if not absolutely?

At the same time, are you willing to admit that your perception of JS persuasive powers might be influenced by the fact that for part of your life, you yourself believed that JS was a true prophet,and OC was a true follower?

I am willing to admit my obvious fallibility. But your guess regarding why I am convinced of Joseph Smith's persuasive powers is mistaken. That perception is the result of historical research I've conducted over the past couple years. Prior to that, my understanding was quite different.

Naturally, on this, as on any subject, I'm liable to be wrong. In fact, it's certain that I'm wrong on many facets of the questions at hand, though I don't know which ones. And if I did, I'd change my views accordingly. But that's the point of my continuing research, to refine my picture of what happened. Far from wanting to support an entrenched position, the entire goal of my research is to change my views--but only in the direction of greater accuracy and explanatory power.

I'm open to the idea of "co-conspirators." At present, I think it's likely that William Smith and John C. Bennett may have been "in the know," though perhaps not because Joseph Smith had "confessed" to them.

BTW, although I'm quite skeptical of your conspiracy view of the Book of Mormon, I think you have some interesting insights into Joseph Smith's own likely motivations.

Don

[SolarPowered]

Don,

Why do you feel that it is a problem that the italics are changed which greater frequency than the non-italic words? It makes complete sense that if the BoM is what it says it is, the italics would show more variation.

It makes sense only if you misunderstand why the italicized words were added and fail to look at the specific instances where they are varied.

Don,

Thank you for time you took to type out that reply. I now see that you do indeed have a studied, reasoned justification for your concern about the disproportionate changes to the KJV italic words. I also see that you had addressed this earlier in the thread--I apologize that I missed it as I was skimming to the end of the thread.

In reflecting on what I've read about the translation process (and I admit that I've again skimmed over what has come subsequent to your post that I'm replying to, so I may have missed something in this thread--I've been quite limited on time, but I did want to do yo the courtesy of responding to your post), I've realized that I don't know of any good reason to insist that a Bible wasn't present during the translation. I'm not aware of any of the participants stating that this was the case, nor are there any doctrinal points that require this. (The converse is also true--we have no testimony that a Bible was used for translation of biblical quotes.)

I think it would be very interesting to do a study of the words that were changed. Unfortunately, I don't know Hebrew, nor do I currently have the time to spend on such an effort. Perhaps someday... In the meantime, I'll guess I'll just have to file the italics away as something I'd like to understand better.

[DonBradley]

Hi SolarPowered,

I appreciate that open and very kind response.

FWIW, I don't know Hebrew either, and thus must greatly depend on the arguments and insights of others, as I am able to digest them.

I am impressed with both the statistically disproportional variation of the KJV-italicized words and by the specific cases of variation, as laid out mainly by David P. Wright, and to a lesser extent by John Tvedtnes.

I am also, as a non-specialist, impressed by what I see as a legitimate argument from authority. There have, to my knowledge, been four comprehensive analyses by specialists of the Book of Mormon Isaiah variants--by H. Grant Vest in his 1930s BYU M.A. thesis; by Wayne Ham in his 1960s BYU M.A. thesis; by John Tvedtnes in his 1980s working paper; and by David P. Wright in his American Apocrypha essay. Each of these authors concluded that Joseph Smith intentionally varied on at least some of the KJV italics. These analyses have been carried out, respectively, by a Latter-day Saint scholar working under Sidney B. Sperry, an RLDS scholar working at an LDS university, another Latter-day Saint and FARMS scholar, and a former LDS professor of the Hebrew Bible working at a secular university. That all, despite their widely varying positions on other topics, can agree that the Book of Mormon text sometimes purposely varies on the italicized portions of the KJV further impresses me, and suggests to me that variation on the KJV italics is something which--at the very least--ought to be taken seriously by students of the Book of Mormon.

KJV italic variation in the Book of Mormon is not a faith issue as such. It's a scholarly issue that can be addressed from either faithful LDS or naturalistic perspectives--perhaps with little difference in conclusions between the two.

Good luck in your further searches,

Don

[consiglieri]

So, again, I think there must have been a Bible actually present at the biblical portions of the dictation.

Don

Dear Don,

I have not read to the end of this thread, so forgive me if this question has already been asked:

If, as you propose, Joseph Smith had a Bible in front of him (for Isaiah, especially), and if he reacted with alterations especially in the italicized areas, it make me wonder the following:

1. Why would he think the italized portions especially susceptible to alteration (most Christians I know have no clue as to the meaning of the italics, and think they are meant to emphasize those words); and,

2. Did Joseph Smith then make his alterations on the fly, without the benefit of having written down beforehand what those alterations would be and where? This itself might have been a remarkable feat worthy of further investigation.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[DonBradley]

Consiglieri (which, btw, I can not only spell, but also pronounce! ),

You'll find my take on the reason for the italic variations as you continue in the thread. Basically, they were translator-added words, which I think JS knew. What I think he did not understand is that they were added to communicate things the Hebrew communicated without specific words--i.e., by grammatical structure. To someone aware of what the italicized words were, but not why they were added, the need for them would likely suggest that something was missing from the original Hebrew text--something that could be restored, whether legitimately or only putatively.

I do think Joseph Smith made his italic modifications on the fly, and that he composed the Book of Mormon text this way, with some pre-planning of structure and narrative. And you're certainly right that this would bear further exploration.

BTW, I appreciated your expressed judgment the other day that I try to be fair and thorough.

Don

[Jaybear]

So Oliver's apparently having not met Joseph Smith previously becomes evidence that he had known him previously and had formed a conspiracy?

No that is not my point. My only point is that statement by Oliver and JS that they had not met before is not inconsistent with the theory that Oliver was a conspirator. I am certainly not saying it proves or even provides evidence of a conspiracy. That would be foolish.

In this case it was kept so far under the table that Oliver remained poor.

Again, you are conflating actual results with plan. This is much like the argument I hear from apologists, that JS was killed, ergo he was a prophet. "Why else would he chose to lead a life that lead to his death? "

When Martin mortgaged his farm, was it a donation or a loan, that he expected to be repaid with profit when the book sold. Well, the book didn't sale, thus any promise or expectation of profit the Oliver had (over or under the table) was gone.

YES! Very good.

This plays into Joseph Smith's motives. But he alone held the copyright. It was not held by a pair, a group, a church. It was held by Joseph Smith individually.

But you are merely guessing that Oliver ever expected a pay-off; and Oliver stayed with the church for several impoverished years, and even maintained his testimony of it when this was decidedly not to his advantage.

Yes, I am guessing that Oliver expected a payoff. I suppose there are other ways to encourage him to participate in a fraud. Perhaps he was motivated by piety, ala Vogel's theory. There are other motivators, sex, power, friendship, blackmail, peer pressure.

Perhaps. But the Book of Mormon fails to show signs of having been composed by Oliver; Oliver did not hold the copyright and was not included in the January 1830 contract stipulating who got the proceeds from the Book of Mormon; appears to have not received money from the sale of the Book of Mormon; and maintained his testimony of it under adverse circumstances long after he could have hoped to profit by its sale, assuming he ever expected such a thing.

The existence of a contract is a fact would militate towards your theory, and would even more compelling if excess proceeds were generated, and funds were distributed per the contract. But doesnt the fact that JS tried to sell the copyright to Canada, without telling Martin tell you that maybe JS wasnt a stickler for following contracts. (Do you have a link to the contract?)

As for not denying his testimony, I could also say it was "decidedly" never in his advantage to confess to being a participant in a fraud.

Actually, what I'm doing is painting a fuller picture of Oliver Cowdery's post-1829 life. Cowdery served missions to Indian Territory for the Book of Mormon; lived in relative povertry while devoting himself to the LDS church; identified himself as a witness to the Book of Mormon throughout the remainder of his life; bore testimony as a witness when it was against his own interest; and built his late-life plans once again around Mormonism.

The fact that Martin lived in "relative" poverty serving a mission to the native americans supports your theory.

Are you sufficiently familiar with the laws of Ohio at the time period to make this determination? Besides, Cowdery would not have needed to admit "trying to defraud" others. He could merely state that Smith had deceived him; that he'd hallucinated; etc.

As for Ohio, specifically. No. But I have no reason to assume that Ohio would not disbar a lawyer for acts of "moral turpitude."

Again, Oliver Cowdery would not have needed to confess a "crime" in order to free himself of the burden of his Mormon past. But rather than confess or merely try to skirt the issue, he reiterated his testimony.

How often did he reiterate his testimony? Why is there so little from him explaining what happened during the translation, John the Baptist, and the angels showing him the plates. These are three significant, life altering events, that are worthy of being recorded for posterity by Oliver himself.

BTW, if you don't think Oliver Cowdery could have made a better living by exposing the Mormon "conspiracy," then you're apparently not sufficiently familiar with the popularity of early Mormon expose's. E. D. Howe's 1834 book was enormously influential. John C. Bennett, who published a very successful book, traveled on the national lecture circuit, and went on to continuing career success thereafter. And several others published expose's of Mormonism during the 1830s and 1840s, suggesting that it was a financially remunerative field.

Did Howe or Bennett admit to being part of a conspiracy? Perhaps, though profitable, Oliver did not relish the thought of a career as a professional squeal, marketing his story of dishonesty or gullibity.

You're right to include a caveat that the letters need to have not been intended for public distribution. The November 6, 1829 letter to Joseph Smith was written during Cowdery's copying of the Printer's Manuscript, and actually cites passages in the chapters Cowdery is otherwise known to have then been transcribing. (The connection of the transcription work to the content of the letter has been noted previously, and is explored thoroughly in a forthcoming paper by Grant Underwood.)

Since there was no church at the time, and since, on your reconstruction, Cowdery should not have been expecting an ecclesiastical career, but only profit from the sale of the book, there would have been no reason for Cowdery to believe his letters would become part of some official record. And, indeed, Cowdery's letters were never published or quoted by JS, OC, or the church itself.

The relevant letters are as follows:

....

I have not yet located the texts of the letters online. They are contained in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, Volumes 1 and 2. If Dan returns to this thread, he may be able to point us to online texts.

I look forward to reading the letters, if they are placed online. Do you know how they became part of the public record?

I don't have time to address the remainder of your point. But I did read and appreciate your response.

[consiglieri]

BTW, I appreciated your expressed judgment the other day that I try to be fair and thorough.

Don

Well, I only expressed that judgment "on the fly," you know.

This whole area is one where the critics' insistence on bringing to light the translation process used by Joseph Smith of sticking his face into a hat raises interesting and likely unintended consequences; precisely as you have outlined in your opening post.

If Joseph Smith used a Bible, why do none of the witnesses mention it? And if he used a Bible without their knowing, how did he manage it with his face in a hat?

These are the main questions that you seem to be exploring with this post, and it is an excellent question.

Perhaps a good guide for this exploration would be the advice given by Sherlock Holmes' father to him and his brother, Mycroft: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be correct."

I think that's from the Adventure of the Golden Pince-Nez, but then again, my memory is far from photographic. It could also be from A Scandal in Bohemia.

Oh, to have Joseph Smith's memory!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri