Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Frankly I am embarrassed that I ever bought into that b***s*** and angry that I wasted two years peddling Jos. Smith door to door.

Wait a minute. I'm the one who's supposed to be a seething cauldron of hatred, right?

[_Danna]

Well, I read Roper, (all 134 pages )…

Roper shifted the goal posts somewhat in conceding that while Rigdon had been in Pittsburgh at the right time, there was no non-anecdotal evidence of Rigdon being in a position to copy Spaulding’s manuscript. Previous to Cowdery et al.’s report of a newspaper placing them both in Pittsburgh at the same time, the standard position, from Rigdon himself, subsequent apologists, Brodie, and Sandra Tanner was that Rigdon had NOT been there at all at that time. At the least Rigdon has been caught in a lie directly related to the topic – although Roper claims that as Rigdon claimed he never LIVED there he was not actually lying. I agree with Roper that the new evidence merely shows opportunity. Vogel agreed with Roper on this point as well. But in spite of Roper glossing over this point – it still changes the premises used by Brodie and Tanner in their assessment of the theory.

I also agree with Roper on his essential dismissal of the eyewitness testimony (EWT). Hurlburt apparently did believe the evidence that he had gathered, given his efforts to uncover the book, but this is not a defence against contamination. EWT is not only vulnerable to deliberate distortion by an interviewer, but also to inadvertent contamination by a person genuinely seeking ‘the truth’ but bringing their biases and desires to the interview. There is no way to assess the reliability of the EWT collected by Hurlburt without independent corroboration. But Hurlburt's apparent belief highlights pre-existing Spaulding rumors.

Roper also points out that the existence of a second manuscript is primarily dependent on EWT. This is fair enough as well. There may or may not be a second manuscript. But a key fact remains – again Roper glosses over this - before Hurlburt’s investigation, some people familiar with Spaulding’s work believed that the Book of Mormon was similar enough to it to suspect plagiarism. Roper himself maintains that witnesses based their statements on vague recollections of Manuscript Story. And Uncle Dale has documented impressive similarities between the existing Spaulding manuscript and the Book of Mormon. Whether Manuscript Story was a draft for a lost Manuscript Found, or was the only manuscript, claims that there is no resemblance to the Book of Mormon are simply not correct.

So 100odd pages of Roper later, I find that Cowdery et al. have still shown that every link or relationship required for the Relief Society theory is possible (even if not independently supported). In effect there is a valid theoretical basis for the Relief Society hypothesis in competition with what is essentially the null hypothesis – Joseph Smith wrote the book alone. Certainly, the ancient Nephite hypothesis does not come close to either of them

[_moksha]

A solid historical case would be a good start.

Incidentally, Jersey Girl, my answer above was a serious one.
...who has considered this matter, that the historical case for the Spalding theory is, to put the best face on it, weak.

It is hard to come up with a good solid historical case for so many things. I know I approach many of those items lacking documentation with a leap of faith. How about you?



.

[_Danna]

OK, I have checked out the earlier post where Dan Vogel addresses the Relief Society theory. He appears to base his firm ‘Smith did it’ stance on the evidence of eyewitnesses. However the EWT was collected from a variety of sources independent to each other, so should be of better quality. Here are ‘the main ones’ as defined by Vogel:

HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS
Dan Vogel, Mormon Discussion Board, Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:07 am

This is so well documented, but I will give some of the main sources. First, recommend the following essays:

James E. Lancaster, "The Translation of the Book of Mormon," in Dan Vogel, ed., The Word of God: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 97-112.

Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The gift of Seeing,'" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Summer 1982):48-48.

EMMA SMITH (in Harmony, ca. late Dec. 1827 - 12 April 1828, lost Book of Lehi)

Q. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?
A. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.
Q. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having read it out of some book?
A. Joseph Smith [and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, "your father," or "my husband"] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to any one else. ...

Q. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin of the Book of Mormon?
A. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity--I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.

--Joseph Smith III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," Saints' Herald 26 (1 October 1879): 289-90. Also published in Saints' Advocate 2 (October 1879): 49-52. (EMD 1:541-42)


MICHAEL MORSE (Emma's brother-in-law, non-believer; in Harmony, no specified time)

He further states that when Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon, he, (Morse), had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation.

The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating, word after word, while the scribe--Emma, John Whitmer, O[liver]. Cowdery, or some other, wrote it down.

--William W. Blair, Letter to Editors, 22 May 1879, Saints' Herald 26 (15 June 1879): 190-91. (EMD 4:343)


MARTIN HARRIS (in Harmony, 12 April 1828 - ca. 14 June 1828, lost Book of Lehi; possibly March 1829, first part of Mosiah)

Martin explained the translating as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used. Martin said, after continued translation they would become weary and would go down to the river and exercise by throwing stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion, Martin found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming their labor of translation, Martin put in place the stone that he had found. He said that the Prophet remained silent unusually and intently gazing in darkness, no traces of the usual sentences appearing. Much surprised, Joseph exclaimed, "Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt." Martin's countenance betrayed him, and the Prophet asked Martin why he had done so. Martin said, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told him that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them, etc.

--Edward Stevenson to the Editor, 30 November 1881, Deseret Evening News 15 (13 December 1881). Reprinted in Deseret News 30 (28 December 1881): 763; Millennial Star 44 (30 January 1882): 78-79; 44 (6 February 1882): 86-87. (EMD 2:320-21)


OLIVER COWDERY (in Fayette, 7 April 1829 - ca. 1 June 1829, first part of Mosiah - Moroni; in Fayette, ca. 1 June 1829 - 1 July 1829, 1 Nephi - Words of Mormon)

Sidney Rigdon did not write it; Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it myself, as it fell from the lips of the Prophet.

--Reuben Miller, "Last Days of Oliver Cowdery," Deseret News 9 (13 April 1859). Reprinted in Millennial Star 21 (1859): 544-46. (EMD 2:495)


DAVID WHITMER (in Fayette, June 1829, 1 Nephi - Words of Mormon)

Mr. Whitmer emphatically asserts, as did Harris and Cowdrey, that while Smith was dictating the translation he had

NO MANUSCRIPT NOTES OR OTHER MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE

save the seer-stone and the characters as shown on the plates, he being present and cognizant how it was done.

--"The Last Man. Of the Men Who Attested to the Truth of the `Book of Mormon,' David Whitmer Only Is Left. In the Sunset of Life He Bases His Hopes of Heaven on the Records of the Lost Tribe. And Solemnly Reiterates All that He Has Ever Said Regarding Them," Chicago Times, 17 October 1881. Reprinted in Saints' Herald 28 (15 November 1881): 346-47. (EMD 5:86)


We asked him the question: Had Joseph Smith any manuscripts of any kind by him at the time of translating the Book of Mormon that he could read from?

"His answer was: `No, Sir. We did not know anything about the Spaulding manuscript at that time.'

--DAVID WHITMER INTERVIEW WITH J. W. CHATBURN, 1882--Saints' Herald 29 (15 June 1882): 189. (EMD 5:94)


Father Whitmer, who was present very frequently during the writing of this manuscript affirms that Joseph Smith had no book or manuscript, before him from which he could have read as is asserted by some that he did, he (Whitmer) having every opportunity to know whether Smith had Solomon Spaulding's or any other persons' romance to read from.

--"Revelation Revisers," St. Louis Republican 77 (16 July 1884): 7. Reprinted in Saints' Herald 31 (9 August 1884): 516-17. (EMD 5:128)


I will say that all who desire to investigate the Spaulding manuscript story will not be obliged to go very far before they will see the entire falsity of that claim. I testify to the world that I am an eye-witness to the translation of the greater part of the Book of Mormon. Part of it was translated in my father's house in Fayette, Seneca County, N.Y. Farther on I give a description of the manner in which the book was translated. ...

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. . . .

--David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Missouri: David Whitmer, 1887), 10-11, 12 (EMD 5:196-97)

Now, some patterns are apparent. Of the witnesses noted here – Harris and Emma have observed the translation of the lost 166 pages (Lehi). Which I am given to understand was a long, painstaking, process - a couple of pages a day. Whitmer covers some portions of the 166 pages replacement (1 Nephi to Words of Mormon) containing large swathes of Isaiah, and an abridged re-hash of the 116 pages. Cowdery has the bulk of the book which was dictated in about 2.5 months).

So here is a hypothetical scenario:

The collaborators prepare an elaborate system involving Joseph memorising portions of the prepared text, possibly with crib notes or hints concealed in strategic places. (He was supposed to be using the Urim and Thummin for the 116 pages, why does no one describe it? Or describe how it was used? See the other thread for my comments on the breastplate they were attached to). Progress is very slow (Edit:, but the method allows a number of witnesses to observe the 'miraculous' process). When the 116 pages are lost, this is devastating. Requiring a change of plan and Oliver stepping in as scribe, at which point the book is churned out at speed from the end of Lehi through to the end.

After Oliver and Joseph churn through the prepared text and return to the start of the book, there is the opportunity to set up occasional scribes and witnesses. Using Josephs’s remarkable ability to memorise, along with the large tracts of Isaiah, and the fact that this is the second time over the same ground, Whitmer (and others?) are given the opportunity to act as scribe and observe Joseph dictating out of his hat.

I am sure that Uncle Dale or someone more familiar with the process would be able to take a more detailed look at matching the periods where EWT is available to specific portions of the Book of Mormon. A key question must be – why did no one see the U&T if the translation of the Book of Lehi was observed by various eyewitnesses? Why did so many eyewitnesses observe some portions of the book's translation and not others.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've just never been able to see Oliver Cowdery as an archvillain, much as I understand the need that some have for him to have been one. Here's something I wrote a few months ago:

Oliver Cowdery can plausibly be considered the co-founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Commonly called the Church’s “second elder” and, at one time, its “assistant president,” he wrote most of the Book of Mormon out by hand from dictation as Joseph Smith’s principal scribe, recopied the entire manuscript for the printer, and, as one of the Three Witnesses, beheld the angel Moroni, saw the plates, and heard the voice of God testify that the translation was correct. With Joseph Smith, he was ordained to the Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist and to the Melchizedek priesthood by Peter, James, and John. He was at Joseph Smith’s side in the Kirtland Temple on 3 April 1836, when Moses, Elias, Elijah, and the Savior himself appeared there, to accept the newly dedicated building and to confer priesthood keys.

Yet Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Church in April 1838, and lived as a non-Mormon for the next decade. In 1848, he was rebaptized, and, two years later, he died.

For obvious reasons, Latter-day Saint historians have found Cowdery extraordinarily interesting, and they have written numerous articles about his life and career. Now, several of the very best of these have been gathered in John W. Welch and Larry E. Morris, eds., Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness (Provo: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2006)—a book well worth the attention of anyone interested in the truth-claims of Mormonism and in its early history.

The cover of the book itself is important, as it features a recently discovered daguerrotype image of Oliver Cowdery that is discussed in an essay by Patrick Bishop. Other treasures include a brief biography of Cowdery by the premiere expert on the Witnesses, Richard Lloyd Anderson (who also contributed pieces on “The Impact of the First Preaching in Ohio” and on the reliability of the scribe who recorded Cowdery’s testimony upon his return to the Church); John W. Welch’s valuable essay on “The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon”; Steven Harper’s “Oliver Cowdery and the Kirtland Temple Experience”; and Royal Skousen’s “Translating and Printing the Book of Mormon.” Altogether, there are seventeen articles in the volume, written by thirteen different named authors.

“Oliver Cowdery and the Restoration of the Priesthood,” compiled by Brian Q. Cannon and the BYU Studies staff, gathers and analyses several statements from Cowdery on that important subject. Matthew Roper’s “Oliver Cowdery and the Mythical ‘Manuscript Found’” scrutinizes the hoary “Spalding Theory” of Book of Mormon authorship and finds it wanting (yet again). Scott H. Faulring’s “The Return of Oliver Cowdery,” which won the T. Edgar Lyon Award of Excellence from the Mormon History Association when it was first published in 2000, provides fascinating and even moving background to that 1848 event, which demonstrated Oliver Cowdery’s continuing testimony of Mormonism at a time when the Saints were headed westward and when casting one’s lot with them was anything but an easy road to prosperity or social status.

Larry Morris’s article on “Oliver Cowdery’s Vermont Years and the Origins of Mormonism” dismantles persistent attempts to link Joseph Smith Sr. with Oliver Cowdery’s father in a divining-rod incident that, so the theory goes, helps to explain (away) the founding of the Church twenty-five years later. It also demolishes equally persistent efforts to tie Oliver Cowdery to Rev. Ethan Smith and, thereby, to portray the Book of Mormon as plagiarized from Rev. Smith’s View of the Hebrews. As if that weren’t contribution enough, Morris’s “ ‘The Private Character of the Man Who Bore that Testimony’: Oliver Cowdery and His Critics” defends Cowdery’s reputation, intelligence, and honesty against writers who, in their ardent desire to negate his testimony, have attempted to besmirch his name. Morris, who is emerging as a treasure in his own right, demonstrates that the critics rely upon weak evidence, questionable sources, and circular reasoning in order to make their fatally flawed case.

The founding events of the Restoration took place in the literal material world. They were not metaphorical. They were not merely symbolic. Accordingly, they are of immense significance to all of humanity. Oliver Cowdery’s unwavering eyewitness testimony of them, through persecution, suffering, illness, disappointment, anger, and even excommunication, is powerful evidence of their reality. This book, Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness, provides powerful scholarly evidence that his testimony can be trusted.

And, of course, I think the depiction of Oliver Cowdery in Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses absolutely indispensable.

[_TAK]

Well, I read Roper, (all 134 pages )…

Roper also points out that the existence of a second manuscript is primarily dependent on EWT. This is fair enough as well. There may or may not be a second manuscript. But a key fact remains – again Roper glosses over this - before Hurlburt’s investigation, some people familiar with Spaulding’s work believed that the Book of Mormon was similar enough to it to suspect plagiarism. Roper himself maintains that witnesses based their statements on vague recollections of Manuscript Story.

Roper talks about “former neighbors of Spalding”, but that’s misleading - it was more than that. Spaulding was living with his Brother John and Sister-in-law and they both gave statements that there were two manuscripts and there were strong similarities to the Book of Mormon with Manuscript Found.

[_TAK]

DCP

And, of course, I think the depiction of Oliver Cowdery in Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses absolutely indispensable

I am guessing you get a cut of the royalties for as much as you hump this book..

[_SatanWasSetUp]

A solid historical case would be a good start.

Are you talking about the Spaulding theory, or the Book of Mormon itself? Because I believe there is a better historical case for the Spaulding theory than there is for the Book of Mormon is non-fiction theory.

[_Daniel Peterson]

A solid historical case would be a good start.

Are you talking about the Spaulding theory, or the Book of Mormon itself? Because I believe there is a better historical case for the Spaulding theory than there is for the Book of Mormon is non-fiction theory.

We disagree. (Who woulda thunk it?)

Anyway, I was talking about nineteenth-century scenarios, apples to apples. No serious historian -- Mormon, non-Mormon, or ex-Mormon -- has taken the Spalding theory seriously for at least the past sixty years.

[_marg]

Anyway, I was talking about nineteenth-century scenarios, apples to apples. No serious historian -- Mormon, non-Mormon, or ex-Mormon -- has taken the Spalding theory seriously for at least the past sixty years.

Dan Vogel's reasons against the Spalding theory are extremely weak. In essence he believe the Book of Mormon witnesses who claimed to have seen an angel but discounts all the Spalding witnesses who had no motivation to lie, nor were they all likely to have been mistaken.

Fawn Brodie's reasoning was as well very poor.

There may be motivation for historians to discount the Spalding theory, for one by doing so they protect themselves from significant heavy Church attack. The Church can accept, Smith being the sole writer of the Book of Mormon, it doesn't matter much that the historian doesn't believe a God was involved, but there is NO WAY the Church could ever accept the Book of Mormon was written using as a catalyst and base a stolen manuscript from a deceased writer of fictional stories.