116 Pages ?

[Craig Paxton]

I personally think that if Joseph had reproduced the original manuscript there is a strong possibility his enemies could have "magically" produced the lost version with alterations to cast dispersions on him.

And how exactly could his so-called enemies have "magically" changed the lost version with alterations? 19th century "White-Out" perhaps? I think this is just a silly red herring argument designed to divert attention away from the reality that Joseph couldn’t reproduce those lost pages by suggesting that some unknown enemy could have altered the original manuscript without that manuscript showing evidence of the alteration. Take a close look at a contemporary document (the actual D&C section 3) that discusses the loss of the 116 pages.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-july-1828-dc-3

How exactly could this document be changed without showing evidence of those changes? Even this document has changes where Oliver merely crosses out a word and inserts a new word and the change is very obvious. So how exactly were Joseph’s so-called enemies going to make changes to catch him in what they deemed a fraud by committing their own fraud? How exactly were they going to be able to change the pages without showing evidence of that change?

The only thing that is certain is that Joseph knew he couldn’t reproduce a word for word copy of his original dictation. He feared that because he knew he couldn’t reproduce it, someone might expose this reality and his claim to a translation...if he did attempt a re-translation...thus sec 3.

This is not to suggest that Joseph didn’t translate something (although I personally believe he did not) but to suggest that if he did translate in the manner he said he could and that he couldn’t again produce something similar to what he had translated in the same manner is preposterous.

If he had done it once…he certainly could have produced it again and again and again with the same process…AND no one could have brought forth the original with their own inserted changes and been credible because the changes would have been so blatantly obvious to any examination as to discredit the so-called enemy who attempted such an attempt....and have the complete opposite effect on Joseph's translation...it would have supported Joseph's claim of being able to translate ancient golden plates.

Of course it makes perfect sense that if Joseph didn’t translate anything in the first place...he might come up with a story about un-named enemies wanting to discredit him not being able to reproduce his original work. But hey discount what I’m saying….I’m only a non-believer and skeptic.

Yes, at doing so at a young age with very little education. l lot of coincidences and they can all be done away with IF we ignore facts.

I thought this argument had been laid to rest a long time ago....Joseph was extremely educated and very well read. While it is true he didn't have the kind of education we enjoy today...for his time he was considered an educated man. And remember by the time Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, he was 22 years of age...about the same age (24) as when Shakespeare wrote his first play...yet I never hear anyone suggest that Shakespeare was young and uneducated despite never having any formal education.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[KevinG]

Craig- a word for word copy wasn't required and despite what some around Joseph thought and what some LDS think today- a word for word translation is not what Joseph did.

Also- critics need not produce the original manuscript merely claim what was in it was different (See Kevin C's response - which is a better one than mine).

This is ground that has been throughoughly trampled before.

[Craig Paxton]

Craig- a word for word copy wasn't required and despite what some around Joseph thought and what some LDS think today- a word for word translation is not what Joseph did.

I completely agree with you...a word for word copy wouldn't have been necessary...but he couldn't even reproduce a subject by subject copy. While there are contempory eyewitnesses that claim that Joseph's translation process was a word for word process...I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and would have allowed for even a general reproduction...allowing for words of similar meaning to be used in order to have the final re-production give the same similar message and voice. (something the books of Nephi were never claimed to be)...but Joesph knew he couldn't even do that.

Also- critics need not produce the original manuscript merely claim what was in it was different (See Kevin C's response - which is a better one than mine).

If all a credic did was claim that the text was different but didn't produce the original manuscript....I doubt they'd have had any credibility

This is ground that has been throughoughly trampled before.

Seems like more trampling is needed before we put that final finished surface on it....

[Craig Paxton]

Suppose someone wanted to perpetrate a fraud by claiming to translate ancient plates. Also suppose that the incomplete translation was stolen before the final translation was made available to the public. What kind of excuse would that person come up with to explain away their inability to reproduce the portion they claimed had already been translated? Keep in mind that the original source material (ancient plates) has not been stolen…only the portion claimed to have been translated. I suggest that that person might come up with an excuse similar to what Joseph Smith came up with…help me understand how I am wrong?

[cinepro]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I have not seen it. Can anyone tell me why my eyebrows shouldn't be raised regarding the lost 116 pages of the BoM?

Respectfully,

Balzer

This topic has been discussed quite a bit, and you might enjoy catching up in these threads:

Lost 116 Pages follow-up Question to Poll

The Lost 116 Pages

Edited July 14, 2011 by cinepro

[mapman]

I thought this argument had been laid to rest a long time ago....Joseph was extremely educated and very well read.

That is ridiculous. Though I understand that you might get that impression from reading arguments that Joseph plagiarized an entire library of books in order to produce his book.

[Kevin Christensen]

Suppose someone wanted to perpetrate a fraud by claiming to translate ancient plates. Also suppose that the incomplete translation was stolen before the final translation was made available to the public. What kind of excuse would that person come up with to explain away their inability to reproduce the portion they claimed had already been translated? Keep in mind that the original source material (ancient plates) has not been stolen…only the portion claimed to have been translated. I suggest that that person might come up with an excuse similar to what Joseph Smith came up with…help me understand how I am wrong?

Anyone can make excuses for not producing. "My dog ate it," is very popular.

Producing work is harder. And in the long run, Joseph Smith did produce the Book of Mormon, and not just excuses. The manuscript evidence we have, and the witnesses we have support the stories he told about how he did it. I notice that when the money diggers repeatedly searched his house for the plates, none of them said, "All we found was this library of research materials, notes, drafts, and a few well-read rabbis. No plates." Not only that, but Joseph produced a text that can be tested against information that no one on the planet had access to when he wrote. The ways and means of testing the claims of the text, and the number of qualified people making comparisons increases every year. Personally, whatever excuses fraudulent Joseph Smith comes up with for not producing a hundred pages, don't strike me as anywhere near as challenging as actually producing 600. For instance, how, when he was side-stepping the difficulties of reproducing a 116 pages of word perfect text, did he anticipate the challenge having a text would support commentaries like Lehi in the Desert, and Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem? Those 600 were due for criticism by hostile thinkers as well.

And then sticking to his story while being tarred and feathered, and later enduring the months of winter imprisonment in Liberty Jail, and then coming back to Nauvoo and then on to Carthage. Anyone who could weasel his way out of producing 116 pages ought to have have been clever enough to talk his way out of doing things that exposed him to demands and situations that were far more difficult and dangerous. Such a person ought to have been able to figure out a simpler, less harrowing and dangerous way to make a few bucks. Heck, James Fennimore Cooper published Last of the Mohicans in 1826. He did alright without claiming divine inspiration. The book even has meaningful themes, and a moral.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited July 14, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Sargon]

Just a quick comment on a question that Rob asked.

How is it that Joseph could be shown the location of gold plates that had been buried for 1400 years but could not be shown the location of a manuscript that had been missing only for a matter of days?

Surely God could have shown Joseph the location of the manuscript. The question is, why didn't God show Joseph the location of the manuscript?

Lucy Mack's telling of the story describes Joseph as being completely torn up over the loss of the manuscript. She claims to remember Joseph being terrified about having to face God over the issue:

Joseph who had not expressed his fears till now, sprang from the table, exclaiming, 'Martin, have you lost that manuscript? Have you broken your oath, and brought down condemnation upon my head as well as your own?'

'Yes; it is gone,' replied Martin, 'and I know not where.'

'Oh, my God!' said Joseph, clinching his hands. 'All is lost! all is lost! What shall I do? I have sinned-it is I who tempted the wrath of God. I should have been satisfied with the first answer which I received from the Lord; for he told me that it was not safe to let the writing go out of my possession.' He wept and groaned, and walked the floor continually.

At length he told Martin to go back and search again.

'No'; said Martin, 'it is all in vain; for I have ripped open beds and pillows; and I know it is not there.'

'Then must I,' said Joseph, 'return with such a tale as this? I dare not do it. And how shall I appear before the Lord? Of what rebuke am I not worthy from the angel of the Most High?"

If we can trust that Lucy is honestly telling it as she remembers it, and is not a co-conspirator in an elaborate family scheme, then we see that Joseph's first gut reaction to the news of the lost 116 pages was one of horror at having let down God. It didn't have anything to do with evil men changing the manscript (though that would come later). It was a sincere horror at having sinned against God.

So, for me, this is evidence that Joseph at least thought he was an actual prophet and was not consciously pulling everyone leg about the whole "prophet" thing.

But back to your question, Lucy's account makes it obvious that Joseph learned a profound lesson from this event. There is no cookie-cutter mold from which God can choose his prophets. Joseph was a prophet-in-the-making and had a lot of lessons to learn still. This was a big one. By not showing Joseph where the lost 116 pages were God was teaching Joseph a lesson.

[cinepro]

If we can trust that Lucy is honestly telling it as she remembers it, and is not a co-conspirator in an elaborate family scheme, then we see that Joseph's first gut reaction to the news of the lost 116 pages was one of horror at having let down God. It didn't have anything to do with evil men changing the manscript (though that would come later). It was a sincere horror at having sinned against God.

I don't doubt Joseph's reaction was one of "horror", but I'm open to the possibility that it could have been the more natural "horror" of realizing that 116 pages of hard work had been lost without a backup.

If you've ever spent dozens (or hundreds) of hours on a paper or presentation on a computer and then lost it through accidental deletion or corruption, it's not hard to imagine how Joseph felt.

I don't know how much 116 pages of paper cost back in Joseph Smith's day, but I wonder why God didn't suggest that he copy a sufficient portion of the manuscript and give that to Lucy Harris.

But back to your question, Lucy's account makes it obvious that Joseph learned a profound lesson from this event. There is no cookie-cutter mold from which God can choose his prophets. Joseph was a prophet-in-the-making and had a lot of lessons to learn still. This was a big one. By not showing Joseph where the lost 116 pages were God was teaching Joseph a lesson.

The fact that Joseph prepared a "printer's copy" instead of sending the original to the printer suggests "lesson learned!"

Edited July 14, 2011 by cinepro

[kolipoki09]

From an outsider's perspective, D&C 3 shows only that Joseph was very skillful at stringing together pious statements that sounded religiously profound.

Sort of like how the Higher Critics view 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation, James, and Ephesians.

[Brant Gardner]

One big problem you don't mention here is that according to Joseph, God gave him permission to let Martin take the manuscript home to show his wife and other family members (History of the Church 1:21). Yet Joseph also claimed that the Lord severely chastised him for letting Martin take the manuscript home (History of the Church 1:22; D&C 3). That is an inconsistency in Joseph's own accounts of what happened.

Joseph indicated that the permission was granted after much pleading. I have done that with my wife, and she has finally given me permission for something. Then it turns out just as she feared. I hear about it.

Nothing about the scenario in Joseph's case is surprising. I don't even find it surprising that God would relent, knowing what would come, but also knowing that it wouldn't ultimately destroy His purposes.

Apparently, given the story as we have it, God's supernatural knowledge is highly selective.

Not as I see it.

On the one hand, God knew, two thousand years before it would happen, that Joseph would spend two months dictating a translation of one set of plates and then lose the manuscript. On the other hand, God did not think or bother to warn Joseph that this would happen if he let Martin take the manuscript,

I don't think we have a full tape recording of the conversations between God and Joseph. From what Joseph reported, the permission was not given without some accompanying cautions.

and when the manuscript became lost, God did not know who had it or where it was.

I doubt that. The story is that God didn't tell Joseph, not that God didn't know. God, knowing what would happen, wouldn't need to tell Joseph what happened to it (probably burned) so it was on to plan B. No problem with God's side of things, but God did allow Joseph his free will (which is rather important, at least in LDS theology).

Second, the Lord supposedly revealed to Joseph that wicked men had stolen the manuscript and altered it so that, when the Book of Mormon made its appearance, they could go public with the earlier manuscript in order to discredit Joseph's translation (D&C 10). However, it is reasonably certain this is not what happened, since (a) there is credible testimony that Lucy Harris destroyed the manuscript and (b) had wicked men stolen the manuscript they would surely have made it public after the Book of Mormon came out, Joseph's ingenious solution of a parallel version from a second set of plates notwithstanding. We have good reasons, then, to think that the revelation in D&C 10 is a false revelation.

You seem to be defining revelation on the fly according to some standard that I don't see represented anywhere in history. In this case, Joseph understood that he wasn't to retranslate because an attempt to do so wouldn't be accepted. Given the prevailing concept of inerrant translation of the Bible (which, of course, persists) that is hardly surprising.

Even without an altered original, anyone who had read any of the original might notice some difference and the experience would be the same. The safest path was to completely avoid the problem.

Furthermore, the issue with the story about the plates including a "backup" account of the same history from a different perspective is not merely God's ability to foresee. The problem with this claim is that it is incredible not because it attributes foreknowledge to God but because it is suspiciously convenient.

That argument works only if you take a simple view of the replacement of the text. It really wasn't that simple at all. Let us, for a moment, suppose that Joseph was the author. Here is what he had to do:

1) Provide a parallel account that was similar, but different enough to warrant the "excuse" of being a separate record.

2) Create a record that responded to the statement of why there were two plate traditions, and make sure that this new one operated very differently from the other.

3) Keep track of the differences between holograph and edited text and make sure that the edited style didn't show in the new section.

4) Figure out how to link the new text to the previous one when the fit wasn't all that good - and come up with some reason why.

That is a lot of creativity to put on Joseph. That doesn't even delve into the complex stylistic issues in 1 Nephi, and the fascinating division between 1 and 2 Ne. That puts even more strain on this "convenient" story.

If God had truly foreknown that the manuscript would be lost if Martin took it home, a much simpler solution would have been to inform Joseph of this outcome so that Joseph would make sure Martin didn't take the manuscript.

Boy, I wish you had been there to advise God on how to handle this. Perhaps that occurred to him, as well. There are reasons why the story played out as it did, and why God attempted to discourage Joseph from giving Martin the manuscript.

Of course, God might have convinced Martin not to ask, his wife not to burn it, or everyone to accept it anyway. Once we posit how God ought to have stirred the pot we add too many cooks to the broth.

Instead we have this elaborate story about the production of a second set of plates that have a parallel but different account of more or less the same events as the material in the lost 116 pages, all supposedly so that Joseph could have a backup when he lost those pages -- and not just a backup, but one that supposedly could not be faulted for any differences with the lost pages, should they turn up. The difficulty with this claim has nothing to do with questioning divine omniscience! And when one takes these considerations together with the fact that the story implies some lack of knowledge on God's part, as explained above, the whole story strains credulity.

There is no problem with God's knowledge. The actual question is whether or not the material replacing the 116 pages actually had reason as a separate record or if it really was only a record of convenience. From my view, that is the question that is too often left unasked. That is really just where the question should go. Issues worrying about God's foreknowledge simply replicate theological assumptions and are not definitive. In the case of the actual text, there is reason for the separate existence and an indication of how they were to be attached--including the internal indication that they were to serve as appendix rather than text and no internal indication of the divine reason for their inclusion. In fact, when the time of the inclusion comes (as opposed to their creation) the reason is actually more historical fascination that revelation.

D&C 10 itself testifies that both Joseph and his enemies understood that what he was claiming to produce was a translation that was inspired word for word.

I just read it again. I agree with your reading of the enemies' understanding, but there is no indication of Joseph's understanding. Having gone through a lot of what Joseph said about the translation (remarkably little, by the way), I don't find any indication that he understood the word for word idea the way that the enemies (and even friends) understood it.

If the possibility of mistakes in his translations was not worrisome to Joseph Smith, why the worry about the possibility that the lost manuscript had been altered?

Not a problem of mistakes, but of conflicts. What if there were something that appeared to be enough different that there was a contradiction? Certainly the Bible has had apparent contradictions in the past and lots of explanations for them (ranging from "yes they are" to "no, they really are not").

Any differences between the original 116 pages and a re-translation of the same material would be explained as due to the fact that the translation was not revealed word for word and that neither the text nor the translation was purported to be without mistakes or errors.

That would certainly have been possible, if the cultural climate would have allowed it. It hardly allows it now. You need look only at the discussions of the Bible to know what the issues are in translation and what people think about the process. Explaining that the Book of Mormon was translated through divine assistance that did not result in precision would have been very difficult to understand and a rather sophisticated argument. I can see why that wasn't selected as the preferred method.

Of course, if it had been, they we would be having a very different conversation, and you would be suggesting that because he translated it differently on two occasions that means that he couldn't have been inspired (which, of course, is precisely what would have happened then).

[Brant Gardner]

Suppose someone wanted to perpetrate a fraud by claiming to translate ancient plates. Also suppose that the incomplete translation was stolen before the final translation was made available to the public. What kind of excuse would that person come up with to explain away their inability to reproduce the portion they claimed had already been translated? Keep in mind that the original source material (ancient plates) has not been stolen…only the portion claimed to have been translated. I suggest that that person might come up with an excuse similar to what Joseph Smith came up with…help me understand how I am wrong?

As long as we are suggesting, here is an easy suggestion. Don't retranslate at all. Write an introduction that gives the basic outline of the story, asks for forgiveness because the translation had been stolen (perhaps giving the reason that he actually gave), and then proceed without replacing.

That would be a lot simpler. Instead, we have the addition of a set of documents that had to have a different perspective, justification, and conception. He really picked the hardest possible road.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Brant Gardner

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As long as we are suggesting, here is an easy suggestion. Don't retranslate at all. Write an introduction that gives the basic outline of the story, asks for forgiveness because the translation had been stolen (perhaps giving the reason that he actually gave), and then proceed without replacing.

That would be a lot simpler. Instead, we have the addition of a set of documents that had to have a different perspective, justification, and conception. He really picked the hardest possible road.

This is an important point, and this alone suggest that he was not perpetuating a fraud.

[cinepro]

As long as we are suggesting, here is an easy suggestion. Don't retranslate at all. Write an introduction that gives the basic outline of the story, asks for forgiveness because the translation had been stolen (perhaps giving the reason that he actually gave), and then proceed without replacing.

That would be a lot simpler. Instead, we have the addition of a set of documents that had to have a different perspective, justification, and conception. He really picked the hardest possible road.

If the Book of Mormon were Joseph's creation, it's possible Joseph didn't realize he could do that until he finished 2 Nephi, or Omni.

Because if we accept the idea that Joseph resumed the translation with Mosiah and then "went around the horn" and ended with Words of Mormon, there may have been a point where Joseph finished 2 Nephi and realized he still had 400 years to go before he got back to King Benjamin, and Jacob-Omni were his way of wrapping up the project ASAP.

If the Book of Mormon weren't Joseph's creation, then it all makes perfect sense and it's a miracle and everything about this is faith promoting.

Edited July 14, 2011 by cinepro

[Brant Gardner]

Because if we accept the idea that Joseph resumed the translation with Mosiah and then "went around the horn" and ended with Words of Mormon, there may have been a point where Joseph finished 2 Nephi and realized he still had 400 years to go before he got back to King Benjamin, and Jacob-Omni were his way of wrapping up the project ASAP.

Except he new what he had to do before he started. I admit that it is hard to know why anyone would want to include (and read) all of that Isaiah, but that comes before a pretty long Jacob. Why he put so much filler in before he wrote the extended olive allegory is hard to understand. Omni certainly has a synoptic feel to it, but then Joseph didn't make Omni catch up to the right place and chose instead to do it at the end of Words of Mormon--which was, frankly a pretty poor literary choice. If I were doing it, I would have Omni get me where I wanted to go.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You had written previously:

One could fuss that God knew that Jesus would be betrayed by Judas, and still permit Judas to be selected as an apostle. Why didn't God warn Jesus about Judas and prevent all the trouble that came from it?

To which I replied:

"Actually, Jesus knew all along that Judas was evil (John 6:70) and knew ahead of time that Judas would betray him (as all four Gospels report)."

Ignoring that your earlier question has been shown to rest on a faulty premise (that God didn't warn Jesus about Judas), you now say:

Which provides precedent for what happened with the 116 pages.

Not at all. Let's do a simple comparison of the two events:

* Jesus knew ahead of time that Judas would betray him. Joseph did not know ahead of time that Martin would lose the manuscript.

* Jesus did not err or sin in choosing Judas to be one of the Twelve. Joseph (according to D&C 3) did err and sin in allowing Martin to take the manuscript home.

These two comparisons are sufficient to refute your claim that Jesus' choice of Judas was precedent for the loss of the 116 pages.

You wrote:

Of course. Which is why I cited Isaiah. As a caution on presuming that our thoughts about what is plausible for God are the same as God's thoughts.

I'm all for being duly cautious, but Isaiah 55:8-9 cannot be used to rationalize any and every implausible claim about God. That isn't the point of the passage in context. The Lord has just summoned the wicked to repent of their "way" and their "thoughts" and to turn back to him for forgiveness (v. 7). Their "way" and "thoughts" are wicked, whereas the Lord's "way" and "thoughts" are not (v. 8 ); the difference is as dramatic as the difference between earth and heaven (v. 9). Again, it is fallacious to use this passage as a "cover" for implausible claims about God.

Regarding Joseph Smith's production of D&C 3, you wrote:

Left to himself, at that stage in his life, his wife observed that he could not dictate a well worded letter, let alone anything like the Book of Mormon.

This is another subject, but Emma's comments don't agree with the evidence, and we have testimonies from others (e.g., his mother) that Joseph was quite skilled at speaking extemporaneously.

You wrote:

I don't see the objective contradiction. Israel wanted a king. God said no. Israel pestered God till they got one. Israel got the consequences. That is okay. Joseph Smith gets pestered by Martin Harris. Joseph says no and God says no. More pestering. More no. More pestering. A highly conditional permission, clearly reluctant permission, including many and warning, cautions. Nothing like, "Good idea. It will be great. What could go wrong?" Martin violates the cautions, showing the ms to people outside the conditions. Martin and Joseph get the consequences.

This is another faulty comparison because you are misrepresenting what the Bible says about Israel getting a king. God never said no to the request to have a king. Here is the relevant passage:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, 'Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.' But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, 'Give us a king to judge us.' And Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, 'Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them'" (1 Sam. 8:4-9 ESV).

Let's do another simple comparison between the two events:

* God never said No to Israel's request to have a king. God did say No (according to Joseph's own account) to Martin's request to take the manuscript home to his wife.

* God revealed to Israel through Samuel ahead of time exactly what the negative consequences would be of having a king. God did not reveal to Joseph ahead of time what would be the negative consequences of Martin taking the manuscript home.

Again, this ought to be enough to set aside this attempt to find precedent in the Bible for the debacle of the missing 116 pages.

You wrote:

And since I see the way the Spaulding theory emerged as not all that far removed from the kind of thing that D&C 10 sees as being proposed a few years earlier. They need not provide the originals, only insist that they had seen them, just as Hulburt provided all sorts of witnesses, and withheld the manuscript that he had.

And not all that far removed from what happened later with the Kinderhook plates, or Caswall and the Greek Psalter, D&C 10 strikes me as describing quite plausible behavior on the part of Joseph Smith's opponents.

But you are contradicting what D&C 10 says, which is that the wicked men who stole the manuscript had altered it with the specific purpose of trying to expose Joseph's translation gift as bogus by bringing out the original (with their alterations) after he replaced the missing pages.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

You wrote:

The story is that God didn't tell Joseph, not that God didn't know. God, knowing what would happen, wouldn't need to tell Joseph what happened to it (probably burned) so it was on to plan B.

If it was "probably burned," then D&C 10 is probably false, since it explicitly claims otherwise: it claims that wicked men stole the manuscript and were keeping it (with some alterations they made to it) in order to expose Joseph's translation gift as bogus.

You wrote:

No problem with God's side of things, but God did allow Joseph his free will (which is rather important, at least in LDS theology).

I have already explained why God did not need to give Joseph permission to let Martin take the manuscript home in order to preserve Joseph's free will. God could have said No and Joseph would have remained free to obey or disobey.

You wrote:

You seem to be defining revelation on the fly according to some standard that I don't see represented anywhere in history. In this case, Joseph understood that he wasn't to retranslate because an attempt to do so wouldn't be accepted. Given the prevailing concept of inerrant translation of the Bible (which, of course, persists) that is hardly surprising.

If the criterion was doing something that would be accepted, Joseph still failed. Most people in Joseph's day, and still to this day, do not accept the Book of Mormon.

You wrote:

Even without an altered original, anyone who had read any of the original might notice some difference and the experience would be the same. The safest path was to completely avoid the problem.

This isn't the explanation Joseph gives in D&C 10 for the switch.

You wrote:

That argument works only if you take a simple view of the replacement of the text. It really wasn't that simple at all. Let us, for a moment, suppose that Joseph was the author. Here is what he had to do:

1) Provide a parallel account that was similar, but different enough to warrant the "excuse" of being a separate record.

2) Create a record that responded to the statement of why there were two plate traditions, and make sure that this new one operated very differently from the other.

3) Keep track of the differences between holograph and edited text and make sure that the edited style didn't show in the new section.

4) Figure out how to link the new text to the previous one when the fit wasn't all that good - and come up with some reason why.

That is a lot of creativity to put on Joseph. That doesn't even delve into the complex stylistic issues in 1 Nephi, and the fascinating division between 1 and 2 Ne. That puts even more strain on this "convenient" story.

Could you refer me to a source that discusses the specifics of these points? It's difficult to follow your argument here on the level of such generalities.

I had written: "D&C 10 itself testifies that both Joseph and his enemies understood that what he was claiming to produce was a translation that was inspired word for word." You replied:

I just read it again. I agree with your reading of the enemies' understanding, but there is no indication of Joseph's understanding. Having gone through a lot of what Joseph said about the translation (remarkably little, by the way), I don't find any indication that he understood the word for word idea the way that the enemies (and even friends) understood it.

Good grief. If he didn't agree with the premise that what he was producing was a translation revealed to him word for word, why didn't he just say so? Why not take the opportunity in D&C 10 to point out that Joseph's enemies misunderstood what he was claiming to do? D&C 10:31 presupposes that God could have enabled Joseph to "bring forth the same words" while claiming that doing so would have played into the plans of Joseph's wicked enemies. Later in the same revelation, the Lord tells Joseph that the substitution of the parallel yet different account will "confound those who have altered my words" (10:42). This statement in context clearly means that any alteration of the supposedly stolen manuscript would constitute alteration of the Lord's words. These two statements in D&C 10 strongly support the conclusion that Joseph agreed with the premise that his claim had been that his translation had been revealed to him word for word.

I wrote:

"Any differences between the original 116 pages and a re-translation of the same material would be explained as due to the fact that the translation was not revealed word for word and that neither the text nor the translation was purported to be without mistakes or errors."

You replied:

That would certainly have been possible, if the cultural climate would have allowed it. It hardly allows it now. You need look only at the discussions of the Bible to know what the issues are in translation and what people think about the process. Explaining that the Book of Mormon was translated through divine assistance that did not result in precision would have been very difficult to understand and a rather sophisticated argument. I can see why that wasn't selected as the preferred method.

On the one hand, Joseph was inspired to produce a replacement text supposedly representing a parallel yet different account, with all the subtle stylistic differences and complex relationship to the lost manuscript that you claim it has (see above). On the other hand, Joseph apparently could not be inspired to explain the idea that what he was producing was not a precise translation of the original.

The fact is that we have a paper trail of evidence that Joseph remained very nervous about the lost manuscript and what it might reveal, should it resurface. The Book of Mormon is sprinkled with statements excusing any imperfection in its record. The title page of the Book of Mormon contains the disclaimer that if there are any mistakes in it they are the mistakes of men (no kidding!). All but the last sentence of Joseph's preface to the first edition of the Book of Mormon is concerned with defusing the possibility that the lost manuscript would turn up. The switch to a different record could minimize any potential damage of that happening but apparently could not eliminate the worry altogether as far as Joseph himself was concerned. The best explanation I can see for these facts is that Joseph claimed to receive the very words of the translation he was producing, which is also the view taken by the dominant LDS scholars and apologists today. At the same time, Joseph felt he had to qualify this claim so as to allow for the possibility of discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the lost manuscript, should it resurface.

[Brant Gardner]

If it was "probably burned," then D&C 10 is probably false, since it explicitly claims otherwise: it claims that wicked men stole the manuscript and were keeping it (with some alterations they made to it) in order to expose Joseph's translation gift as bogus.

We clearly have a very different understanding of what it means to receive revelation, and in particular, how the sections in the D&C were created and canonized. With those differences being so fundamental, we won't come to any agreement on this.

I have already explained why God did not need to give Joseph permission to let Martin take the manuscript home in order to preserve Joseph's free will. God could have said No and Joseph would have remained free to obey or disobey.

I'm sure that explanation works for you. Mine works for me. Neither of us dares declare with any certainty what God intended.

If the criterion was doing something that would be accepted, Joseph still failed. Most people in Joseph's day, and still to this day, do not accept the Book of Mormon.

I don't know what you mean. Millions have accepted what he had to say. I agree that more haven't, but the fact that some haven't cannot occlude the fact that many did--it was their sensibilities that counted.

Could you refer me to a source that discusses the specifics of these points? It's difficult to follow your argument here on the level of such generalities.

Nope. Just came up with them on the spot, based on the question and my experience with the text.

Good grief. If he didn't agree with the premise that what he was producing was a translation revealed to him word for word, why didn't he just say so?

Frankly, I don't think Joseph knew. Since he tended to use the word translation in a much broader scope than we now use it would be hard to pin him down on something like that. The best we can do is look at what he did and said about the text and that tells us that he did not treat it as a word for word/inerrant translation.

Why not take the opportunity in D&C 10 to point out that Joseph's enemies misunderstood what he was claiming to do?

There are so many things that would be easier if Joseph had just done them the way we wish he would have. Still, it isn't much of an argument if the strength of it lies in "I wouldn't have done it that way."

D&C 10:31 presupposes that God could have enabled Joseph to "bring forth the same words" while claiming that doing so would have played into the plans of Joseph's wicked enemies.

See my earlier comment about our differences in reading these things.

Later in the same revelation, the Lord tells Joseph that the substitution of the parallel yet different account will "confound those who have altered my words" (10:42).

Isn't it interesting that we can both read that with such a different result?

This statement in context clearly means that any alteration of the supposedly stolen manuscript would constitute alteration of the Lord's words. These two statements in D&C 10 strongly support the conclusion that Joseph agreed with the premise that his claim had been that his translation had been revealed to him word for word.

Your exegesis of the two statements indicates what you read into the text to be confirmed in the text. It is not confirmed in any other evidence from how Joseph actually interacted with the text. When we come to what Joseph actually did, it is clear that he didn't consider them inerrant. I'll take that supplement to exegesis any day (especially since we seem to read the same words in such different ways--I'll go with the ways that the interpretation is corroborated with a broader range of evidence).

On the one hand, Joseph was inspired to produce a replacement text supposedly representing a parallel yet different account, with all the subtle stylistic differences and complex relationship to the lost manuscript that you claim it has (see above). On the other hand, Joseph apparently could not be inspired to explain the idea that what he was producing was not a precise translation of the original.

Do we really need to discuss the nature of translation? If I translate a fairly long text, and then wait for a while and translate it again, what are the changes that the two translations will be exactly the same? What are the chances that they translate the same document (trick question, of course).?

Your argument has any validity only upon accepting the premise that divine inspiration necessarily creates inerrancy. I don't believe that and see no evidence of it. Therefore I see no problem with an authentic translation that cannot be replicated exactly the second time around. I do see that the concept of inspiration=inerrancy creates lots of issues when people speak of the translation of sacred texts, the current conversation being evidence of it.

The fact is that we have a paper trail of evidence that Joseph remained very nervous about the lost manuscript and what it might reveal, should it resurface.

Agreed

The Book of Mormon is sprinkled with statements excusing any imperfection in its record. The title page of the Book of Mormon contains the disclaimer that if there are any mistakes in it they are the mistakes of men (no kidding!).

And you are reading those as a response to the fear of the 116 ms pages? Fascinating. I haven't seen that argument before.

The best explanation I can see for these facts is that Joseph claimed to receive the very words of the translation he was producing, which is also the view taken by the dominant LDS scholars and apologists today. At the same time, Joseph felt he had to qualify this claim so as to allow for the possibility of discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the lost manuscript, should it resurface.

I probably have my own best explanation. I wonder how we might decide between the two. We might simply go with our initial presumptions. Or, we might actually look at the text and the evidence. That is actually the method I prefer, and probably why my explanations of Joseph translating aren't exactly like everyone else.

[stemelbow]

Rob,

If it was "probably burned," then D&C 10 is probably false

When was it "probably burned"? You seem to suggest she burned it before any such plan could be conceived, right?

[Rob Bowman]

stemelbow,

You wrote:

When was it "probably burned"? You seem to suggest she burned it before any such plan could be conceived, right?

It was Brant who said it was "probably burned"; I simply agreed with him. If Lucy Harris burned it, then the claim in D&C 10 that "wicked men" had stolen the manuscript and altered it to discredit Joseph can't also be true. You seem to be suggesting that this statement might have been true in summer 1828 when Joseph produced the revelation now in D&C 10, and that sometime later Lucy may somehow have gotten the manuscript from these "wicked men" and then burned it. This explanation is not only ad hoc, it is highly unlikely (would these men, having gone to the trouble of stealing the manuscript, and having escaped detection, allow Lucy to find and take the manuscript from them?). Furthermore, if Lucy managed this she would have had to do so after spring 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published, since the first edition gives the same explanation for the loss of the manuscript as D&C 10. I cannot think of a single reason why Lucy might plausibly have destroyed the manuscript in late 1830 or even later, and I can think of more than one reason why she would have published it, if she in fact had gotten her hands on it. The same reasons apply for anyone else who might have had the manuscript in 1830 or later: money, and the potential for discrediting the Book of Mormon. This makes it fairly certain that by spring 1830 the manuscript had been destroyed.

[Rob Bowman]

Brant,

Yes, we have different understandings of the issues here. Just a couple of quick points:

1. I am not convinced that Joseph Smith "tended to use the word translation in a much broader scope than we now use it." What evidence do you have for this claim? I know that Mormons sometimes make this claim when confronted with evidence that Joseph's "translation" of the Bible are not restorations of the original text, but the argument is fallacious: because Joseph failed to produce that kind of "translation" does not mean he didn't think that was what he was doing.

2. If your generalities about the nature of the material in the Book of Mormon replacing the lost manuscript is supported only by your "experience with the text," this isn't something I can address.

3. You wrote:

Do we really need to discuss the nature of translation? If I translate a fairly long text, and then wait for a while and translate it again, what are the changes that the two translations will be exactly the same? What are the chances that they translate the same document (trick question, of course).?

The KJV, NIV, and The Message are demonstrably three English versions of the same book, the Bible, even though they are very different in terms of their wording and style. Had Joseph produced two very different "translations" of the same plates that would have been equally demonstrable and obvious regardless of the differences, if in fact he was really translating the plates at all.

[cinepro]

I love secret plans and conspiracies in movies. And I love it even more when characters in a story come up with implausible plans. If my wife and I are watching a TV show or movie and a character comes up with an illogical or contrived plan (i.e. every plan Sayid came up with in "Lost"), we'll start yelling at the screen. It's great fun.

Unfortunately, the "conspiracy" being theorized here rings implausible to me. To put it plainly, it sounds like a plan that Joseph would come up with fearing an inability to duplicate the text, not a plan that someone wanting to stop or discredit the translation process would come up with.

And the timeline for the scheme is also oddly vague.

According to Eldon Watson, the translation of the "116 Pages" took two months (April 12 - June 14, 1828). After the pages are stolen, the plan assumes Joseph would go back and start over. So that's another two months. Then, the plotters wouldn't know how close Joseph was to finishing. Was he half way done? Or just 1/4? Or almost finished? Either way, they're looking at some time longer than two months for Joseph to recreate the lost pages. Then add on the two months it took for Joseph to even begin translating again.

So the plan works like this:

1. Convince Lucy Harris to convince Martin to convince Joseph to lend her the pages.

2. Once Lucy has the pages, steal them.

3. Wait for Martin to discover they're missing, and then wait for Martin to tell Joseph.

4. Wait for Joseph to begin "translating" again, using even more of Martin's money.

5. Wait for Joseph to finish translating.

6. In the meantime, study the original stolen translation. Determine which member of the gang has sufficient literary skills to alter it. Produce an alternate version of the manuscript with alterations made, or alter the original manuscript.

7. Find a publisher for the altered stolen translation. Convince them to publish it, and pay for the publication.

8. When Joseph is finished translating, wait for him to publish the book, using even more of Martin's money.

9. Now the trap has been set! Draw attention to your publication, and tell people it is the original version of Joseph's story! When people ask where you got it, and how you are publishing it, have a really good answer.

10. Now that you've gone public, hope Joseph doesn't take legal action against you.

11. Sit back, and wait for people to read your publication and Joseph Smith's, and carefully compare them and come to the conclusion that because they are different, Joseph must be a fraud, since there are no other plausible explanations on how enemies of Joseph's could have published a story that was different than Joseph's other than your explanation that you stole his original manuscript but didn't make any changes to it before publishing it.

12. The plan succeeds, and all of Martin's investment for the translation (and re-translation) and publication of the book is lost.

It's almost too easy.

Edited July 15, 2011 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

stemelbow,

You wrote:

It was Brant who said it was "probably burned"; I simply agreed with him. If Lucy Harris burned it, then the claim in D&C 10 that "wicked men" had stolen the manuscript and altered it to discredit Joseph can't also be true. You seem to be suggesting that this statement might have been true in summer 1828 when Joseph produced the revelation now in D&C 10, and that sometime later Lucy may somehow have gotten the manuscript from these "wicked men" and then burned it. This explanation is not only ad hoc, it is highly unlikely (would these men, having gone to the trouble of stealing the manuscript, and having escaped detection, allow Lucy to find and take the manuscript from them?).

But you're in the inenviable position of contesting JS' claims here, not I. Possibilities may or may not abound for my position but if you are to convince that JS was wrong (about the revelation), then you must supply the evidence. For all we know Lucy agreed with wicked men, in that she would give up the manuscript to expose JS as a fraud. This could even happen after Martin returned to tell Joseph the manuscript was not found. If she was in on it the plan might not have unfolded until after she stole it.

Furthermore, if Lucy managed this she would have had to do so after spring 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published, since the first edition gives the same explanation for the loss of the manuscript as D&C 10. I cannot think of a single reason why Lucy might plausibly have destroyed the manuscript in late 1830 or even later, and I can think of more than one reason why she would have published it, if she in fact had gotten her hands on it. The same reasons apply for anyone else who might have had the manuscript in 1830 or later: money, and the potential for discrediting the Book of Mormon. This makes it fairly certain that by spring 1830 the manuscript had been destroyed.

That's rather ad hoc, it seems. If Lucy had conspired with others to trick JS in hopes to expose him, she needn't wait until after 1830 to do the destroying. her own husband was in on it all. She could have very well learned that the project when continued wasn't going to include the lost part.

Also, we need not even think Lucy was in on it. She might not have been. But, your theory (about the revelation to JS being wrong and therefore not really revelation) would only hold if you can show when the manuscript was burned. As of now, your theory is merely theorizing. Its ad hoc explanation from a critic of what might ahve been. Its not a very good argument to uphold since the evidence doesn't quite support it.

[stemelbow]

I love secret plans and conspiracies in movies. And I love it even more when characters in a story come up with implausible plans. If my wife and I are watching a TV show or movie and a character comes up with an illogical or contrived plan (i.e. every plan Sayid came up with in "Lost"), we'll start yelling at the screen. It's great fun.

Unfortunately, the "conspiracy" being theorized here rings implausible to me. To put it plainly, it sounds like a plan that Joseph would come up with fearing an inability to duplicate the text, not a plan that someone wanting to stop or discredit the translation process would come up with.

And the timeline for the scheme is also oddly vague.

According to Eldon Watson, the translation of the "116 Pages" took two months (April 12 - June 14, 1828). After the pages are stolen, the plan assumes Joseph would go back and start over. So that's another two months. Then, the plotters wouldn't know how close Joseph was to finishing. Was he half way done? Or just 1/4? Or almost finished? Either way, they're looking at some time longer than two months for Joseph to recreate the lost pages. Then add on the two months it took for Joseph to even begin translating again.

i don't get what the mention of months has to do with any of this. And as I told Rob, one need not suppose the conspirators had to wait very long at all. Once they realized JS had not intended to recreate it, they might have decided to end their plans there.

So the plan works like this:

1. Convince Lucy Harris to convince Martin to convince Joseph to lend her the pages.

That's an assumption that need not be made. The conspiracy might not have developed until after Martin went back to Joseph to report the manuscript was lost.

2. Once Lucy has the pages, steal them.

Again another assumption we simply can't take, it seems to me.

3. Wait for Martin to discover they're missing, and then wait for Martin to tell Joseph.

4. Wait for Joseph to begin "translating" again, using even more of Martin's money.

5. Wait for Joseph to finish translating.

Perhaps the plan was foiled as soon as word was out that JS was not going to recreate the 116 pages. This kinda renders the rest of your bullet points moot.

Cheers.

[cinepro]

Another funny thing is something my son does. He is always coming up with these really long-range plans that take an incredible amount of planning and effort for very little payoff. For example, his sisters play the piano but he doesn't, and he thought it would be a great plan to secretly spend years learning how to play the piano really well so he could "surprise" us one day. Lots of work for a marginal payoff.

This plan suffers from the same thing. Lots of planning and work stealing, hiding and forging stuff, and then waiting for Joseph to do his thing, all for what? What's the payoff for all that work?

That's an assumption that need not be made. The conspiracy might not have developed until after Martin went back to Joseph to report the manuscript was lost.

The problem is that you have two different (and opposing) theorized motives between Lucy Harris and the forgers.

They could either try to stop the translation process and kill the project, or they could plan for the completion of the translation and plan to discredit Joseph with an altered version of the book. Lucy would either want the Book of Mormon to be stopped ASAP (so Martin would quit giving the project money), or to have it succeed so Martin would make money on his investment. But God said the conspirators wanted the project to continue to its completion and then fail, after all the money had been spent, which is the exact opposite of what Lucy would want.

So, if Lucy isn't involved in the conspiracy, that raises many more questions about her disposition during the entire scenario.