Joseph Dictated The Book Of Mormon On The Fly?

[John Williams]

So, you wrote a book in 5 weeks. Nothing to it. How many copies has it sold and how many people have actually read it? What is the title and who published it?

You are right that it is no great thing to write a book in 4 to 5 years but even best sellers dont stick around and have the influence that the Book of Mormon has had. Could it possibly have something to do with the promise in Moroni 8 and nothing to do with the time it took to write it?

Larry P

Larry, my book is definitely no great thing, but some were arguing that the time of production of the Book of Mormon was something bordering miraculous. No one is arguing that the Book of Mormon doesn't have spiritual significance to millions of people. That would be silly. But that has nothing to do with the time it took to write it, as you say.

[Daniel Peterson]

I write a lot, and I keep pretty careful record of how much and how rapidly I write. And I think the production rate of the Book of Mormon is quite striking.

It can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Book of Mormon was dictated over the course of roughly two months, or perhaps just a little bit longer, and there is no real evidence that Joseph was working from a manuscript. In fact, there's considerable evidence to the contrary.

Which means that it was probably dictated either from memory, or off the top of his head, or on the basis of inspiration. I find the first two highly implausible.

I'm much better educated than Joseph Smith was. I write reasonably quickly, and I do so on a computer, yet I've never managed to sustain the pace that would have been required to produce a book the length of the Book of Mormon within two or two-and-a-half months.

How long is your book?

When it comes out, will you identify it so that we can subject it to inspection and analysis? I think it will make an interesting study and comparison.

[John Williams]

I write a lot, and I keep pretty careful record of how much and how rapidly I write. And I think the production rate of the Book of Mormon is quite striking.

It can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Book of Mormon was dictated over the course of roughly two months, or perhaps just a little bit longer, and there is no real evidence that Joseph was working from a manuscript. In fact, there's considerable evidence to the contrary.

Which means that it was probably dictated either from memory, or off the top of his head, or on the basis of inspiration. I find the first two highly implausible.

Or it means that we are meant to believe it was dictated in the manner you describe. At the very least, the text suggests that at least a KJV Bible was involved in the production.

I'm much better educated than Joseph Smith was. I write reasonably quickly, and I do so on a computer, yet I've never managed to sustain the pace that would have been required to produce a book the length of the Book of Mormon within two or two-and-a-half months.

Again the 2 1/2 months is what is in dispute, at least for some of us. If you start with the assumption that nothing was on paper before the translation began in earnest, the production time would indeed be remarkable.

How long is your book?

When it comes out, will you identify it so that we can subject it to inspection and analysis? I think it will make an interesting study and comparison.

It's just over 200 pages. Maybe I'll give you a signed copy when it's in print.

[John Larsen]

It can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Book of Mormon was dictated over the course of roughly two months, or perhaps just a little bit longer...

I respectfully disagree.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]It can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Book of Mormon was dictated over the course of roughly two months, or perhaps just a little bit longer[...]

For any interested in how the above number is reached in regards to the dictation, Welch has a chapter in Opening the Heavens (pgs. 77-102) that gives a chronology of the dictation/translation process. He estimates (pg. 101) that 85 percent of the dictation was done in about 33 working days (from April 7 to May 15), and that the entire dictation/translation took place in 63 working days. He puts the average at about 8 pages per day (with one period being as high as 13, and one period being as low as 2.5). The periods of 8 pages were generally produced by working "from morning to night."

The book also has (in the following chapter) excerpts from 202 primary and secondary sources regarding the chronology of the BoM dictation/translation. -- All-in-all, not a horrible book to have in one's library.

However, I believe the contention in this thread is that some see no reason to preclude work being done in regards to its production prior to the dictation.

[Scottie]

For any interested in how the above number is reached in regards to the dictation, Welch has a chapter in Opening the Heavens (pgs. 77-102) that gives a chronology of the dictation/translation process. He estimates (pg. 101) that 85 percent of the dictation was done in about 33 working days (from April 7 to May 15), and that the entire dictation/translation took place in 63 working days. He puts the average at about 8 pages per day (with one period being as high as 13, and one period being as low as 2.5). The periods of 8 pages were generally produced by working "from morning to night."

The book also has (in the following chapter) excerpts from 202 primary and secondary sources regarding the chronology of the BoM dictation/translation. -- All-in-all, not a horrible book to have in one's library.

However, I believe the contention in this thread is that some see no reason to preclude work being done in regards to its production prior to the dictation.

Does that include the lost 116 pages? Didn't the Lord take away the plates for a while after that fiasco?

[Doctor Steuss]

Does that include the lost 116 pages? Didn't the Lord take away the plates for a while after that fiasco?

Hi Scottie,

I re-read the pertinent pages, and I'm 99.9% sure it doesn't include the 116 pages (the .01% margin of error is because I had a late night).

[Rommelator]

Again the 2 1/2 months is what is in dispute, at least for some of us.

The problem, John, with your analysis and the analyses of other critics on this board is that if you do not accept the witnesses and others involved in the recovery and translation process of the Book of Mormon, then you must supply evidence to support your claims. Otherwise, you just get into a speculative "Well, maybe he did this..." scenario and we can only play the "what if" game.

I have ample historical documentation from the witnesses and others involved that confirm Joseph Smith's testimony that he received the plates in 1827, translated them and published the book in 1830. Dr. Stuess and I have already mentioned the tome edited by Welch, but I could add others.

What historical documentation do you have that can support your theory that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon in the fashion other than the one he reported? If in fact you believe that he worked on the Book of Mormon in a period of 6 years, or whatever, then what evidence do you have for this? If you cannot supply any, then your theory remains suspect.

To illustrate this point, let me make another theory. I believe that Prof. Joseph Smith, with his dazzling intellect and ability to retain source materials for later recital into his own text, began working on the Book of Mormon in the spring of 1830. He was able to make up and dictate the entire Book of Mormon in less than a month.

Or, let me propose another theory. Joseph Smith began working on the Book of Mormon when he was 8 years old, all the meanwhile hiding his scheme from his family and friends, reading clandestine books on ancient law, history, biblical Hebrew, etc. and getting ready to snooker the witnesses with bogus plates that he crafted at age 13.

See the problem? Unless you supply documentation for your theory, all you have to offer is speculation. And we are left to guess until the cows come home how Joseph Smith faked the whole thing.

For now, let me ask you one simple question, John:

According to you, in what year did Joseph Smith begin dictating the Book of Mormon? 1820? 1818? 1824? 1826? 1812? And what historical documentation can you supply for this claim?

That is a good place to start. Good luck!

[John Williams]

See the problem? Unless you supply documentation for your theory, all you have to offer is speculation. And we are left to guess until the cows come home how Joseph Smith faked the whole thing.

For now, let me ask you one simple question, John:

According to you, in what year did Joseph Smith begin dictating the Book of Mormon? 1820? 1818? 1824? 1826? 1812? And what historical documentation can you supply for this claim?

That is a good place to start. Good luck!

Oh, I'll readily admit that it's speculative. For me, the textual and other evidence points to the Book of Mormon not being of ancient origin. Given that, it's difficult to accept testimony of the book's having been dictated from a hat. And given that the book's modern origin points to fraud, the stone-in-hat story seems just part of the hoax.

But that's just me.

[Scottie]

The problem, John, with your analysis and the analyses of other critics on this board is that if you do not accept the witnesses and others involved in the recovery and translation process of the Book of Mormon, then you must supply evidence to support your claims. Otherwise, you just get into a speculative "Well, maybe he did this..." scenario and we can only play the "what if" game.

Actually, we don't.

I, for one, am quite content to say I have no idea how the BoM was produced. I don't know how long they worked on it. I don't know who was involved in writing it. I don't know what method they used.

The creating of the BoM is a fascinating event to me and, unfortunately, neither side knows very much about what went on. Without that knowledge, we have nothing but speculations all around.

[ttribe]

Oh, I'll readily admit that it's speculative. For me, the textual and other evidence points to the Book of Mormon not being of ancient origin. Given that, it's difficult to accept testimony of the book's having been dictated from a hat. And given that the book's modern origin points to fraud, the stone-in-hat story seems just part of the hoax.

But that's just me.

The whole hoax thing perplexes me...maybe it's because I do investigate fraud as part of my professional responsibilities; but, unlike most frauds/hoaxes where the motive is quite clear, it's just not here. I suppose you could (and will) make the argument that JS benefited by getting the Church to care for he and his family, that he enjoyed the people "fawning" over him, the path to polygamy, etc. But, these just pale in comparison to the hardships that his claims created. Is there really evidence that the man was such a narcissist that he would insist on continuing to perpetuate the lies after the beatings, the mobbings, , the incarcerations, the deaths of family, friends and followers, etc.? In fact, the evidence (based on eyewitness accounts) seems to suggest he was anything but that type of person. I've never been involved in the investigation of a fraud where, when enough pressure was applied, someone didn't finally cave and confess. In this case, the pressure exerted upon JS far exceeds anything I've been involved with and yet he never backed off. Why? It just doesn't make sense if the whole thing was a hoax.

[consiglieri]

Actually, we don't.

I, for one, am quite content to say I have no idea how the BoM was produced. I don't know how long they worked on it. I don't know who was involved in writing it. I don't know what method they used.

The creating of the BoM is a fascinating event to me and, unfortunately, neither side knows very much about what went on. Without that knowledge, we have nothing but speculations all around.

Hi, Scottie, et al!

I see that in my absence this thread has sort of morphed from discussing the structure of the Book of Mormon to discussing the time frame in which it was produced.

It's all good as far as I am concerned.

I do tend to think that if Joseph Smith were dictating from a manuscript during the process of translation, somebody would have mentioned it after being excommunicated, if not before.

And if Joseph Smith had been writing and developing a manuscript of the Book of Mormon in the months or years before it was published, it would seem difficult to have kept it such a complete secret.

But who knows? Anything is possible, I guess.

It is interesting in this regard how Joseph Smith's translating by placing his face in a hat has undergone a transformation of sorts; whereas it was once used to criticize the translation process, it is now used to defend it against charges of Joseph's having used a manuscript while translating.

The more I look at the Book of Mormon and see its pervasive, undergirding and complex structure, the more obvious it is to me that somewhere, at some point in the process, somebody had a completed manuscript in front of them.

This is a proposition that I think we can discuss without having to take sides on whether the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired.

(Which takes us back full circle to the OP.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scottie]

The whole hoax thing perplexes me...maybe it's because I do investigate fraud as part of my professional responsibilities; but, unlike most frauds/hoaxes where the motive is quite clear, it's just not here. I suppose you could (and will) make the argument that JS benefited by getting the Church to care for he and his family, that he enjoyed the people "fawning" over him, the path to polygamy, etc. But, these just pale in comparison to the hardships that his claims created. Is there really evidence that the man was such a narcissist that he would insist on continuing to perpetuate the lies after the beatings, the mobbings, , the incarcerations, the deaths of family, friends and followers, etc.? In fact, the evidence (based on eyewitness accounts) seems to suggest he was anything but that type of person. I've never been involved in the investigation of a fraud where, when enough pressure was applied, someone didn't finally cave and confess. In this case, the pressure exerted upon JS far exceeds anything I've been involved with and yet he never backed off. Why? It just doesn't make sense if the whole thing was a hoax.

Yet we have a dozen or so recent religious leaders who died for their cause and got very little out of it. What was their motives?

[ttribe]

Yet we have a dozen or so recent religious leaders who died for their cause and got very little out of it. What was their motives?

Perhaps they really believed in their cause. I was responding to the assertion that the BoM was a hoax. The fact of the matter is that "Joe Smith's Gold Bible" was at the very heart of much of the persecution heaped on he and the Saints.

[John Williams]

The whole hoax thing perplexes me...maybe it's because I do investigate fraud as part of my professional responsibilities; but, unlike most frauds/hoaxes where the motive is quite clear, it's just not here. I suppose you could (and will) make the argument that JS benefited by getting the Church to care for he and his family, that he enjoyed the people "fawning" over him, the path to polygamy, etc. But, these just pale in comparison to the hardships that his claims created. Is there really evidence that the man was such a narcissist that he would insist on continuing to perpetuate the lies after the beatings, the mobbings, , the incarcerations, the deaths of family, friends and followers, etc.? In fact, the evidence (based on eyewitness accounts) seems to suggest he was anything but that type of person. I've never been involved in the investigation of a fraud where, when enough pressure was applied, someone didn't finally cave and confess. In this case, the pressure exerted upon JS far exceeds anything I've been involved with and yet he never backed off. Why? It just doesn't make sense if the whole thing was a hoax.

Now you're getting at motives, which is kind of a dead end, given that the principals are long dead. The bottom line is whether the product (whether of revelation or of a hoax) stands up to scrutiny as a document of ancient origin. To me, the answer is "clearly not." If it's not of ancient origin, then obviously there were no plates and no revelation (from a hat or otherwise). The most likely explanation, then, is that a manuscript was involved. But, I will again be happy to state unequivocally that the only evidence for a manuscript is the text itself.

[Rommelator]

Oh, I'll readily admit that it's speculative. For me, the textual and other evidence points to the Book of Mormon not being of ancient origin. Given that, it's difficult to accept testimony of the book's having been dictated from a hat. And given that the book's modern origin points to fraud, the stone-in-hat story seems just part of the hoax.

But that's just me.

Fair enough. I guess it just boils down to that we view the evidence differently. While you see it for a modern origin, I see the evidence for the Book of Mormon overwhelmingly putting it in the ancient world.

So lets just agree to disagree on that.

However, if you dismiss the witnesses and others involved that confirm Joseph Smith's testimonies as simply a hoax because you have already come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is false, then would you agree with Richard Bushman's evaluation?

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...&chapid=180

Unbelieving writers pass over this achievement, usually by simply acknowledging Joseph Smith's genius ; one author has attributed the book to a freakish capacity for automatic writing. Secular historians pay less attention to the circumstances of translation, such as the production rate, and instead look for the sources of the book's content. They play down the miraculous and play up the conventional material from Joseph's own culture that they think shows up in the Book of Mormon. Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (Poultney, Vermont, 1823), for example, is credited with supplying the main idea of Israelites migrating to the Western Hemisphere. Masonry and anti-Masonry, the Bible, local theological controversies, and Joseph Smith's own family dynamics are all said to have played a part. Secular accounts thus attempt a cultural biography of Joseph Smith, scouring the intellectual landscape for possible sources of Book of Mormon ideas and speculating on how those sources might have made their way into Joseph Smith's mind. Day-to-day happenings are neglected to make room for this wide-ranging search.

Secular historians are, therefore, more inclined than Mormons to suppress source material from Joseph's closest associates.

Bold mine.

The creating of the BoM is a fascinating event to me and, unfortunately, neither side knows very much about what went on. Without that knowledge, we have nothing but speculations all around.

I strongly disagree. John Welch and others (most notably Matt Brown in his book Plates of Gold: The Book of Mormon Comes Forth) have documented heavily the circumstances involved in the production and translation of the Book of Mormon; with the evidence overwhelmingly favorable for Joseph Smith.

[ttribe]

Now you're getting at motives, which is kind of a dead end, given that the principals are long dead.

Sorry John, that's a dodge. Motives are interpreted all the time and are manifested in the acts of the people who perform them. For example, I've developed court testimony on motives for a crime when the actual accused was completely uncooperative (not much better than a dead person) and won the jury's decision. It's not a dead-end (no pun intended).

The question still hangs in the air - why endure all that is documented in terms of hardship for the sake of a hoax?

Again, I'll say, in all my studies of frauds, etc. I've never encountered a perpetrator who was as brazen and self-centered as JS would have to have been to do that.

[John Williams]

Fair enough. I guess it just boils down to that we view the evidence differently. While you see it for a modern origin, I see the evidence for the Book of Mormon overwhelmingly putting it in the ancient world.

So lets just agree to disagree on that.

However, if you dismiss the witnesses and others involved that confirm Joseph Smith's testimonies as simply a hoax because you have already come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is false, then would you agree with Richard Bushman's evaluation?

Bold mine.

I don't dismiss the witnesses. I'm sure they thought that Joseph dictated from a stone in a hat. Maybe he really did believe he could "translate" in that manner. I really have no idea what Joseph's mindset or motivations were. But if it was a conscious hoax, then the stone-in-hat method would be a classic misdirection, and in that sense it makes perfect sense that his associates would believe he translated it that way.

Given that no one else that I am aware of has ever translated an ancient book from a stone in a hat, and given that the product of Joseph's translation is such a problematic text (again, in my view), odds are that he didn't really do that. But I'll never say never.

[consiglieri]

The most likely explanation, then, is that a manuscript was involved. But, I will again be happy to state unequivocally that the only evidence for a manuscript is the text itself.

I agree with you that the most likely explanation is that a manuscript was involved at some point in the translation process.

And though you may have meant something else, the text itself indicates strongly to me that a manuscript was involved.

I just don't think you get something like the Book of Mormon from sheer unscripted dictation. With all due deference to "The Sorry Tale."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Rommelator]

I don't dismiss the witnesses. I'm sure they thought that Joseph dictated from a stone in a hat. Maybe he really did believe he could "translate" in that manner. I really have no idea what Joseph's mindset or motivations were. But if it was a conscious hoax, then the stone-in-hat method would be a classic misdirection, and in that sense it makes perfect sense that his associates would believe he translated it that way.

First, did you notice how you just contradicted yourself in your post?

"I'm sure they thought that Joseph dictated from a stone in a hat."

Contrasted with:

"I really have no idea what Joseph's mindset or motivations were."

So you are "sure" that the witnesses "thought" that Joseph could translate/dictate, but have "no idea" what Joseph's "mindset and motivations" are. Interesting.... what is it about the Witnesses that you can read their minds but you can't read Joseph's thoughts.

You seem to also be hung up about the stone in the hat thing. Let us set that aside for the moment and look at some of the other issues that the witnesses confirm.

For one thing, lets start with the 3 & 8 Witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates themselves.

[John Williams]

Sorry John, that's a dodge. Motives are interpreted all the time and are manifested in the acts of the people who perform them. For example, I've developed court testimony on motives for a crime when the actual accused was completely uncooperative (not much better than a dead person) and won the jury's decision. It's not a dead-end (no pun intended).

The question still hangs in the air - why endure all that is documented in terms of hardship for the sake of a hoax?

It's not a dodge. I just think Joseph Smith was a complicated man with complex motivations that I will probably never understand. As Scottie said, others have gone to their graves insisting on things that just weren't so. To me, the motive is immaterial. The evidence that the Book of Mormon and the other revelations are not of ancient origin is clear and compelling to me. Once that has been established, the method and the motivations are interesting but not all that important.

Again, I'll say, in all my studies of frauds, etc. I've never encountered a perpetrator who was a brazen and self-centered as JS would have to have been to do that.

I've long since stopped being surprised at what humans are capable of doing.

[consiglieri]

I'm sure they thought that Joseph dictated from a stone in a hat.

Because my study of the Book of Mormon leads me more and more to the conclusion that a preexisting manuscript was utilized at some point, I have a hard time thinking that Joseph really thought he could dictate from a stone in a hat.

In other words, if a preexisting manuscript were utilized, and if the BOM is a 19th century production, then it came about by some means other than Joseph Smith dictating it; whether he did it in good faith or as a hoax.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Rommelator]

I agree with you that the most likely explanation is that a manuscript was involved at some point in the translation process.

Me too. Its called the Gold Plates.

[Rommelator]

I've long since stopped being surprised at what humans are capable of doing.

Like being able to translate with a stone in a hat, right?

[ttribe]

It's not a dodge. I just think Joseph Smith was a complicated man with complex motivations that I will probably never understand. As Scottie said, others have gone to their graves insisting on things that just weren't so. To me, the motive is immaterial. The evidence that the Book of Mormon and the other revelations are not of ancient origin is clear and compelling to me. Once that has been established, the method and the motivations are interesting but not all that important.

So, in other words, something that might actually cause you to reconsider just how "compelling" that evidence is doesn't matter. Got it.

I've long since stopped being surprised at what humans are capable of doing.

Okay John, let me put it more directly - I am speaking as an expert in fraud when I say that JS would have to take his place as the all-time leader of fraudsters for the BoM to be a hoax; everything else pales in comparison. Furthermore, there is very little evidence which suggests to me that all the other acts of his life were consistent with the kind of personality who would be capable of perpetrating that level of fraud.

It does matter John, because it is evidence which stands in stark contrast to that evidence which supports a hoax theory. That you have chosen to dismiss such evidence does not negate its importance.