Joseph Dictated The Book Of Mormon On The Fly?

[John Williams]

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.

No mind-reading involved. The alternative is that they were all liars who were in on the hoax. That seems less likely to me partly because a larger group has a greater possibility of confession, and also, I've always been too apt to give people the benefit of the doubt. It's a character flaw.

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.

And no, there's no hang-up. As I said, the method isn't all that important to me. The product is, and it is its own best evidence.

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

Why? They offer nothing of probative value toward establishing the validity of the Book of Mormon translation.

[ttribe]

Why? They offer nothing of probative value toward establishing the validity of the Book of Mormon translation.

Aside from establishing the existence of the very plates from which the text was alleged to have been taken. You're right, nothing of probative value there.

[ThePhy]

Who said the ideal of objectivity in empiricism (the current philosophy of science) is a fringe position? However, you are squarely on the fringe, so to speak (along with too many others), if you do not recognize the untenable proposition of objectivity and the pragmatic reality of the lack of objectivity in science. BTW, I know science gave us microwave ovens, so don't go there. There is quite a difference between producing a microwave oven and understanding history (not only history proper, but archaeology, anthropology, geology, etc.) and predicting the future.

This admission of yours belies your coy profession regarding the tentative nature of science.

I am not sure my personal views on science is an appropriate subject for a thread nominally looking at translating the Book of Mormon. So I will answer very briefly. First, I consider the fields you allude to â?? archaeology, geology, and anthro â?? as being closely allied to if not a core part of science. I have no idea what the â??predicting the futureâ? comment is about.

BTW, has your status as a scientist enabled you to be "very confident in [your] understanding" that there is no God?

Yup

(I haven't read enough of your posts to know this about you. However, when one professes to be a "scientist" in these parts, it likely means they are smarter than the rest of us and thus we should listen to what they have to say about the non-existence of God, etc.)

Slap me if I do that.

If so, what were the research questions that you asked, what were your corresponding hypotheses, what measures did you use, what data did you obtain, how did you analyze your data, and how did you interpret your data? In other words, since when is determining the existence of God an empirical question? Also, given the fact that it is not an empirical question, how is it more informed to conclude that there is no deity rather than that there is deity?

That level of scientific formality was not needed.

Pretty much anything can be "'derived' from the Bible text." Just like statistics can be used to support many interpretations of data.

The question is what points attributed to the Bible can be rationally supported.

[John Williams]

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

That is an unwarranted and unfair statement. Evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be would indeed cause me to reconsider my position. For a lifelong church member, it would be much easier to live life as a believer, if that were possible. I would jump at the opportunity to believe again.

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.

We will have to disagree on this. To me, there is quite a bit in his personal history that suggests he was capable of fraud. However, the bottom line for me is that the product doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You can argue motivations all day, but in the end, the product is what must be evaluated, not the intentions of the producer.

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.

Maybe you could point out which evidence has been dismissed?

[John Williams]

Aside from establishing the existence of the very plates from which the text was alleged to have been taken. You're right, nothing of probative value there.

James Strang had plates and witnesses, too. Would it be safe to say that they have probative value that he was a prophet? Why or why not?

[Rommelator]

No mind-reading involved.

How is this statement not mind reading?

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

The alternative is that they were all liars who were in on the hoax.

Or that they were telling the truth.

That seems less likely to me partly because a larger group has a greater possibility of confession, and also, I've always been too apt to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Then why don't you give the witnesses and Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt and say that they were telling the truth?

And no, there's no hang-up. As I said, the method isn't all that important to me.

Yet on your blog (http://runtu.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/ten-reasons-i-cant-be-a-mormon-anymore/), you write that the number 8 reason that you "Can’t Be a Mormon Anymore" is because:

"8. Joseph Smith’s history of claiming to be able to find buried treasure by looking at a rock in a hat, the same method he would later use to “translate” the Book of Mormon."

Seems to me like you do have a problem with Joseph using a rock in his hat to translate. Why is this? By your own admission you have "stopped being surprised at what humans are capable of doing."

The product is, and it is its own best evidence.

I totally agree. And how Joseph Smith could get so many things right in the Book of Mormon is simply amazing to me.

Why? They offer nothing of probative value toward establishing the validity of the Book of Mormon translation.

Really, John? Really? The 3 & 8 Witnesses don't offer anything?

So, in other-words, never mind that three honest, upright, sane and intelligent men (even after becoming totally disillusioned with Joseph Smith) testified on their deathbed that they saw the plates and an angel that declared the translation to be correct. And never mind that numerous witnesses all testified to their dying days (heck, two of them even died as martyrs for this testimony) of handling the plates without any supernatural means.

I am sorry, John, but I am now coming to seriously doubt your sincerity. Before I honestly thought that you were sincere in your questions and doubts, but now it seems to me that, for whatever reason (after all, motives aren't important, right?) you are trying to escape from a bad case of cognitive dissonance. And it seems to me that you have taken the Dale Morgan approach, namely, just ignore what Joseph and the witnesses said (not to mention the evidence) and look for ANY other theory.

[ttribe]

That is an unwarranted and unfair statement. Evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be would indeed cause me to reconsider my position. For a lifelong church member, it would be much easier to live life as a believer, if that were possible. I would jump at the opportunity to believe again.

I would like to believe this, but you so quickly dismiss any counter-claim based on your conclusion that the BoM is a 19th century creation, not a 19th century translation.

We will have to disagree on this. To me, there is quite a bit in his personal history that suggests he was capable of fraud.

I didn't say that I didn't think he was capable of fraud. Frankly, everyone is capable (study up on who actually perpetrates...it's fascinating). What I said was that there was little in his life which suggests to me (as an expert in the area) that he was capable of carrying out a fraud which created the extensive dire results without him buckling under the pressure and weight of those results.

However, the bottom line for me is that the product doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You can argue motivations all day, but in the end, the product is what must be evaluated, not the intentions of the producer.

Well, in the professional arena of fraud investigation scienter (or intent) is essential to proving an allegation of fraud in a court setting. You have openly accused JS of fraud; I am attempting to apply the process I know for proving fraud to your assertion; and intent falls apart under the weight of the evidence.

Maybe you could point out which evidence has been dismissed?

I'm just going off your previous statement - "Once that has been established, the method and the motivations are interesting but not all that important."

[Rommelator]

James Strang had plates and witnesses, too.

Yeah, who later recanted their testimonies.

Can you show me this for the witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates?

[Daniel Peterson]

Or it means that we are meant to believe it was dictated in the manner you describe.

The historical data do seem to point very strongly in that direction, yes.

At the very least, the text suggests that at least a KJV Bible was involved in the production.

Which is quite interesting, given the strong insistence by the eyewitnesses that no Bible or other text was present during the dictation, and given the pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Joseph didn't in fact have a Bible during much of the translation process.

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

I realize that.

I respectfully disagree.

Feel free to demonstrate that the dictation process extended over a more lengthy period.

The currently indispensable scholarly treatment of this question, in my judgment, is John W. Welch, "â??The Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon,â? in John W. Welch with Erick B. Carlson, eds., Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844 (Provo and Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University Press and Deseret Book, 2005).

If you start with the assumption that nothing was on paper before the translation began in earnest, the production time would indeed be remarkable.

I think that the production time was remarkable, and I'm strongly inclined to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses that no manuscript was involved.

I provide supporting arguments for the credibility of their testimony on that point in my "Editor's Introduction" to FARMS Review 17/2 (2005), "Not So Easily Dismissed: Some Facts for Which Counterexplanations of the Book of Mormon Will Need to Account":

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=2&id=582

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

I'll look forward to that, and to examining your book very carefully. I hope that you'll be willing to answer some questions about your writing of it when it appears.

[ttribe]

James Strang had plates and witnesses, too. Would it be safe to say that they have probative value that he was a prophet? Why or why not?

Did he assert such? Were the plates testified to as real by an actual Angel of God (to some, but not all, of the witnesses)? Did any of these witnesses ever recant?

John, you needn't be cheeky. You know as well as I do that the parallels between Strang and JS fall apart rather quickly.

[Rommelator]

I would jump at the opportunity to believe again.

You have the opportunity already. Just give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt that he was telling the truth. After all, by your own admission, it is a character fault of yours.

Did any of these witnesses ever recant?

They most certainly did. Heck, some of them even gave the information as to how Strange made the plates.

[Daniel Peterson]

James Strang had plates and witnesses, too. Would it be safe to say that they have probative value that he was a prophet? Why or why not?

The Strangite plates and witnesses are not closely comparable to those of Joseph Smith. I think it's time to post, yet again, something that I've posted here several times before and that I actually presented at the FAIR conference in 2006. I haven't bothered to include the footnotes:

Forgery is the virtually certain explanation for the two sets of inscribed metal plates that James Jesse Strang said he had found in Wisconsin and Michigan (between 1845 and 1849) and translated. Strang, who claimed to have a letter of appointment from Joseph Smith, announced himself as Joseph Smith's successor and was clearly seeking to imitate the Prophet. That his plates really existed is beyond serious dispute. The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou"

[John Williams]

How is this statement not mind reading?

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

Or that they were telling the truth.

Sure, that's possible.

Then why don't you give the witnesses and Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt and say that they were telling the truth?

As I said, the evidence points towards a modern creation, not an ancient document. So, I do approach the statements as not reflecting reality. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for 40 years.

Yet on your blog (http://runtu.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/ten-reasons-i-cant-be-a-mormon-anymore/), you write that the number 8 reason that you "Can't Be a Mormon Anymore" is because:

"8. Joseph Smith's history of claiming to be able to find buried treasure by looking at a rock in a hat, the same method he would later use to "translate" the Book of Mormon."

Seems to me like you do have a problem with Joseph using a rock in his hat to translate. Why is this? By your own admission you have "stopped being surprised at what humans are capable of doing."

I do think that his use of the seerstone to locate buried treasure is evidence of fraud. The use of the same method in translation thus logically is evidence, along with the text itself, of fraud. But that's secondary evidence to the actual product.

I totally agree. And how Joseph Smith could get so many things right in the Book of Mormon is simply amazing to me.

And that's where we disagree. Discussing the evidence in the book is far more productive than speculating over who was lying or who was telling the truth.

Really, John? Really? The 3 & 8 Witnesses don't offer anything?

To me, they offer evidence of the existence of plates. What those plates were and their relation to the translation cannot be determined from the witness statements.

So, in other-words, never mind that three honest, upright, sane and intelligent men (even after becoming totally disillusioned with Joseph Smith) testified on their deathbed that they saw the plates and an angel that declared the translation to be correct. And never mind that numerous witnesses all testified to their dying days (heck, two of them even died as martyrs for this testimony) of handling the plates without any supernatural means.

Maybe it's just me, but I've never given all that much weight to the witnesses. To me, the proof was in the book, both in the spiritual witness and in the contents of the book. Does that make me hard hearted?

I am sorry, John, but I am now coming to seriously doubt your sincerity. Before I honestly thought that you were sincere in your questions and doubts, but now it seems to me that, for whatever reason (after all, motives aren't important) you are trying to escape from a bad case of cognitive dissonance. And it seems to me that you have taken the Dale Morgan approach, namely, just ignore what Joseph and the witnesses said (not to mention the evidence) and look for ANY other theory.

Well, pretty much everyone else here thinks I'm insincere and dishonest, so I'm not surprised. I really can't help that. But I am sorry that it's so difficult to communicate what we think and feel across the net like this.

[Daniel Peterson]

Maybe it's just me, but I've never given all that much weight to the witnesses. To me, the proof was in the book, both in the spiritual witness and in the contents of the book. Does that make me hard hearted?

No -- though you may be.

But, in my opinion, it makes you a bad judge of the implications of historical evidence.

[John Williams]

No -- though you may be.

But, in my opinion, it makes you a bad judge of the implications of historical evidence.

That's what my history professors at BYU said. Maybe you all are right.

[ttribe]

Well, pretty much everyone else here thinks I'm insincere and dishonest, so I'm not surprised.

I don't; but I am puzzled by your apparent dismissal of some of the key (IMO) evidence.

[Rommelator]

I do think that his use of the seerstone to locate buried treasure is evidence of fraud. The use of the same method in translation thus logically is evidence, along with the text itself, of fraud.

I gather then that you are in fact worried about the method and you are in fact hung up about how Joseph Smith translated, contrary to what you said earlier?

Okay, good to know.

Does that make me hard hearted?

No, just closed minded.

What those plates were and their relation to the translation cannot be determined from the witness statements.

I can understand that. The witnesses were rather ambiguous, after all, when they said:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

Maybe they should have been more clear in their testimony(ies).

[Edit: Whoops, should have read John's words more carefully. I thought I read that he said that the use of the stone for hunting treasure "does not" mean fraud but does mean fraud when translating. I simply misread his post. Stupid me for reading too fast.

Argument redacted!}

[consiglieri]

Well, pretty much everyone else here thinks I'm insincere and dishonest, so I'm not surprised. I really can't help that. But I am sorry that it's so difficult to communicate what we think and feel across the net like this.

I, for one, do not consider you either insincere or dishonest.

I have tried several times to bring this thread back to the discussion of the Book of Mormon text in such a way as to not implicate truth claims.

But it seems to be a losing battle.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ttribe]

I, for one, do not consider you either insincere or dishonest.

I have tried several times to bring this thread back to the discussion of the Book of Mormon text in such a way as to not implicate truth claims.

But it seems to be a losing battle.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Sorry.

[John Williams]

In other words, Joseph is not a fraud when he uses the seer stone to look for treasure but he is a fraud when he uses it for translating.

Help me out here, John. How on earth does this make any sense? If he is not a fraud for using the stone to look for treasure, what qualifies him as a fraud when he uses it to translate?

Well, considering that I said nothing like that, I don't know what you mean. The use of the seer stone to locate treasure is evidence of fraud. Given that, the translation by the same means would logically be fraudulent.

Also, I gather then that you are in fact worried about the method and you are in fact hung up about how Joseph Smith translated, contrary to what you said earlier?

Okay, good to know.

Sure, it bothers me, but it's not the central issue. The text is the best evidence to deal with.

No, just closed minded.

It's not closed-minded to reach conclusions based on the evidence. What would be closed-minded would be to refuse to ever reconsider the evidence. Heck, just coming here every day is a reconsideration of the evidence. If there were some evidence that called my conclusions into question, I would certainly reconsider.

I can understand that. The witnesses were rather ambiguous, after all, when they said:

Maybe they should have been more clear in their testimony(ies).

Snarkiness aside, they were clear in what they wrote. But you are asking me to believe that they were completely capable of evaluating a set of plates and certifying that the translation of said plates was correct. How would they know? And how would I evaluate their testimony in the absence of the plates?

I wish there were better answers. It really doesn't matter what you think of my integrity.

[Rommelator]

Well, considering that I said nothing like that, I don't know what you mean. The use of the seer stone to locate treasure is evidence of fraud. Given that, the translation by the same means would logically be fraudulent.

Yes, I misread your post. My apologies. Argument redacted!

But you are asking me to believe that they were completely capable of evaluating a set of plates and certifying that the translation of said plates was correct.

I don't see what the problem is. After all, you give people the benefit of the doubt, so I hear. Why not give the witnesses the benefit of the doubt and allow them the ability to know what they were talking about and that what they testified of was true?

Sure, it bothers me, but it's not the central issue.

Well, it is good to know that. I am happy for the clarification. After all, I was a bit confused because earlier you said that the "method isn't all that important to me."

What would be closed-minded would be to refuse to ever reconsider the evidence.

Have you ever reconsidered the evidence for the witnesses after you left the Church?

if there were some evidence that called my conclusions into question, I would certainly reconsider.

I would like to believe that.

I wish there were better answers.

You mean other than the ones Joseph Smith gave?

[John Williams]

I don't see what the problem is. After all, you give people the benefit of the doubt, so I hear. Why not give the witnesses the benefit of the doubt and allow them the ability to know what they were talking about and that what they testified of was true?

It's best to give people the benefit of the doubt until there's reason not to.

Well, it is good to know that. I am happy for the clarification. After all, I was a bit confused because earlier you said that the "method isn't all that important to me."

It isn't all that important to me.

Have you ever reconsidered the evidence for the witnesses after you left the Church?

Yep. I read Richard Lloyd Anderson's book a while back on Dr. Peterson's recommendation.

I would like to believe that.

It's already clear what you believe about my sincerity. Doesn't matter at all.

You mean other than the ones Joseph Smith gave?

No, just answers that made sense in light of the evidence.

[Rommelator]

Let me say that I have been something of a bully to John. I stepped out of bounds earlier. I should have been more clear in that I do not question John's sincerity as a person. I do not think he is evil, or scum, etc. I do question his sincerity in evaluating the evidence in question, however. But that does not mean that I am questioning his character as a person.

But that does not justify that I was too rash and bold earlier. I apologize for anyone, especially John, who may have been offended by my earlier words.

My bad!

[John Williams]

Let me say that I have been something of a bully to John. I stepped out of bounds earlier. I should have been more clear in that I do not question John's sincerity as a person. I do not think he is evil, or scum, etc. I do question his sincerity in evaluating the evidence in question, however. But that does not mean that I am questioning his character as a person.

But that does not justify that I was too rash and bold earlier. I apologize for anyone, especially John, who may have been offended by my earlier words.

My bad!

No harm done, and no offense taken. I'm not sure how someone can insincerely evaluate evidence, but if anyone is capable of doing that, I probably am.

[John Larsen]

Feel free to demonstrate that the dictation process extended over a more lengthy period.

I'm sure you understand the inception, composition and dictation need not be in the same time period.