Joseph Smith's ability to memorize lengthy sections of text

[_marg]

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.

I do think there are people with amazing memories but I don't think it fits well with this case. We are quessing here whether or not he had an amazing memory. I think if he did it would be likely, that would have been well known and observed fairly frequently. And secondly if he did I don't think he would have been likely to have used friends and those related to him as scribes, not kept it to so few. I think the dictation process would have all been done with less secrecy and the stories from the scribes on how it was done more consistent, I don't believe Cowdery's explanation was consistent with Whitmer, I don't think he mentioned a seer stone. And I also think if he had memorized he would have dictated in sentences but I don't think that is how they witnesses described it ..didn't they say he dictated a word at a time or a few words and would stop and if the person had written it correctly would continue? Didn't the original Book of Mormon not have periods for sentences? That I think would have been done deliberately to make it look like he was dictating by words..not able to see sentences in a seer stone.

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....

If he had this ability why so much secrecy, why not use respected town people as scribes that he wasn't close to...a judge, teacher, lawyer etc. Instead he uses mainly Cowdery, perhaps Cowdery's friend, his wife and Harris but Harris seems to be the odd guy not fully in on it all, and likely had a blanket separating them.

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've not read about him reading a book at a trial. But why would they ..Cowdery and Smith have left the home town and go into seclusion I believe at the Hales and also the Whitmer's in order to continue on. If he truly could rattle off a memorized text day after day..the more people who could see and testify to that the better for the believability that he was able to use a seer stone to produce the Book of Mormon.

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.

I don't know what message boards you've been reading but I come across some pretty irrational people..on this board. :) I don't honestly believe that people were more irrational then, or more prone to mystical type thinking then versus now. I don't believe Cowdery and Whitmer or Rigdon were dupes, I think the people who believe them, believe they are on the up and up with their story of angel and God are being duped. If Cowdery and Whitmer truly believed they saw an angel and God, I don't think they would have ever questioned anything Smith did, nor have left the Church.

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.

My understanding is that it was many years later when Whitmer was being questioned for specifics about that event and he couldn't answer with specifics that he mentioned it being a mystical type experience which got him off the hook of having to be specific. If they Cowdery and Whitmer were both drugged (I'll ignore Harris) and had a drugged experience which turned it into a mystical one, then why not relate that. It would be what they actually experienced and easy to relate. But that's not what's in the testimony they signed..it doesn't sound mystical at all. If they truly had a drugged mystical experience and they were honest individuals they would have wanted to testify to an experience which appeared mystical. Instead they testify to an experience which even uses the word "sober" in it.

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.

I don't follow you about 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.

A dupe would have been more likely to obey Smith, not question him, stay in the Church..especially if he truly believed God singled Smith out.

In those days if one wasn't educated for a non labor type profession, teacher, judge, lawyer, doctor, and your parents didn't teach you a craft and no farm was being handed down, most of the available jobs would involve hard physical labor. For those who could read and write which I believe D. Whitmer could, I know Cowdery could and a farm can not be divided among all sons in which they could continue to live off it...a start up religion was a potentially good job. I believe there were lots of start up religions in those days..their unique religion had the advantage of its own sacred text, which also had the advantage of adding onto the Bible, and being American, not solely European based. So it had good potential and that would have been obvious at the time.

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

If he was a follower why would he question Smith's leadership ability and then leave the Church over it? And didn't Smith make him president of the Church group in Missouri? I don't know much about him, but the little I know, my impression is he viewed himself as a leader.

***I apologize for not spending the time to look into what the facts are available regarding for example .. Whitmer. I'm not currently motivated to spend much time on Mormonism..and over time I tend to forget the facts anyhow.

[_why me]

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

Well, Uncle Dale I have heard it all when it comes to who wrote the Book of Mormon. But this thread about Joseph Smith's memory is a new one and a theory of how he wrote it and memorized it is pretty far-fetched. My reaction to a John Spalding would depend on what he said, when he said it and why. And whether or not he had a dog in the fight.

[_Roger]

marg:

We are quessing here whether or not he had an amazing memory.

Dale's previous posts provide substantiation for an educated guess.

And secondly if he did I don't think he would have been likely to have used friends and those related to him as scribes, not kept it to so few.

I disagree. In the first place I don't think he had a lot of respect in the community in general--unless you, like the Mormons, don't accept Hurlbut's wtinesses. He could not use his treasure hunting crew, they were too wild. Who else is he going to "use"? Martin Harris was about as respectible a man as he could influence and Harris' wife nearly ruined that.

And I also think if he had memorized he would have dictated in sentences but I don't think that is how they witnesses described it ..didn't they say he dictated a word at a time or a few words and would stop and if the person had written it correctly would continue?

Yes in fact Whitmer's is the primary testimony in that regard:

"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 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, p 12

Harris apparently concurred:

"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, the 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 Harris as quoted in HOTC 1:29.

This is exactly the reason I do not believe that all of the Book of Mormon text was produced via memorization, and in fact I have already stated on this thread that I don't think any of the final cut had to have been produced via memorization. Nevertheless Smith apparently did have a better than average memory. Vogel, Metcalfe et al, make use of Lucy's statement that well before Book of Mormon publication, Joseph would recite various stories about the Nephites as if he had spent his life among them.

What does that really tell us? That Smith was somehow familiar with the Book of Mormon story before any alleged translation began. From where was he getting these detailed ideas? A Spalding-Rigdon ms fits very nicely, doesn't it?!

Vogel & Metcalf also make a decent case that dictation was likely involved as they can apparently identify errors which are very likely introduced when a scribe mis-hears a word or two, but dictation does not mean that Smith himself wasn't reading from something else. But apologists jump in with testimony that Joseph couldn't read well! Well, I'm sorry, but you have the same problem whether Smith is reading from a ms or a seer stone!

It is Smith-alone adherents like Vogel and Metcalfe who--apparently--appreciate the eyewitnesses so much that they rule out conspiracy based on the accounts given by Harris, Cowdery, Whitmer and Emma. And yet here we have those same witnesses flatly stating that Smith would read from something! Unless you actually believe that words legitimately appeared in a seer stone, how do you account for that? A Spalding-Rigdon ms fits nicely, doesn't it?!

So yes I think that is a good point and I am not at all saying that Joseph's memory accounts for all of what we find in the Book of Mormon.... nevertheless, things like Lehi's dream are very likely Smith's direct contributions which would indeed have probably come from his memory.

I've not read about him reading a book at a trial.

Arad Stowell Was Josiah's son. Josiah had hired Smith to search for buried treasure in 1825.... note the key wording here:

Arad Stowel sworn, says that he went to see whether Prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill that he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a Book open upon a White Cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent; held the stone to the candle, turned his back to book and read, the deception appeared so palpable that [he] went off disgusted.

McMaster, sworn, says he went with Arad Stowel, to be convinced of Prisoner's skill, and likewise came away disgusted, finding the deception so palpable. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discern objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a Hat at his dark-colored stone as he said that it hurt his eyes.

-PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK,
VS.
JOSEPH SMITH.
March 20, 1826, Bainbridge, New York.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/da ... endixa.htm

The way I read this, Smith had obviously memorized a book and yet "professed" to be able to read through his seer stone. Why would such a feat seem "so palpable" that both Stowell and McMaster came away disgusted? Obviously Smith could have previously memorized and then pretended to read. This appears to be exactly what happened and Stowell and McMaster weren't falling for it. This is over a year prior to Book of Mormon translation.

What I find most interesting is that no one--apparently--disputes that Smith actually "professed" to have this ability. What does that leave us with? How does Smith professing to be able to read printed matter through his seer stone fit with a Smith-alone model? Not very well, IMHO.

If he truly could rattle off a memorized text day after day..the more people who could see and testify to that the better for the believability that he was able to use a seer stone to produce the Book of Mormon.

From William Hine to A. B. Demming, 1884:

I learned that Jo claimed to be translating the plates in Badger's Tavern, in Colesville, three miles from my house. I went there and saw Jo Smith sit by a table and put a handkerchief to his forehead and peek into his hat and call out a word to Cowdery, who sat at the same table and wrote it down. Several persons sat near the same table and there was no curtain between them.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/york/appendix2.htm

Now I agree that "a word" to Cowdery is hardly difficult, and yet, if Hine's testimony is correct, then this stunt is obviously a public performance to demonstrate Smith's professed ability. This tells me Cowdery was in on the con, but unless Smith is only calling out a few "words" then he must have done some serious memorizing to attempt to pull off such a public ruse. If only a few words were attempted for the benefit of the public, how gullible indeed were Smith's dupes! I think Smith could memorize pretty well.

On the other hand, skeptics were abundant even then:

Smith, while still living with Deacon Stowell, went to my father's mill with several bags of wheat to be ground. On arriving at the mill he discovered that he had lost a bag out of his wagon. This bag was delivered to and hidden by one Bridgeman, for the purpose of further testing Smith's power to see in his magic stone which he pretended was found with the gold plates.

In due time Smith was circulating through the town looking for the lost bag of wheat, which was lost near Bridgeman's house and picked up by Major Samuel Badger and his son-in-law, Elijah Smith, whom Smith had passed without recognizing them. Bridgeman hid the bag of wheat under his bed for two weeks, during which time Smith, Stowell, and some of Smith's followers were daily looking for it. At last, and for the purpose of showing the absurdity of Smith's pretentious, Smith was taken into Bridgeman's house, and after looking and failing to obtain any revelation, Bridgeman pulled the bag from under his bed, saying: "Here, I can find your wheat without any glass, you fool."

Amasa M. Badger Recollections
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/ ... 00mag1.htm

What all this says to me is that Joseph was indeed "professing" to have the ability not only to see things in the stone but to read from it as well and there were indeed public attempts to demonstrate his professed ability, many of which fell flat.

In the end, we're still left with testimonies both TBMs and Smith-alone advocates trust flatly stating that Smith read from something. So I agree with you, the data supports Spalding-Rigdon, but Joseph could probably memorize pretty well too which certainly would have come in handy when needed.

I don't know what message boards you've been reading but I come across some pretty irrational people..on this board. :) I don't honestly believe that people were more irrational then, or more prone to mystical type thinking then versus now. I don't believe Cowdery and Whitmer or Rigdon were dupes, I think the people who believe them, believe they are on the up and up with their story of angel and God are being duped. If Cowdery and Whitmer truly believed they saw an angel and God, I don't think they would have ever questioned anything Smith did, nor have left the Church.

Again, you may be right. I agree with you about Cowdery, I'm just not sure about Whitmer. Who knows?

My understanding is that it was many years later when Whitmer was being questioned for specifics about that event and he couldn't answer with specifics that he mentioned it being a mystical type experience which got him off the hook of having to be specific. If they Cowdery and Whitmer were both drugged (I'll ignore Harris) and had a drugged experience which turned it into a mystical one, then why not relate that. It would be what they actually experienced and easy to relate. But that's not what's in the testimony they signed..it doesn't sound mystical at all. If they truly had a drugged mystical experience and they were honest individuals they would have wanted to testify to an experience which appeared mystical. Instead they testify to an experience which even uses the word "sober" in it.

That's a good point. I would be interested in Dale's take on this.

I don't follow you about the "missing beast".

Just attempting (and obviously failing) to restate "borrowed animal" in more colorful language. The point being it was easy for Smith to "borrow" an animal without its owner's knowledge and then impress the owner by "locating" the animal through the use of the stone. Rather simple antics to impress the gullible.

A dupe would have been more likely to obey Smith, not question him, stay in the Church..especially if he truly believed God singled Smith out.

This is where we disagree. Don't you think William Law was at one time a true dupe of Smith? And yet it was Smith's behavior that did it for him. I think the same is true of Whitmer who probably truly believed the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be since he seemed to be devoted to it even after losing faith in Smith.

If he was a follower why would he question Smith's leadership ability and then leave the Church over it?

Well we both know that Smith was into some pretty bizarre stuff. But the main thing that seemed to bother Whitmer was that Joseph eventually decided he could receive revelations without using a seer stone. At about the same time, Joseph is starting to go off in more and more unorthodox ways. This says--to me anyway--that Whitmer truly believed Smith got revelations from the stone and when he thought he didn't need it anymore, that's where he went astray. Whitmer had a stone of his own. So he either really saw stuff in it or he knew he couldn't. If he knew he couldn't then why make such a big deal about Joseph not using a stone? I think he really believed Joseph could do something with a stone that he had for some reason never been able to make happen for himself.

But of course I could be wrong about all that... it's happened quite a lot I'm afraid. : ) Maybe Whitmer was attempting to develop his own following based on revelations through seer stones! Can you imagine Thomas Monson regularly consulting his seer stone for direct revelation?

[_karl61]

I was just checking the Book of Moses and it reads just like parts of the Book of Mormon. You could read both and say they sound the same. I don't know how the Book of Moses was dictated but it seems that if you found out how the Book of Moses was created then. you would likely find out how the Book of Mormon was created.

p.s. I am sure there must be essays about this somewhere.

[Bedlamite]

My understanding is that it was many years later when Whitmer was being questioned for specifics about that event and he couldn't answer with specifics that he mentioned it being a mystical type experience which got him off the hook of having to be specific. If they Cowdery and Whitmer were both drugged (I'll ignore Harris) and had a drugged experience which turned it into a mystical one, then why not relate that. It would be what they actually experienced and easy to relate. But that's not what's in the testimony they signed..it doesn't sound mystical at all. If they truly had a drugged mystical experience and they were honest individuals they would have wanted to testify to an experience which appeared mystical. Instead they testify to an experience which even uses the word "sober" in it.

That's a good point. I would be interested in Dale's take on this.

All I can do is guess at this point -- but my guess is that before the "angelic appearance," that
Smith and Cowdery each agreed to supervise the "vision" of one witness. Cowdery took Whitmer
(whom he'd known for a while) and Smith took Harris (whom he'd known for a while).

Since I doubt Cowdery had any hypnotic powers, my supposition is that Whitmer was drugged and
that when he opened his eyes after prolonged prayer, the impact of sunlight upon his highly
dilated eyes was the opening experience of the vision -- conducted primarily under Cowdery's
supervision.

Harris, on the other hand, was supervised by Smith, and perhaps drugging him was unnecessary.
Smith seems to have possessed to power to change men's minds. Harris was convinced that
David and Oliver had already experienced an angelic visitation -- so Smith played upon that
understanding to convince Harris that a vision was possible and was about to happen to him.

If any of the above is a reasonable explanation of events, there would have been no special
reason to drug Cowdery. His mental alertness was needed in order to supervise Whitmer.

All of which leaves open the possibility of a third conspirator -- a hidden person using a megaphone
to mimic the "voice of God" and probably the "voice of the angel." if indeed the angel spoke at all.
If any "props" or additional sound effects were introduced into the "visions," that third party would
have carried out those duties.

In the fake 1839 Cowdery "Defence" the writer (supposedly Cowdery) says that the supernatural
voice during the vision sounded much like that of Sidney Rigdon. But I would guess that the voice
was disguised, so as not to remind David Whitmer of any current/future Mormon leader.

Harris did not require the application of props or disembodied voices -- so perhaps his "vision"
was totally the effect of Smith's prompting.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

I was just checking the Book of Moses and it reads just like parts of the Book of Mormon. You could read both and say they sound the same. I don't know how the Book of Moses was dictated but it seems that if you found out how the Book of Moses was created then. you would likely find out how the Book of Mormon was created.

p.s. I am sure there must be essays about this somewhere.

Reed C. Durham's 1965 "History of Joseph Smith's Revision of the Bible"
will probably do. Except for the first handful of manuscript pages, it appears
that the text was written by the joint efforts of Smith and Rigdon, probably
seated together at a table, with an open KJV Bible between them. The two
men would read a few printed verses, discuss the passage, and then Rigdon
would write out an edited version of the words, in longhand, on a piece of paper.

How the unique sections of the JST were created, I'm not sure. But my guess
is that Rigdon had them composed in advance and that Smith merely approved
of their insertion into the JST text.

UD

[_karl61]

Hi Uncle Dale: I think the Book of Moses is the link between Sidney Rigdon and the Book of Mormon.

[_Uncle Dale]

Hi Uncle Dale: I think the Book of Moses is the link between Sidney Rigdon and the Book of Mormon.

For the most part, latter day Saint writers have been reluctant to attribute to Rigdon any other
role than that of scribe, in the preparation of the JST's "Book of Moses" and other unique parts.

However, when we recall that Joseph Smith was then practically illiterate, and that Rigdon was
an experienced preacher, restoration polemicist and theologian (who knew Latin and Greek),
the probability is, that Rigdon did most of the "translation" for the JST.

His role in working with Smith on the JST was kept hidden, but was not entirely secret. There
was evidently no dictation of the "translated" text involved. It does not seem that Smith
made use of his previous stone-in-a-hat methods. In fact, the story is that he gave Oliver
Cowdery his seer-stone before Smith began work on the JST.

Therefore the techniques used in the Book of Mormon translation, and the techniques used in the JST
translation were not exactly the same. If Rigdon had a role in producing both texts, then
he obviously changed his methods somewhat for the production of the latter work.

Rigdon preached that the Book of Mormon and Bible needed to be joined together to make
one complete volume of holy scripture. For this reason I believe that he viewed the production
of the JST text as a sort of continuation of the Book of Mormon work, even though he changed his methods.

UD

[_Nevo]

For the most part, latter day Saint writers have been reluctant to attribute to Rigdon any other role than that of scribe, in the preparation of the JST's "Book of Moses" and other unique parts.

However, when we recall that Joseph Smith was then practically illiterate, and that Rigdon was an experienced preacher, restoration polemicist and theologian (who knew Latin and Greek), the probability is, that Rigdon did most of the "translation" for the JST.

Except for the little problem of Rigdon not showing up as a scribe until chapter 7.

The work of the JST began either in Harmony, Pennsylvania; Colesville, New York; or Fayette, New York. It continued in Fayette and then in Kirtland, Ohio. The starting month, June 1830, is written on OT1, page 1. Oliver Cowdery, taking dictation from Joseph Smith, wrote the first ten pages. In October he left on the Lamanite Mission that introduced the restored gospel in Ohio and Missouri. He was replaced as scribe by John Whitmer, who wrote the date October 21, 1830, on page 10 and started his first brief service as scribe. Farther down the same page, Whitmer inserted the date November 30, 1830, and wrote more. Emma Smith then wrote slightly more than two pages. She began by writing "Dec 1rst" at the bottom of page 11 and wrote to the top of page 14. The previous July, she had been called in a revelation to write for the Prophet when his regular scribe (at that time Oliver Cowdery) was unavailable (see D&C 25:6). Her work on the JST manuscript was in fulfilment of that calling. John Whitmer resumed scribing again and wrote on two more pages, after which Sidney Rigdon's handwriting first appears.

http://rsc.BYU.edu/pubMosesHistoryofBookofMoses.php

Six of the eight chapters of the Book of Moses were already committed to paper before Rigdon even appeared on the scene, but I don't expect that fact will dissuade Spalding-Rigdon enthusiasts from assigning authorship to Rigdon.

[_karl61]

nevo wrote:

"Except for the little problem of Rigdon not showing up as a scribe until chapter 7"


which is HUGE:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vo ... m=1&id=462