Cohesive Narrative of the fabricated Book of Mormon?

[Fether]

Are there any comprehensiveness and cohesive articles or historical fictions out there that spell out exactly how one could believe JSjr fabricated the Book of Mormon? I’m familiar with many of the arguments and feel a few of them contradict each other.
 

I want to see the best written out narrative of what “actually” happened in the creation of the Book of Mormon. Was the Spaulding manuscript used or View of the Hebrews? Did JSjr write it, or was it a group effort? What kind of binding covenant would make the witnesses of the Book of Mormon abandon JSjr and call him a fallen prophet, yet never deny the Book of Mormon itself? When using the Seer stone, did JSjr memorize hours of passages and then stick his head in the hat and recite them back? Or perhaps he had a note card on his lap he was reading from that no one noticed? Or were the translators, Emma included, all in on it and there really was no “translation process”, but rather the book was made and they all wrote in their journals fake entries about the translation?

Edited August 15, 2021 by Fether

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Are there any comprehensiveness and cohesive articles or historical fictions out there that spell out exactly how one could believe JSjr fabricated the Book of Mormon? I’m familiar with many of the arguments and feel a few of them contradict each other.
 

I want to see the best written out narrative of what “actually” happened in the creation of the Book of Mormon. Was the Spaulding manuscript used or View of the Hebrews? Did JSjr write it, or was it a group effort? What kind of binding covenant would make the witnesses of the Book of Mormon abandon JSjr and call him a fallen prophet, yet never deny the Book of Mormon itself? When using the Seer stone, did JSjr memorize hours of passages and then stick his head in the hat and recite them back? Or perhaps he had a note card on his lap he was reading from that no one noticed? Or were the translators, Emma included, all in on it and there really was no “translation process”, but rather the book was made and they all wrote in their journals fake entries about the translation?

I don’t have time for a complete (or very thoughtful) response, but from a critics perspective you have this backwards.
 

A few examples:

I don’t know how Egyptians built the pyramids. I don’t know how the statues on Easter island were moved. I don’t know how David Copperfield made a UFO appear on stage when I saw him in Vegas. The fact that I don’t know exactly how any of the above happened doesn’t make the explanation that God or Aliens did it any more compelling. 
 

One more side note, why would Joseph put a note card in his lap when he could just put it in his white top hat that he had his face buried in?

Edited August 15, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t have time for a complete (or very thoughtful) response, but from a critics perspective you have this backwards.
 

A few examples:

I don’t know how Egyptians built the pyramids. I don’t know how the statues on Easter island were moved. I don’t know how David Copperfield made a UFO appear on stage when I saw him in Vegas. The fact that I don’t know exactly how any of the above happened doesn’t make the explanation that God or Aliens did it any more compelling. 
 

One more side note, why would Joseph put a not card in his lap when he could just put it in his white top hat that he had his face buried in?

Right. It is backwards. For instance, what is the comprehensive, cohesive narrative explaining how the Book of Mormon is what it and Joseph Smith claimed it to be?

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Are there any comprehensiveness and cohesive articles or historical fictions out there that spell out exactly how one could believe JSjr fabricated the Book of Mormon? I’m familiar with many of the arguments and feel a few of them contradict each other.
 

I want to see the best written out narrative of what “actually” happened in the creation of the Book of Mormon. Was the Spaulding manuscript used or View of the Hebrews? Did JSjr write it, or was it a group effort? What kind of binding covenant would make the witnesses of the Book of Mormon abandon JSjr and call him a fallen prophet, yet never deny the Book of Mormon itself? When using the Seer stone, did JSjr memorize hours of passages and then stick his head in the hat and recite them back? Or perhaps he had a note card on his lap he was reading from that no one noticed? Or were the translators, Emma included, all in on it and there really was no “translation process”, but rather the book was made and they all wrote in their journals fake entries about the translation?

I am curious. If a naturalistic explanation that you could accept were presented to you, would it change your opinion of it's historical claims?

Edited August 15, 2021 by CA Steve

[Fether]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One more side note, why would Joseph put a note card in his lap when he could just put it in his white top hat that he had his face buried in?

Then one would have to account for why did no one saw him put cards in it or flip through them while reading it. Or heard the 30 pages of paper rustling around in the hat. The question still remains, can someone make a written narrative that explains it all.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The fact that I don’t know exactly how any of the above happened doesn’t make the explanation that God or Aliens did it any more compelling. 

Nor do I think it should.

I’m not seeking to disprove the questions that have been brought forward. I’m only curious to see if somebody has put together any such article or work of historical fiction.
 

SOMETHING happened to get to where we are today. Right now we have only one complete story and that is the one the church has compiled through the records that were kept. We assume that what was written was all true. I would like to see another full  and cohesive (historical fiction) story from the first vision to his death that included the critics views on what happened and how this beg con came about, all the while staying true to historical records that are verifiable.

[Fether]

16 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am curious. If a naturalistic explanation that you could accept were presented to you, would it change your opinion of it's historical claims?

I am naturally critical of most things, even my own beliefs. If there is a convincing argument on any point, I would love to hear it.

[Bob Crockett]

Autodidact is the best explanation I've seen.  But even so keeping the plot together.  James Fennimore Cooper couldn't have done it.  Same period of time. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

27 minutes ago, Fether said:

Then one would have to account for why did no one saw him put cards in it or flip through them while reading it. Or heard the 30 pages of paper rustling around in the hat. 

CFR that no one saw him or heard him do that. 

 

27 minutes ago, Fether said:

Right now we have only one complete story and that is the one the church has compiled through the records that were kept.

The church doesn’t have a single narrative. Tight or loose translation? Where were the Nephites? Where is the hill Cumorah? How did the kjv get in the BOM? Did Joseph’s milieu affect the translation or was the actual translation done in the 1600’s later to be revealed to Joseph?

ETA: the only official stance I am aware of was that it was done by the gift and power of God. Which isn’t much of an explanation to me, but ymmv. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

I want to see the best written out narrative of what “actually” happened in the creation of the Book of Mormon.

I don't mean to be offensive but that is a naive question.

All you can possibly get is an allegedly cohesive theory about other allegedly cohesive theories all made up by people who were not there.

Make up your own!  What fun! That's what everyone else does!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR that no one saw him or heard him do that. 

Further @Fether we have:

Quote

I then asked him if he had ever looked through the stones to see what he could see in them; his reply was that he was not permitted to look into them. I asked him who debarred him from looking into them; he remained sometime in silence, then said that he had so much confidence in his friend Smith, who told him that he must not look into them, that he did not presume to do so lest he should tempt God and be struck dead. 

http://boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/JJones.html
 

Quote

which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket. Harris was told that it would arouse the most terrible divine displeasure, if he should attempt to draw near the sacred chest, or look at Smith while engaged in the work of deciphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris' own account of the matter to me. 

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/MHarris.html
 

See here for more discussion:

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2020/11/concealment-and-divine-prohibition-in-book-of-mormon-translation-accounts/
 

Unlike the Book of Abraham Papyri (which was shown off to anyone and everyone), the Book of Mormon translation was shrouded in mystery. I have a hard time accepting the idea that there was no way Joseph could have used notes. (Not saying he did - it doesn’t matter to me either way)

[Fether]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

CFR that no one saw him or heard him do that. 

 

The church doesn’t have a single narrative. Tight or loose translation? Where were the Nephites? Where is the hill Cumorah? How did the kjv get in the BOM? Did Joseph’s milieu affect the translation or was the actual translation done in the 1600’s later to be revealed to Joseph?

ETA: the only official stance I am aware of was that it was done by the gift and power of God. Which isn’t much of an explanation to me, but ymmv. 

I’m not talking about proof for or against the Book of Mormon.

Im not it even suggesting that such a manuscript SHOULD exist. Nor is this a “gotchya” thread for the critics.

I am just curious to see if one exists. If someone has gathered ip the critics points and has put together a complete story of all that happened from the critics view.

The Book of Mormon exists, we have journal entries that say things, we have records of witnesses who abandoned JS, but never abandoned their belief in The Book of Mormon (at least thats what the records state). We see evidence (not proof) of Hebrew culture and textual practices in the Book of Mormon, chiasmus, etc. I’m simply curious if anyone has put together a work of historical fiction that accounts for why these (not all, that would be difficult) evidences exist

Edited August 16, 2021 by Fether

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

Are there any comprehensiveness and cohesive articles or historical fictions out there that spell out exactly how one could believe JSjr fabricated the Book of Mormon? I’m familiar with many of the arguments and feel a few of them contradict each other.
 

I want to see the best written out narrative of what “actually” happened in the creation of the Book of Mormon. Was the Spaulding manuscript used or View of the Hebrews? Did JSjr write it, or was it a group effort? What kind of binding covenant would make the witnesses of the Book of Mormon abandon JSjr and call him a fallen prophet, yet never deny the Book of Mormon itself? When using the Seer stone, did JSjr memorize hours of passages and then stick his head in the hat and recite them back? Or perhaps he had a note card on his lap he was reading from that no one noticed? Or were the translators, Emma included, all in on it and there really was no “translation process”, but rather the book was made and they all wrote in their journals fake entries about the translation?

I believe the only way for Joseph to have written the BoM is if he started years earlier. He was an intelligent man, his dad was a school teacher. In this link are all the criticisms and you can read how FAIR answers them. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/answering-the-bible-answer-man/more-on-joseph-smiths-plagiarism-in-the-book-of-mormon

[OGHoosier]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m not talking about proof for or against the Book of Mormon.

Im not it even suggesting that such a manuscript SHOULD exist. Nor is this a “gotchya” thread for the critics.

I am just curious to see if one exists. If someone has gathered ip the critics points and has put together a complete story of all that happened from the critics view.

The Book of Mormon exists, we have journal entries that say things, we have records of witnesses who abandoned JS, but never abandoned their belief in The Book of Mormon (at least thats what the records statistics). We see evidence (not proof) of Hebrew culture and textual practices in the Book of Mormon, chiasmus, etc. I’m simply curious if anyone has put together a work of historical fiction that accounts for why these (not all, that would be difficult) evidences exist

Probably the most complete would be William Davis's Visions in a Seer Stone. I find its argument unconvincing but there you go.

I also find the argument that "no explanation is necessary" to be unconvincing. In all the examples given (pyramids, David Copperfield, etc), God was never invoked as an explanation in the first place by those connected to the production of said structures or phenomena. To borrow from William James, He was never "a live option" for explanation. Such is not the case for the Book of Mormon and I believe that makes a difference. 

Also, FWIW. 

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further @Fether we have:

Quote

I then asked him if he had ever looked through the stones to see what he could see in them; his reply was that he was not permitted to look into them. I asked him who debarred him from looking into them; he remained sometime in silence, then said that he had so much confidence in his friend Smith, who told him that he must not look into them, that he did not presume to do so lest he should tempt God and be struck dead. 

http://boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/JJones.html
 

Quote

which, when repeated aloud, was written down by Harris, who sat on the other side of the suspended blanket. Harris was told that it would arouse the most terrible divine displeasure, if he should attempt to draw near the sacred chest, or look at Smith while engaged in the work of deciphering the mysterious characters. This was Harris' own account of the matter to me. 

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/MHarris.html
 

See here for more discussion:

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2020/11/concealment-and-divine-prohibition-in-book-of-mormon-translation-accounts/
 

Unlike the Book of Abraham Papyri (which was shown off to anyone and everyone), the Book of Mormon translation was shrouded in mystery. I have a hard time accepting the idea that there was no way Joseph could have used notes. (Not saying he did - it doesn’t matter to me either way)

The first quote comes from Oliver Cowdery, who notably had a full view of Joseph Smith while translating during his phase of the translation, and was even offered the opportunity to translate. Notably, the only thing Cowdery is prohibited from doing is to peer through the spectacles themselves. Joseph Smith doesn't even name a consequence, as it would appear that Cowdery "did not presume to do so lest he should tempt God and be struck dead." Nothing else of the process was obscured from him. 

The second, from John A. Clark's "interview" with Martin Harris, is not actually a direct interview. It's a quotation from a thirdhand, anonymous source who Clark describes as "a gentleman in Palmyra...a professor of religion" but nevertheless does not name. See Larry Morris, FARMS Review Vol. 15, Issue 1. So, reliability concerns there. Second, we have pretty good evidence that the method of translation shifted throughout the process, starting with a temple-like veil and sacred vestments and artifacts and then retreating until it was the two men and a stone in the hat, plus the occasional spectator passing by. See Don Bradley's book on the 116 pages. So I disagree that these verses establish that the Book of Mormon translation was "shrouded in mystery." 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One more side note, why would Joseph put a note card in his lap when he could just put it in his white top hat that he had his face buried in?

Because he would not have been able to read anything in the bottom of his white top hat with his face buried in it. Have you tried such an experiment? I have. Without some type of light inside the hat any characters on a note card would be illegible, if they could be seen at all. Maybe Joseph had xray vision??? 🤓

As to the blanket thing, I will quote Neal Maxwell from the Fair article on Martin Harris and his contributions to the translation process:

"With regard to the physical circumstances of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his scribe, Martin Harris was quoted as saying there was a blanket or curtain hung between himself and Joseph during the translation process. If Martin is accurately quoted, perhaps this occurred when the Prophet was copying characters directly from the plates in the sample to be taken to Professor Charles Anthon, since the dates mentioned are several months before Martin Harris's brief scribal duties began. I say this because although David Whitmer mentions a blanket being used, it was only to partition off the living area in order to keep both the translator and scribe from the eyes of visitors.

In fact, Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery, Oliver's wife, said, "Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe." [4] Emma likewise said of her days as scribe, early on, that Joseph dictated "hour after hour with nothing between us."

I do not see note cards or pages from a manuscript in Joseph's lap as being very plausible. A didactic memory and Joseph memorizing at night the text to be dictated the next day is the most plausible naturalistic explanation for the translation process, in my opinion. However there has yet to be found any evidence for that possibility.

Glenni

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't mean to be offensive but that is a naive question.

All you can possibly get is an allegedly cohesive theory about other allegedly cohesive theories all made up by people who were not there.

Make up your own!  What fun! That's what everyone else does!

Sure, people make their own stories. But only very few claim and attempt the exercise of spiritual authority over others.

[JustAnAustralian]

Well there's this satirical explanation https://www.jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

In fact, Elizabeth Anne Whitmer Cowdery, Oliver's wife, said, "Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe." [4] Emma likewise said of her days as scribe, early on, that Joseph dictated "hour after hour with nothing between us."

I will merely point out that the first from Whitney was in 1870 and the second was 1879 in the same interview where Emma denied polygamy ever happened, so…

Maybe they are right, maybe not but it’s not like there is one consistent narrative to point to and say this is what happened. 

 

As for reading in the bottom of a top hat? Easy peasy. Let a bit of light in. Or make sure your hat is a bit translucent.

Edited August 15, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

all the examples given (pyramids, David Copperfield, etc), God was never invoked as an explanation in the first place

Aliens and magic are given explanations that from my standpoint aren’t different than God. There was a poster here back in the day ERayR that had a good theory going on the ancient pyramids (not aliens but it was supernatural). Perhaps the best comparison is to the tic tac video and other recent UAP recently released. We don’t know what they are therefore it must be aliens just isn’t convincing to me, but some people swear by it. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will merely point out that the first from Whitney was in 1870 and the second was 1879 in the same interview where Emma denied polygamy ever happened, so…

Maybe they are right, maybe not but it’s not like there is one consistent narrative to point to and say this is what happened. 

 

As for reading in the bottom of a top hat? Easy peasy. Let a bit of light in. Or make sure your hat is a bit translucent.

I would love to see a demonstration of reading in the bottom (or even sides) of a white (actually gray or off-white in color; per Wikipedia, "white" was just a term for a less formal, non-black style), translucent top hat. Would any adjustments need to be made to the hat?

Challenge accepted / anyone wanna get their McClellan on?

It would require a less-literal interpretation of "face-in-the-hat", which doesn't have as much shock value: 

Also, how much text could be read at a time, especially for some of the longer sessions -- some slight of hand? A magician might be needed to help with this demonstration.

Edited August 15, 2021 by CV75

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or make sure your hat is a bit translucent.

From my understanding of how top hats are made, even old ones are unlikely to be translucent. Wearing away at a side enough to see through sounds like it would compromise the structure of the hat (I have a few vintage hats of my grandparents, but other than that, no experience except with inexpensive modern straw and felt fedoras as I haven’t found another style that looks good on me).  Maybe making a number of holes in it with a thick needle might work. 
 

Since it was an old hat at the time, I would have assumed it was felted beaver’s fur, but I don’t know if it being white rules that out. Added:  CV makes the point it was probably grey, so I am going with felted beaver’s fur. 

Edited August 15, 2021 by Calm

[OGHoosier]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

From my understanding of how top hats are made, even old ones are unlikely to be translucent. Maybe making a number of holes in it with a thick needle might work. 
 

Since it was an old hat at the time, I would have assumed it was felted beaver’s fur, but I don’t know if it being white rules that out. Added:  CV makes the point it was probably grey, so I am going with felted beaver’s fur. 

There's also the fact that hats back then were composed of multiple layers of resin and gossamer on base of sturdy stiffened felt which gave the hat it's shape. Such felt was often some shade of orange, and quite solid. 

Consiglieri brought up a theory like this a while back if I recall. 

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

From my understanding of how top hats are made, even old ones are unlikely to be translucent. Maybe making a number of holes in it with a thick needle might work. 
 

Since it was an old hat at the time, I would have assumed it was felted beaver’s fur, but I don’t know if it being white rules that out. Added:  CV makes the point it was probably grey, so I am going with felted beaver’s fur. 

White, beaver-fur top hats on two 19th century gentlemen. Most hats before 1850 were in fact, felted beaver fur. Many believe this is what contributed to near-extinction of the animal in Europe. Later, the popularity in silk hats grew, mostly replacing their beaver counterparts. I suppose old fashion dies hard in the case of these men.

https://tuesday-johnson.tumblr.com/post/1378398345/white-beaver-fur-top-hats-on-two-19th-century

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

There's also the fact that hats back then were composed of multiple layers of resin and gossamer on base of sturdy stiffened felt which gave the hat it's shape. Such felt was often some shade of orange, and quite solid. 

Consiglieri brought up a theory like this a while back if I recall. 

That is why I think some alterations would need to be made. 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Also, how much text could be read at a time, especially for some of the longer sessions -- some slight of hand? A magician might be needed to help with this demonstration.

I’m not the saying he read from note cards (the text has a very oral feel to it to me), only that there was no need to put them in his lap if they were used. But slight of hand? Magician? Joseph was very involved in the occult, using his seer stone to locate hidden lost objects, search for buried treasure etc. a little slight of hand, sure why not? A bathroom break, sure why not? A break to stretch his legs, sure why not? Or his translators were co-conspirators? Sure why not. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is why I think some alterations would need to be made. 

 

One of my grandfather’s hat is obviously fur felt. If the outside was left so the felt could be brushed, pinholes for light could be easily blocked by the outer layer movement. Though on an old hat, the outer layer of looser fur if top hats had one could be worn down. Otoh, if the felt was completely felted or whatever the term is (I did study this once when I considered maybe trying to make my own hat for a costume) with layers of glue, rubbing on the inside to make a thinner barrier….trying to think of what might be used that wouldn’t obviously damage it. 
 

I think this would be a question for someone who knows vintage hats.