Page 1 of 2

The Scribes' Description

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:47 am
by _sock puppet
In the July '93 Ensign, Russell M Nelson wrote:As Oliver Cowdery testified a few years later: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’ ” (Joseph Smith—H 1:71n.)

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“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, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)


Martin Harris said that the seer stone Smith possessed was a "chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum." Harris explained that it was by using this stone that "Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates" (Comprehensive History of the Church (CHC) 1:129).


Robert N. Hullinger, in his book: Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism, cites a personal interview Emma Smith-Bidamon gave to a committee of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1879. He notes on pages 9-10: 'Smith's wife Emma supported Harris's and Whitmer's versions of the story in recalling that her husband buried his face in his hat while she was serving as his scribe.' Specifically, Emma is quoted as telling her son, Joseph Smith III "‘In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us... .'", pp 98-99, Vogel's The Word of God


A New Witness for Christ in America, Francis Kirkham, 2:417 wrote:JSJr's brother, William Smith: "The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God".


I am aware of no eyewitness, contemporary accounts that describe any other mechanics by which this 'translation' process took place. I am aware of no such accounts that indicate JSJr was looking directly at the gold plates when he spoke what his scribes took down as the English translation of any Book of Mormon text. The only such accounts of which I am aware that describe the mechanics, describe JSJr staring, face down in the crown of a hat, at a rock and the English text appearing above the rock. (If any TBM/defender can point me to any historical record that gives a description of any other translation specifics, please do. I look forward to any such citations anyone might provide.)

The LDS Church has long been embarrassed by this, instead preferring to perpetuate the myth (for which their is no eyewitness, contemporary account) that JSJr translated the gold plates by looking at them. So much so, that many life-long Mormons put Daniel C Peterson down when PBS aired the interview in which Peterson said that "most of the translation was done using something called a seer stone. The seer stone is obviously something like the Urim and Thummim. It seems to be a stone that was found in the vicinity, and I can't say exactly how it would have worked. It may have been a kind of a concentrating device or a device to facilitate concentration. He would put the stone for most of the concentration period in the bottom of a hat, presumably to exclude surrounding light. Then he would put his face into the hat."

It is South Park and not the LDS Church that has brought to the public's awareness an illustration of the only mechanics that any contemporary witness attested to having been used in the translation. Even in the October 2011 Ensign, there is an article that goes into detail about the translation of the Book of Mormon, but does not own up to the only method mentioned in contemporary accounts given by eyewitnesses, the only method for which there is historical evidence.

Not only does the face in the hat, looking at a rock method seem hokey, but these mechanics tie JSJr closely to his roots as a glass-looker for hire, for which he was brought up on criminal misdemeanor charges in 1826. The historically-based South Park depiction is like a gateway for those that might look, into one of the most embarrassing chapters in early Mormon history.

Can you imagine one of the missionary discussions beginning like this...
Our church was founded by JSJr. When he was 14, he prayed earnestly and God and his son Jesus appeared to JSJr. About 6 years after this, JSJr had started to refine his spiritual skills, using a brownish stone he found while digging a well. He used this stone to seek hidden treasures, but that didn't work out. In fact, he was brought up on criminal charges in 1826, a hearing with witnesses was held, and the sheriff sent out to serve subpoenas, but there is no record of a trial, conviction and sentencing (or acquittal)--so that really doesn't matter, does it, Mr Brown?

Three years after that, JSJr used that same rock to translate new scriptures that God has sent to us, because he loves us. JSJr was given gold plates, with a record of God's people here in the Americas and the resurrected Jesus appearing and ministering to them after he left Jerusalem. JSJr put that same rock in the crown of an upside down hat, then put his face down in that crown of the hat, English would appear above the rock and JSJr would dictate this sacred record.

Mr Brown, I have a testimony that God was involved in having JSJr look at the rock in the upside down hat, so we would know about the God-fearing people here in the Americas. How does that make you feel? Do you believe this too?


It's obvious how damning the face-in-the-hat method is for Mormons. They keep it pretty well under wraps, with only the rare mention, while the correlated teaching manuals and artists' depictions of the translation process predominantly continue to show a method that does not have historical basis. A method that does not include a rock or a hat, a method that keeps JSJr's treasure seeking past buried.

The inclusions of long passages from the Bible, such as Isaiah, being identically reiterated or virtually identical reiterated in the Book of Mormon suggests very strongly that JSJr was dictating those very passages from the Bible to his scribes working on the Book of Mormon translation. But there is no mention by any of these contemporary eye-witnesses of JSJr reading from the Bible when dictating the Book of Mormon. So it seems that these eyewitness's descriptions of the Book of Mormon translation process are only partial, opening the door for defenders to claim that the rock-in-the-hat method was obviously not the only method used.

However, the defenders can't go there. It is an argument premised on JSJr merely 'cutting-and-pasting' parts of Isaiah and the Gospels from the Bible into the Book of Mormon, and the defenders do not want to admit that.

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:43 am
by _Sethbag
sock puppet wrote:So it seems that these eyewitness's descriptions of the Book of Mormon translation process are only partial, opening the door for defenders to claim that the rock-in-the-hat method was obviously not the only method used.

That the rock-in-the-hat method was not the only one used helps critics as well, probably even more so than it helps believers. It's hard to imagine Joseph Smith inventing the Book of Mormon up on the fly, with his face buried in the hat. I think the most likely critical hypothesis is that Joseph was working from some previously-planned or previously-written story, and it's hard to imagine Joseph could have read from such a manuscript or set of notes or whatever in his hat.

The Isaiah verses in the Book of Mormon though come pretty near to proving that the head-in-the-hat method was not in fact the only method used. Unless Joseph had large portions of the King James Version of Isaiah memorized by heart, that is.
However, the defenders can't go there. It is an argument premised on JSJr merely 'cutting-and-pasting' parts of Isaiah and the Gospels from the Bible into the Book of Mormon, and the defenders do not want to admit that.

Some defenders have already gone there, and admit freely that it's likely Joseph copied those sections from the King James Version. Their defense goes like this: while Joseph was studying out the contents of the plates, he recognized the chapters from Isaiah, and rather than having to retranslate the same material from reformed Egyptian, he merely resorted to the English rendering of it that he already had on hand - the King James translation.

As soon as a defender makes this defense, however, they acknowledge that head-in-the-hat is no longer the only method used, and then it's game on for any other manuscript or previously-planned notes or whatever.

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:36 pm
by _Equality
Unless Joseph had large portions of the King James Version of Isaiah memorized by heart, that is.


Which he certainly could have. Lots of people back then memorized large portions of the Bible and memorized poetry and so forth. People today memorize the Koran pretty routinely. Heck, one guy even memorized the Sydney Yellow Pages: http://www.tanselali.com/how-i-memorized-the-yellow-pages-phonebook/

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:27 pm
by _sock puppet
Equality wrote:
Unless Joseph had large portions of the King James Version of Isaiah memorized by heart, that is.


Which he certainly could have. Lots of people back then memorized large portions of the Bible and memorized poetry and so forth. People today memorize the Koran pretty routinely. Heck, one guy even memorized the Sydney Yellow Pages: http://www.tanselali.com/how-i-memorized-the-yellow-pages-phonebook/


An active, young mind was not in the early 19th Century spent looking at computer and TV screens. Memorization is a possibility.

I am very interested to know what the O manuscript for the Book of Mormon (even if only 25% survived the water damage in a cornerstone of the 1st Nauvoo Temple) might show at the starting and stopping points of when JSJr was just copying text from the KJV Bible. Does it just flow from the non-Biblical passages into the Biblical ones, and vice versa? Or might JSJr have added pages already handwritten out with those Biblical passages to the manuscript of non-Biblical passages that his scribes were jotting out to his dictation?

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:49 pm
by _Sethbag
Sock Puppet, in your other thread I just compared the chapters said to still exist in the O document, with the chapter headings from the Book of Mormon, and pointed out that 1 Nephi 20 and 21 still exist in O, and contain chapters 48 and 49 from Isaiah (both from Deutero Isaiah, too, that wouldn't have existed on the brass plates Nephi supposedly murdered Laban in order to steal).

If we could find images of these O pages on the web, it would be interesting to look at it in the way you suggest.

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:25 am
by _marg
sock puppet wrote:
The inclusions of long passages from the Bible, such as Isaiah, being identically reiterated or virtually identical reiterated in the Book of Mormon suggests very strongly that JSJr was dictating those very passages from the Bible to his scribes working on the Book of Mormon translation. But there is no mention by any of these contemporary eye-witnesses of JSJr reading from the Bible when dictating the Book of Mormon. So it seems that these eyewitness's descriptions of the Book of Mormon translation process are only partial, opening the door for defenders to claim that the rock-in-the-hat method was obviously not the only method used.


That was an argument by Roger for considering the Spalding MS argued in the Celestial thread called "Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available" . Roger argued (and I agree with him) that no mention of a Bible opened up the possibility of other material being used. Dan Vogel disagreed.

Here is one post. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 85#p455985

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:53 am
by _sock puppet
marg wrote:
sock puppet wrote:
The inclusions of long passages from the Bible, such as Isaiah, being identically reiterated or virtually identical reiterated in the Book of Mormon suggests very strongly that JSJr was dictating those very passages from the Bible to his scribes working on the Book of Mormon translation. But there is no mention by any of these contemporary eye-witnesses of JSJr reading from the Bible when dictating the Book of Mormon. So it seems that these eyewitness's descriptions of the Book of Mormon translation process are only partial, opening the door for defenders to claim that the rock-in-the-hat method was obviously not the only method used.


That was an argument by Roger for considering the Spalding MS argued in the Celestial thread called "Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available" . Roger argued (and I agree with him) that no mention of a Bible opened up the possibility of other material being used. Dan Vogel disagreed.

Here is one post. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 85#p455985

I have not read all of that thread, which may be the longest in MDB history. However, I can see both Vogel's and Roger's positions. For Vogel's, the witnesses' dismissing the idea that a manuscript was used does not necessarily mean that those witnesses were saying that a Bible was not. JSJr had a printed Bible, not a manuscript. So denying that JSJr was dictating from the S/R manuscript is not the same as also saying JSJr did not dictated from his printed Bible.

On the other hand, if the scribe-witnesses were being objective and complete (a big supposition given that each of them had a vested interest in the divine nature of the Book of Mormon translation by the time they gave their testimony), why wouldn't they have mentioned the fact, if true, that JSJr read part of his Book of Mormon dictation from his open, printed Bible?

I've heard people mention that between JSJr and OC there was a blanket blocking each other's sight of the other and what he might have. I do not know of any historical cites for such, I've merely heard second hand sources that did not give citations. That might explain the mechanics, if true, of how JSJr might have used his Bible or even S/R manuscripts in his dictation.

marg, do you know where on the internet one might access images of the ~25% of pages of the O manuscript that survived? Have you heard anyone comment that they have inspected those pages or images of them at the points where non-Biblical text ended and Biblical passages began, and/or where that Biblical passages ended and non-Biblical text resumed?

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:40 am
by _marg
sock puppet wrote:I have not read all of that thread, which may be the longest in MDB history.


I was supposed to respond to D.V. at the end of the thread, ...but a combination of losing interest, the thread going nowhere and it being the summer ..and I haven't.

However, I can see both Vogel's and Roger's positions. For Vogel's, the witnesses' dismissing the idea that a manuscript was used does not necessarily mean that those witnesses were saying that a Bible was not. JSJr had a printed Bible, not a manuscript. So denying that JSJr was dictating from the S/R manuscript is not the same as also saying JSJr did not dictated from his printed Bible.


Are you sure any of them denied a manuscript was used? There is so much information that it gets confusing. I believe Emma said nothing else was used..but never mentioned anything specifically. So that would include not even a Bible was used.

Since you appear to have looked into this recently...did any of them specifically say a manuscript wasn't used?

On the other hand, if the scribe-witnesses were being objective and complete (a big supposition given that each of them had a vested interest in the divine nature of the Book of Mormon translation by the time they gave their testimony), why wouldn't they have mentioned the fact, if true, that JSJr read part of his Book of Mormon dictation from his open, printed Bible?


You are asking me? I don't consider any of the Mormon witnesses to the Book of Mormon translation process objective and reliable. Their goal in their statements seemed to be to give the impression that a god had to have been involved that there was no way Smith could have dictated without divine involvement. To say he used a a Bible would call into question Smith's credibililty..since he was supposed to be dictating ancient writings off of a stone.

I've heard people mention that between JSJr and OC there was a blanket blocking each other's sight of the other and what he might have. I do not know of any historical cites for such, I've merely heard second hand sources that did not give citations. That might explain the mechanics, if true, of how JSJr might have used his Bible or even S/R manuscripts in his dictation.


When Smith was preparing a copy of the characters from the plates for Harris to take to Anthon to evaluate ..a blanket was supposed to have been used between Harris and Smith..according to Dan per a post in that thread I've mentioned. I've not read anything about a blanket between OC and Smith. Dan did say at the Whitmers a blanket was used to protect from public view when Smith and OC were working. viewtopic.php?p=460120#p460120:

Dan: " I’m not sure the translation was always done in the second story. David Whitmer said a blanket was hung so that people stopping by could not see from the door the work as it was being done. I have quoted one source in this thread that described the family sitting around the room observing the translation. It sounds as if people had freedom of movement in and out of the room. "

I don't know what source he uses for 'the blanket at the Whitmers'...but it doesn't help his argument, so I assume it's legit.

marg, do you know where on the internet one might access images of the ~25% of pages of the O manuscript that survived? Have you heard anyone comment that they have inspected those pages or images of them at the points where non-Biblical text ended and Biblical passages began, and/or where that Biblical passages ended and non-Biblical text resumed?


In that same post Dan mentions: "There were also two other unidentified handwritings (about 25 pages in the extant original Book of Mormon MS), so OC wouldn’t have been the only co-conspirator."..so Dan may be able to help you.

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:04 pm
by _Dan Vogel
sock puppet,

marg, do you know where on the internet one might access images of the ~25% of pages of the O manuscript that survived? Have you heard anyone comment that they have inspected those pages or images of them at the points where non-Biblical text ended and Biblical passages began, and/or where that Biblical passages ended and non-Biblical text resumed?


What are you hoping to find? Most of the Isaiah material is missing. The beginning of the Isaiah block is in a gap in the original MS (2 Ne. 9:42-23:1). At the end, there is a badly damaged fragment: 2 Ne. 24:21-27, which is short two verses of the end.

by the way, David Whitmer in his Address to All Believers in Christ explicitly says there was no MS used in the translation.

Re: The Scribes' Description

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:28 am
by _sock puppet
Dan Vogel wrote:sock puppet,

marg, do you know where on the internet one might access images of the ~25% of pages of the O manuscript that survived? Have you heard anyone comment that they have inspected those pages or images of them at the points where non-Biblical text ended and Biblical passages began, and/or where that Biblical passages ended and non-Biblical text resumed?


What are you hoping to find? Most of the Isaiah material is missing. The beginning of the Isaiah block is in a gap in the original MS (2 Ne. 9:42-23:1). At the end, there is a badly damaged fragment: 2 Ne. 24:21-27, which is short two verses of the end.

by the way, David Whitmer in his Address to All Believers in Christ explicitly says there was no MS used in the translation.

Was D Whitmer present for all of the 'translation'?