Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_Ray A]

However, it does seem to me that a combination of these theories would yield considerable explanatory power, in terms of the presenting the book as a 19th century production. The trouble is, that view involves a conspiracy that is subject to the demand for hard evidence, although the internal evidence, to me, is strong enough to suggest that there was some sort of collaboration.

I think Dale has long had this in mind (a combination theory). I suspect he has not always freely shared these ideas on MBs for the very reason I hesitate to share them . That the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production is in my opinion beyond question.

[_Ray A]

Yes, years ago

Basically what I remember is that he said very little on how it was done. That was my point.

What Cowdery said is that it was a mystery to him how they would be "translating" when the plates weren't even in sight. Since none of us was there we can only rely on witness accounts, but certainly still question them.

Of course there was secrecy, why so many inconsistent descriptions on how it was done.

And there are no inconsistent descriptions in the Spalding theory? It all fits together perfectly, and the Book of Mormon authorship thread, now at 39 pages is, I guess, really discussing a fait accompli.

You know that for a fact, you know that with Oliver Cowdery they used nothing, you know they didn't use the Bible for the Bible quoted portions as well.

I'm going on the witness accounts. I suppose it could all have been a collaboration to produce a bright shining lie, but let's see the evidence for that.....apart from "imagining" it to be so.

How many was that Ray, and how many were friends and family and of any witnesses how long did each observe?

Brush up on Mormon history, marg. The three witnesses, including Cowdery, turned against Joseph Smith. He and Cowdery were alienated for the rest of Joseph's life, and he returned to the Church ten years later, in 1848, and died not long after that. He was excommunicated. If it was all a bright shining lie, I presume Cowdery would have taken the opportunity to expose it during those ten years of alienation. David Whitmer denounced the D&C and called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, fallen like King David, and never returned to the Church. I suppose he too could have taken this opportunity to expose the bright shining lie. Now, if only, if only one of them had done the deed and exposed it all and explained how it was "really" done it would be case closed, but it's not quite that simple.

Well I'd have to go look at section 78 to see how spectacular it is...

Try Section 76 before you go to 78.

That's where you are so wrong. It takes a lot more imagining to think Smith could dictate the Book of Mormon in a short period of time, no notes, just ramble it off, and keep the storyline straight, than to believe the Spalding witnesses (who had nothing to gain by doing so) who said Spalding who been known to write over many years, had read to them his manuscript he was working on, and that having read or perused the Book of Mormon..they recognized Spalding's work in it.

Then head on to the Book of Mormon authorship thread and find the alternative answer. It's still at 39 pages. Not to mention the Dan Vogel thread, which was much longer. But I know you've already written Vogel off, because he doesn't know much about Mormon history, does he? And he doesn't know how to think logically, poor fellow. His five volumes of Early Mormon Documents might come in handy as toilet paper someday.

[_Jersey Girl]

Then head on to the Book of Mormon authorship thread and find the alternative answer. It's still at 39 pages. Not to mention the Dan Vogel thread, which was much longer.

The Vogel thread was "much longer" how?

But I know you've already written Vogel off, because he doesn't know much about Mormon history, does he? And he doesn't know how to think logically, poor fellow. His five volumes of Early Mormon Documents might come in handy as toilet paper someday.

Ray, do you understand that the Jockers study supplies evidence and validates the assertions of the Spalding/Rigdon theory?

Editing: I think that automatic writing should be a consideration for Rigdon but not Joseph Smith. That's why I see little in the Curran story that correlates to that of Joseph Smith.

[_AlmaBound]

Ray, do you understand that the Jockers study supplies evidence and validates the assertions of the Spalding/Rigdon theory?

It doesn't, however, eliminate contributions from Joseph, at least the way I read it. I'd expect to see considerable contributions from Joseph if a verifiable writing sample were used in further studies of that nature.

Editing: I think that automatic writing should be a consideration for Rigdon but not Joseph Smith. That's why I see little in the Curran story that correlates to that of Joseph Smith.

Why not? If there were a conspiracy, and Rigdon, Pratt, and Cowdery contributed portions of the book, written within a similar framework of "likening the scriptures unto themselves," why would Joseph not be a candidate for conducting the same sort of practice?

Frankly, I think the finished version of the Book of Mormon, even if it used Spalding or Ethan Smith as a beginning structure, very little would bear resemblance to the original, aside from thematic and perhaps proper names, as some of the family members attest.

There appears to be considerable biographical information within 1 Nephi that applies directly to Joseph's family - making Joseph a clear candidate for performing some sort of automatic writing within that portion. That's not to say I don't think Rigdon was performing a similar function, I just think they were doing it independently - perhaps seen in the exchange between Ammoron and Captain Moroni.

[_marg]

Yes, years ago

Basically what I remember is that he said very little on how it was done. That was my point.

What Cowdery said is that it was a mystery to him how they would be "translating" when the plates weren't even in sight. Since none of us was there we can only rely on witness accounts, but certainly still question them.

Wow he said a lot! Wasn't he a scribe for at least 90% of the Book of Mormon. Did he mention a "head in the hat"? Or how about seer stone in which the words could be read off it while Joseph kept his head in the hat? Or how about a sheet separating him? What was his experience, since he spent so much time working as a scribe? What details did he supply. This must have been quite an experience for him, one would think he'd write lots about it. He was an editor wasn't he, used to writing. So what's his vivid description of his experiences. Why didn't he see words appearing on a small seer stone?

Of course there was secrecy, why so many inconsistent descriptions on how it was done.

And there are no inconsistent descriptions in the Spalding theory?

What on earth does the Spalding theory have to do with the witness descriptions being inconsistent? Get with the program ..stay focussed.

It all fits together perfectly, and the Book of Mormon authorship thread, now at 39 pages is, I guess, really discussing a fait accompli.

Again Ray we are discussing your claim to Smith's automatic writing, not the Spalding theory.

You know that for a fact, you know that with Oliver Cowdery they used nothing, you know they didn't use the Bible for the Bible quoted portions as well.

I'm going on the witness accounts. I suppose it could all have been a collaboration to produce a bright shining lie, but let's see the evidence for that.....apart from "imagining" it to be so.

Right you are going on the witness accounts, a limited number of people, under 10, who have very inconsistent stories on how they observed Smith dictate. They all knew each other, yet they can't seem to get their stories straight amongst themselves.

How many was that Ray, and how many were friends and family and of any witnesses how long did each observe?

Brush up on Mormon history, marg. The three witnesses, including Cowdery, turned against Joseph Smith. He and Cowdery were alienated for the rest of Joseph's life, and he returned to the Church ten years later, in 1848, and died not long after that. He was excommunicated. If it was all a bright shining lie, I presume Cowdery would have taken the opportunity to expose it during those ten years of alienation. David Whitmer denounced the D&C and called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, fallen like King David, and never returned to the Church. I suppose he too could have taken this opportunity to expose the bright shining lie. Now, if only, if only one of them had done the deed and exposed it all and explained how it was "really" done it would be case closed, but it's not quite that simple.

I can see someone returning to the Church for social reasons. I see people on this board, very critical of the church and yet remain in it, because they still see some good in it, their families are involved, it provides social support and networking. And anyone who helped Rigdon and Smith create this religious sect, participated knowingly in the Book of Mormon production would not want to expose themselves or their families to persecution in their present lives nor taint their family reputation for years to come. What kind of reception could they possibly get by anyone, for coming clean with their fraudulent acts? There was be only pain, and no benefit to do so.

Well I'd have to go look at section 78 to see how spectacular it is...

Try Section 76 before you go to 78. [/quote]

I took a look at I guess 78, I don't think Ray that any of the D& C is comparable to writing the whole Book of Mormon.

That's where you are so wrong. It takes a lot more imagining to think Smith could dictate the Book of Mormon in a short period of time, no notes, just ramble it off, and keep the storyline straight, than to believe the Spalding witnesses (who had nothing to gain by doing so) who said Spalding who been known to write over many years, had read to them his manuscript he was working on, and that having read or perused the Book of Mormon..they recognized Spalding's work in it.

Then head on to the Book of Mormon authorship thread and find the alternative answer. It's still at 39 pages. Not to mention the Dan Vogel thread, which was much longer. But I know you've already written Vogel off, because he doesn't know much about Mormon history, does he? And he doesn't know how to think logically, poor fellow. His five volumes of Early Mormon Documents might come in handy as toilet paper someday.

Gosh you are too much. When did I EVER say Dan Vogel doesn't know history. Not once Ray. It would help if you actually knew what the heck you were talking about.

[_Ray A]

The Vogel thread was "much longer" how?

True it was not as many pages as the authorship thread, but it was pinned for much longer. Perhaps the authorship thread will take the record for being a pinned thread.

Ray, do you understand that the Jockers study supplies evidence and validates the assertions of the Spalding/Rigdon theory?

That is disputable, as I've already mentioned on the authorship thread, for many reasons. No such study can determine an outcome with 100% reliability. It might be a "sound conclusion", but it doesn't prove anything. Further, the connections to Rigdon, and exactly how this was done haven't been established. Didn't you read what Dale said? Perhaps one day that link might be established through more research. There are still loose ends to tie up, important loose ends, and I'd like to see more debate with those who actually work in this field, but are not connected to the Jockers study. When you have a statistical result that cannot be matched with other sound historical evidence, the debate will have to continue. And that's why I'd also like to eventually see some input from Vogel and Brent Metcalfe, which I know Dale is very skeptical about.

Editing: I think that automatic writing should be a consideration for Rigdon but not Joseph Smith. That's why I see little in the Curran story that correlates to that of Joseph Smith.

Maybe you don't, but writers like Scott Dunn does. Have you read the Scott Dunn article? And we need evidence that Rigdon could have done or did do automatic writing. As far as I know there's none, and this too will have to go into the "imagine" department. On the other hand what Joseph Smith did matches automatic writing plausibly enough.

[_marg]

I have a question for you Ray, which witnesses' description of the dictation are consistent with one another? And what are the parts which are consistent?

[_EAllusion]

I highly doubt the Book of Mormon was produced by a automatic writing or a process akin to it. As far as automatic writing goes, I'm somewhat familiar with Facilitated Communication, which is a pseudoscientific technique most often used with autistic individuals that has a blindingly loyal following in some quarters. That is probably the best example I can think of for routine automatic writing going on right now that can be looked at and studied.

[_Jersey Girl]

Ray,

Indulge me if you will. Can you explain in a few sentences what the outcomes of the Jockers study indicate?

[_Ray A]

Wow he said a lot! Wasn't he a scribe for at least 90% of the Book of Mormon. Did he mention a "head in the hat"? Or how about seer stone in which the words could be read off it while Joseph kept his head in the hat? Or how about a sheet separating him? What was his experience, since he spent so much time working as a scribe? What details did he supply. This must have been quite an experience for him, one would think he'd write lots about it. He was an editor wasn't he, used to writing. So what's his vivid description of his experiences. Why didn't he see words appearing on a small seer stone?

Maybe you should read those accounts, marg. I'm not in the mood for a Mormon history 101 lesson on a Sunday morning when I have to work soon.

What on earth does the Spalding theory have to do with the witness descriptions being inconsistent? Get with the program ..stay focussed.

Sometimes I feel like I'm watching reruns of "Yes Minister".

Again Ray we are discussing your claim to Smith's automatic writing, not the Spalding theory.

For some strange reason they interconnect.

Right you are going on the witness accounts, a limited number of people, under 10, who have very inconsistent stories on how they observed Smith dictate. They all knew each other, yet they can't seem to get their stories straight amongst themselves.

But it matters not if the Spalding witness are inconsistent. I've got that packed down.

I can see someone returning to the Church for social reasons. I see people on this board, very critical of the church and yet remain in it, because they still see some good in it, their families are involved, it provides social support and networking. And anyone who helped Rigdon and Smith create this religious sect, participated knowingly in the Book of Mormon production would not want to expose themselves or their families to persecution in their present lives nor taint their family reputation for years to come. What kind of reception could they possibly get by anyone, for coming clean with their fraudulent acts? There was be only pain, and no benefit to do so.

Here's your view in a nutshell, marg, the Book of Mormon witnesses are all unreliable liars and frauds, but the Spalding witnesses are all pure in motivation and honest in deed. They can do no wrong. Oh, they would never have an ulterior motive for anything. They did this out of the goodness of their hearts. Many years after the events they all remember every detail with perfect consistency and there are no variations in their stories, which all match perfectly.

Yes Minister.

Gosh you are too much. When did I EVER say Dan Vogel doesn't know history. Not once Ray. It would help if you actually knew what the heck you were talking about.

You said that Vogel is a poor thinker, not a very logical thinker, so even if he knows his history, he obviously can't connect with what you see as "obvious".