Joseph Smith's ability to memorize lengthy sections of text

[_Uncle Dale]

...in an interview with Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith
....

Oh yes -- two fully objective, disinterested passers-by, who just happened
to report their totally unbiased reactions? Where's their notarized affidavit,
countersigned by Whitmer and the Ray Co. Recorder? In the LDS archives?

....as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life
...

No doubt of that. Why argue the points I already accept?

Argue instead that if you had been standing next to Whitmer,
(but unseen and un-influenced by Smith & Cowdery), that YOU
would have seen the exact same thing that Whitmer saw.

Argue that a video camera pointed at the spot where Whitmer
was standing would have recorded the physical image of an angel.

Argue that the angel would have left footprints on the ground.

Argue that the angel subsequently appeared to people (not influenced
by Smith and Cowdery), and confirmed his physical reality.

Argue that the angel left unique angelic fingerprints on the u&t
thereafter used by Smith.

Argue anything, except those points I already agree with. For that's
just a waste of your precious time and energy.

UD

[_marg]

Why not? We're not talking about 6 pages in 3 or 4 hours are we? We're talking about 6 per day on average probably with a good number of breaks in between. I know I can't memorize that much but there certainly are people who can--apparently without any visible help from God.

Well if the hypothesis is that he memorized text daily and then dictated..that would mean he memorized because he didn't want the others who knew him being aware of (I'll call it for short) "the con". That in itself would be difficult to do, memorize large quantity of text without anyone seeing or being aware of him doing that, and without anyone seeing the papers he was memorizing from. So memorizing takes time and combined with the time it would take to dictate..would make it a very full day, which he'd have to duplicate day after day. So I think it would all be just too time consuming and energy draining. Besides he was a con artist who I believed took pride in his ability to con,...memorizing would be hard work, not a con. And if he could memorize text then why only have a few scribes, people he knew well, why not use some local educated people to act as scribes?

You might be right but I'm hesitant to include Whitmer. Whitmer's "Address..." and subsequent actions make him seem like a true believer to me. He may not have seen an angel as you and I might think of "seeing" but as Harris aptly demonstrates seeing with one's "mind's eye" could be just as real to 19th century believers as reality---maybe even more so.

I think people who are not mentally ill are aware of the difference of their experiences when drugged versus when sober. I also think the same applies to hypnotism. People hypnotized are not unaware of what is going on.

If the experience that Whitmer and Cowdery had of the angel & god etc involved a different experience than when completely sober and natural, why was that only revealed much later and nothing mentioned in their testimony?

If all the things Whitmer mentioned were present that day..including the plates which allegedly existed then why couldn't Harris at a minimum see the plates.

Smith obviously knew seer stones have no magic abilities. Smith would also have known full well the Book of Mormon, and his dictation of it, was all a con.

Therefore why should I assume his close friends would be any different? Why should I assume they'd be gullible or ignorant of his cons?

D. Whitmer having seen how Mormonism grew would have appreciated that religion is a viable business with potential benefits. Being so close to Smith he could appreciate it didn't require someone with outstanding qualities to create and run a religious business. Since he was one of the originators why not attempt to continue in that business (after Smith was gone), others were doing it why not him...especially if he thought he could do a better job, create a more ethical religion than others.

The "address to believers" was simply for the purpose of starting up a religion again. Just like J. Smith knew it was a con, and didn't have to believe the Book of Mormon true...why should Whitmer be any different?

I don't know how much of the Book of Mormon Whitmer was a scribe for, but didn't he testify to Smith using a seer stone which glowed the words which Smith would read while his head was in a hat so Whitmer knew full well it was a con.

why do you make that leap?

I give him more intelligence than to be so gullible as to truly think a seer stone glowed words. He wasn't that trusting an individual

If I'm not mistaken, Whitmer had a seer stone of his own. Also, Whitmer was "sold" on the seerstone thing. He thought Joseph started going astray when he thought he no longer needed a seer stone.

If Whitmer had a seer stone then he knew it didn't work. Those who own a seer stone would be the ones doing the conning.

How would he have known? I can only assume Whitmer was fascinated that Smith got so much out of his seer stone and asked him: what do you see Joseph? Might have been a little awe there sort of like the magician who can only do cards tricks being inspired by David Copperfield.

There's too much unrealistic coincidental stuff going on. Whitmer a friend of Cowdery and Cowdery..both happen to see God, and an angel at the same time..but not Harris. It's as if the 3 of them Smith, Cowdery and Whitmer were all in collusion on this, thinking Harris would go along with it at the time, so as to not be left out. I don't think Cowdery and Whitmer were naïve types. I don't believe they experienced anything unusual that day with Harris present. If drugs were involved why wouldn't one of them, suspect or appreciate this? Even so, why would both claim the same experience, when under a drug influence? According to Harris at the time they claimed to observe an angel and God..Harris saw and heard nothing.

So I doubt Whitmer believed the seer stone worked, and I doubt he experienced anything unusual as per the testimony in the Book of Mormon. He'd have to be an extremely credulous individual if I were to believe otherwise.

[_Roger]

why me:

It's interesting how you scoff at Hurlbut's witnesses and yet here's Whitmer making comments like:

it was just as though

and

there appeared, as it were,

Obviously we have a case of which witnesses one wants to accept. That is why external evidence becomes such a crucial part of the equation. The main problem you have is that there is virtually zero evidence that any plates ever existed--which is probably a good thing since otherwise we could examine them.

On the Spalding side, while it is true that the ms which the witnesses purported to be very similar to the Book of Mormon has not been found, it is also true that a Spalding ms has been found that shares a number of striking parallels to the Book of Mormon and especially the Joseph Smith plate-discovery story. How do you account for the parallels? Coincidence?

[_Roger]

UD:

I think this line says it all:

Whitmer: "Nothing, in the way you understand it."

How would a Spalding critic respond if we had John Spalding saying:

Well I never actually saw Spalding's manuscript... at least not in the way you understand it.

[_Uncle Dale]

UD:

I think this line says it all:

Whitmer: "Nothing, in the way you understand it."

How would a Spalding critic respond if we had John Spalding saying: "Well I never actually
saw Spalding's manuscript... at least not in the way you understand it."

There is of course a difference. Most of the anti-Spalding bunch have a religion to defend
and protect, and that responsibility must weigh heavily on their minds at times.

But there are also "Spalding critics" who have no apparent stake in upholding the LDS
Church and its explanation of Mormon origins. Probably, to that sub-set of writers, it
makes absolutely no difference whether John Spalding saw something reminiscent
of his late brother's writings or not.

Just as it makes absolutely no difference that Spalding advocates have one extant
manuscript, while Mormons have no golden plates.

So -- what sort of item would get those Spalding critics' attention? Perhaps if we said
that Fawn Brodie's assessment of Joseph Smith was based upon no other firm evidence
than her psycho-analysis, which is not real "in the way you understand it."

Promoters of the Smith-alone authorship theory really have no physical evidence whatsoever.
Smith's seer-stone is hid up in the LDS leaders' office -- Smith's fictional authorship examples
are non-existent (unless you count the JST and Book of Abraham documents) -- Smith's artifacts of fiction
authorship are not real "in the way you understand it."

The Mormons, having already made the pronouncement of "case closed!" should not need to
convince us of anything more, but such a John Spalding admission would certainly cause them
to offer up a happy "I told you so!"

Let's try that tactic on WhyMe. I'll tell him that John Spalding said such a thing, and you can
monitor his reaction......

No, on second thought, we might best stick to the truth here. Too many lies have been told already.

UD

[_Roger]

marg:

Well if the hypothesis is that he memorized text daily and then dictated..that would mean he memorized because he didn't want the others who knew him being aware of (I'll call it for short) "the con". That in itself would be difficult to do, memorize large quantity of text without anyone seeing or being aware of him doing that, and without anyone seeing the papers he was memorizing from.

Possibly. And yet I still think we're coming at it from a 21st century media-saturated point of view. If Smith's father had a remarkable memory in which he could memorize large chunks of material in what you and I would consider a short amount of time, and people testified that he did, who's to say Joseph didn't also? You and I think that would be hard. But not if he had the gift.

In my college days I had a friend who had a video taping job assigned to him when Bill Clinton was still governor of Arkansas. He was assigned to tape Clinton doing a PSA. Clinton was like an hour late getting there, so when he finally showed, everyone, including Clinton, wanted to get out of there as quickly as possible.

My friend handed him the 60 second script which Clinton had never seen before. He sat and stared at it for about 5-7 min and then asked, are you ready with your camera? My friend said yes and Clinton rattled off the PSA word-perfect. Even did a second take with no errors.

The point is, some people just have a natural ability to memorize quickly. It's not a miracle, though it might be for someone like me!

So memorizing takes time and combined with the time it would take to dictate..would make it a very full day, which he'd have to duplicate day after day.

Yeah but how much of a "full" day when there's no TV, no job commute, no cell phone interruptions, no internet.... we're talking about 6 pages.... Smith didn't even have to write them, all he had to do was think while someone else does the writing. And that 6 page pace wasn't constant--it was only after he'd had months of practice. By then he was in the zone. He could have memorized when he went to the out-house for pete's sake. And as Dale reported, there's even reports of the "stone being silent" so Joseph has to go out and "pray." I admit it's not something all that common... but plausible for someone with the gift? Why not?

But again, I agree that not everything that made it into the Book of Mormon had to have been dictated as part of an elaborate con.

So I think it would all be just too time consuming and energy draining. Besides he was a con artist who I believed took pride in his ability to con,...memorizing would be hard work, not a con. And if he could memorize text then why only have a few scribes, people he knew well, why not use some local educated people to act as scribes?

That's a good question. Maybe the educated people wouldn't give him the time of day because they already knew his reputation. Maybe he wanted people he knew were easily duped. You're familiar with the testimony at his 1826 trial, right? Is it Able Chase...? or Arad Stoal...? can't remember who but one of them comments that Smith's tricks were easy to see through--for him at least. In fact I think that's when Smith pretended to read from a book by looking into the stone. If that testimony is accurate then there you have an example of Smith memorizing and trying to fool someone with that ability--which apparently fell flat.

I think people who are not mentally ill are aware of the difference of their experiences when drugged versus when sober. I also think the same applies to hypnotism. People hypnotized are not unaware of what is going on.

I think you're looking at it through a rational, 21st century lens. Do you know how many people claimed to be able to actually see something in seer stones in the 1820's? Do you know how many people believed them? Have you read about the wild contortions and girations that went on at some of these meetings? I'm not convinced we are talking about rational people.

If the experience that Whitmer and Cowdery had of the angel & god etc involved a different experience than when completely sober and natural, why was that only revealed much later and nothing mentioned in their testimony?

Not sure I follow you here.

If all the things Whitmer mentioned were present that day..including the plates which allegedly existed then why couldn't Harris at a minimum see the plates.

I agree. We're both 21st century rationalists. If the plates were real, tangible objects then Harris should have seen them too. They obviously were not. And yet Whitmer and Cowdery claimed to see them and Harris did not immediately see through the ruse and walk off disgusted like others did. But at other times, people claimed to "heft" the plates and see something described as plates under a blanket. I think a prop was used at times.

Smith obviously knew seer stones have no magic abilities. Smith would also have known full well the Book of Mormon, and his dictation of it, was all a con.

Yes I agree. Especially if he's memorizing to fool the public. Although I do wonder if at an earlier age, being raised in a magical environment, he might have actually believed he might have the ability to stumble upon Captain Kidd's treasure with the help of a seer stone or divining rod. Nevertheless, I fully agree that he was soon discovering his ability to "con." For example it was a pretty simple matter to "borrow" an animal and then impress it's owner by "seeing" the location of the missing beast.

Therefore why should I assume his close friends would be any different? Why should I assume they'd be gullible or ignorant of his cons?

You are certainly not obligated to at all. I just think Whitmer's actions and statements are more consistent with a genuine dupe than another con man.

D. Whitmer having seen how Mormonism grew would have appreciated that religion is a viable business with potential benefits. Being so close to Smith he could appreciate it didn't require someone with outstanding qualities to create and run a religious business. Since he was one of the originators why not attempt to continue in that business (after Smith was gone), others were doing it why not him...especially if he thought he could do a better job, create a more ethical religion than others.

Good questions, but I don't see him following through on that, do you? He seemed more of a follower than a leader.

The "address to believers" was simply for the purpose of starting up a religion again. Just like J. Smith knew it was a con, and didn't have to believe the Book of Mormon true...why should Whitmer be any different?

Again, you might be right. What I find interesting is that LDS want to believe Whitmer when he says he saw plates but then reject him when he says if you believe I saw plates then you'll also believe when I say Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet. Perhaps why me can explain how that works.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The point is, some people just have a natural ability to memorize quickly. It's not a miracle, though it
might be for someone like me!
...

David Whitmer, who was a witness to at least some of the Book of Mormon "translation," was asked
about Smith's memory. His reply was:

It was suggested that he [Smith] might have had such document [as Spalding's MS], and
possessing himself of its contents secretly, might have dictated from memory.

He [Whitmer] replied that, such a thing was impossible; that Joseph Smith was a poor scholar,
could scarcely write a legible hand, and could never have read a written copy of any sort
without consulting some one to help him.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IA ... htm#032483

Notice that David Whitmer does not deny Smith's reputed memorization ability -- instead, he says
that Smith couldn't read/write common handwriting "without, consulting some one to help him."

Now, this may have been true -- Smith may have had some difficulty in reading handwriting --
but such a deficit does not preclude Rigdon preparing for Smith an easy-to-read hand-printed
manuscript; nor does it preclude Smith consulting frequently with Oliver Cowdery on the writing.
In other words, Smith need not have written the manuscript he was memorizing -- he only
needed to read it with a certain degree of accuracy.

David Whitmer looks to me to have been an easily fooled guy, who never really stopped
to consider how Smith might have used memorization in some (or all) of his dictation.

UD

[_Roger]

UD:

Promoters of the Smith-alone authorship theory really have no physical evidence whatsoever.
Smith's seer-stone is hid up in the LDS leaders' office -- Smith's fictional authorship examples
are non-existent (unless you count the JST and Book of Abraham documents) -- Smith's artifacts of fiction
authorship are not real "in the way you understand it."

I think they do count the Book of Abraham and JST as well as the Book of Mormon as "physical evidence." Problem is there are clear examples of plagiarism in the Book of Mormon. Dan Vogel says this doesn't really bother him, but, candidly, I can't see why not? As far as I can see the only reason to want to hold hard and fast to Smith-alone is to be consistent with the eyewitness testimony (either that or they just think conspiracy is too difficult to defend... maybe they could take a lesson from you on that one!)

But putting that aside, what rational reason is there to hold hard and fast to Smith-alone?? All I can see is consistency with the witnesses. Well that's fine for TBM's but why be bound by the word of witnesses who claimed to see plates when you don't actually believe there were ever any plates in the first place? Doesn't make sense to me. I see Brent M. and Dan V. (for example) making statements like: there is no need to postulate conspiracy when a Smith-alone explanation will suffice. There's also no need to think in terms of a spherical earth when a flat-earth model prevailed so well for so long. The question is not one of need; rather which explanation best fits with the known data. But then paradigm shifts have never come easily.

The Mormons, having already made the pronouncement of "case closed!" should not need to
convince us of anything more, but such a John Spalding admission would certainly cause them
to offer up a happy "I told you so!"

Let's try that tactic on WhyMe. I'll tell him that John Spalding said such a thing, and you can
monitor his reaction......

No, on second thought, we might best stick to the truth here. Too many lies have been told already.

Might be fun to try though.

David Whitmer looks to me to have been an easily fooled guy, who never really stopped
to consider how Smith might have used memorization in some (or all) of his dictation.

I agree. I think "easily fooled guys" were not all that uncommon in early 19th century New England.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I agree. I think "easily fooled guys" were not all that uncommon in early 19th century New England.

The Whitmers were Dutch -- up from Pennsylvania originally. I think.
Actually a New England Yankee might have been more difficult to fool.

In the same text I just quoted for David Whitmer, it is reported that Emma
Smith was also asked whether her husband could have memorized text and
the repeated it back during dictation. She did no think so.

Another Pennsylvania family -- the Hales.

But I think Emma knew more than she let on. She admits that she had access
to the plates, but wasn't curious enough to look at them. Considering the fact that
her father was very upset about the situation, and wanted the plates off his
property, I find it very curious that Emma did not take the trouble to look at them
and reassure her father that they were true ancient artifacts.

Smith had a wonderful memory -- but his closest associates in 1827-29 did
not think him capable of memorizing his dictation. I'll bet he went to some pains
to implant that exact same impression in their minds.

UD

[_Nevo]

The Whitmers were Dutch -- up from Pennsylvania originally. I think.

If by "Dutch" you mean of German descent, then you'd be right. Peter Whitmer Sr.'s father was born in Harzheim, Rhineland, Prussia, in 1737, and died in Pennsylvania in 1793.