Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_Jersey Girl]

Without your seerstone?

No, I used what Porter calls his "google stones".

So there I was, looking at chapter summaries in the Book of Mormon. I come across something in a summary that captures my interest and then read the chapter itself. And I see this:

13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.
14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.
15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.
16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.
17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.
18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

Interesting, no?

[_Ray A]

Interesting, no?

Was that before after he cut off the arms of the Lamanites?
>
>
>

[_Jersey Girl]

Interesting, no?

Was that before after he cut off the arms of the Lamanites?
>
>
>

I don't know yet. What do you make of it? It looks like it's validating Joseph's abilities in advance.

Of course, I'd see it that way.

[_Ray A]

I don't know yet. What do you make of it? It looks like it's validating Joseph's abilities in advance.

Of course, I'd see it that way.

Okay, let me give you a modern parable. Gordon B. Hinckley, as a young warrior of God, goes among unbelievers on his mission. He acquaints himself with the ruler of the land, but some civil rights rebels threaten the ruler, so young GBH cuts off their arms, and kills some rebels. The ruler is pleased, and wonders how GBH has so much power. So he asks, "what is the mystery?" And GBH gives him the first discussion. He is touched, and awed by the mystery of God, repents and becomes a member. 50 rebels are dead, and 25 of them are armless, but the moral of the story is: One living Christian king (in 500 BC) is worth a 100 dead unbelievers.

[_AlmaBound]

the moral of the story is:

That's one way of looking at the Book of Mormon, through the lens of drawing a lesson from what is written within the book.

But from the standpoint of an author performing automatic writing and producing the text above, in the case of Ammon, the author would be seen as expressing his subconscious desire to be a "seer."

From what I've read about "automatic writing," the subject matter will at times bring to the surface the subconscious thoughts or desires of the author.

There are other examples from the book that may reflect similar subconscious thoughts. I think a comparison of the accounts of Korihor and Alma and their individual encounters with an angel could present a similar indication of an internal, subconscious expression, even one that expresses the turmoil of the author when faced with conflicting desires.

Another example, one closer to the surface, might be seen in the cry of Alma, "O, that I were an angel," yet the author apparently struggles with this desire, even calling it a sin that he should have such a desire.

In what way do you see "automatic writing" manifesting itself in the book, Ray?

[_Ray A]

In what way do you see "automatic writing" manifesting itself in the book, Ray?

I've entertained this idea ever since I first read Scott Dunn's Sunstone article, "Spirit Writing: Another Look at the Book of Mormon," (10 [June 1985]: 17-26). You can download the article if you go to the Sunstone website. Dunn gives a much longer explanation than I care to write out.

The apologists have also taken it seriously, and both FAIR and FARMS have published replies. Book of Mormon and automatic writing. The conclusion on FAIRMormon is:

We do not fully understand the method that the Lord used to give the gift of translation to Brother Joseph. Whether Joseph Smith received the translation of the Book of Mormon through automatic writing or not, the essential point is to know if that translation is from God, and therefore another testament of Jesus Christ.

This is one way to explain the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, and also a way to explain what's perceived to be "ancient" in it. It's in harmony with what the witnesses saw too. Automatic writers often use mediums, and in this case it appears to be the seerstone. The way in which Joseph Smith did it is also consistent with other accounts, that he would leave off at a particular passage, then hours later come back and take up the dictation without reference to notes or where he left off, and continue with a consistent story. In other words, it was all "automatically" done.

Later changes in grammar and some clarifications are also consistent with automatic dictation. So we have a number of "fits" (as in "the shoe fits").

1) Anachronisms explained.
2) "Ancient" content explained.
3) Witness evidence consistent.
4) A method known to be used by automatic writers.

However, automatic writing is still a taboo subject with scientists and most people who prefer to look for more rational explanations. I don't blame them, and I think that's what largely motivates the Spalding theory, because it's a rational explanation, and no matter how long and how far one has to dig for evidence to sustain it, the quest will go on in preference to entertaining "taboo" subjects.

I've read far too many accounts of automatic writing to believe it's a phenomenon that we can just disregard because we can't explain it. The human mind and subconscious, I believe, is far from explained, and the possibilities are almost endless.

[_marg]

It's in harmony with what the witnesses saw too. Automatic writers often use mediums, and in this case it appears to be the seerstone. The way in which Joseph Smith did it is also consistent with other accounts, that he would leave off at a particular passage, then hours later come back and take up the dictation without reference to notes or where he left off, and continue with a consistent story. In other words, it was all "automatically" done.

To begin with Ray I think you place too much confidence in what some of the witnesses claimed. I believe what they all claimed was not consistent..that's a red flag that at a minimum someone isn't telling the truth. What did Oliver Cowdery say? Wasn't he the main scribe and yet didn't he say very little on how it was done.

If Smith had a great ability to write "automatically" then that would have been observed by many others besides the select few of under 10 friends and family, and Smith would have wanted others not closely connected to him to observe his prolific speedy writing ability and there would have been no need to be so secretive about it all.

I've read far too many accounts of automatic writing to believe it's a phenomenon that we can just disregard because we can't explain it. The human mind and subconscious, I believe, is far from explained, and the possibilities are almost endless.

The possibilities are not endless, the possibilities in your imagination and others is what is endless.

[_Ray A]

To begin with Ray I think you place too much confidence in what some of the witnesses claimed. I believe what they all claimed was not consistent..that's a red flag that at a minimum someone isn't telling the truth. What did Oliver Cowdery say? Wasn't he the main scribe and yet didn't he say very little on how it was done.

Have you read what the witnesses said? Yes, Cowdery was the main scribe, and the reason he couldn't explain "how it was done" was because it was a mystery to him as well. Let's see how well you know the witness accounts. What did Oliver Cowdery say about the translation, about why it mystified him?

If Smith had a great ability to write "automatically" then that would have been observed by many others besides the select few of under 10 friends and family, and Smith would have wanted others not closely connected to him to observe his prolific speedy writing ability and there would have been no need to be so secretive about it all.

There was no secrecy, no notes, no manuscript was read from (how do you read a MS with your head in a hat?), all of the witnesses who were present at the "translation" at one stage or another said he dictated it without notes. Later on when he received revelations that became the D&C witnesses said the same thing, that it came to him as they were present in the same room. Section 76 is another example.

The possibilities are not endless, the possibilities in your imagination and others is what is endless.

The Spalding theory takes a lot more imagining. Maybe one day someone will find that precious missing link.

[Guest]

So we have a number of "fits" (as in "the shoe fits").

1) Anachronisms explained.
2) "Ancient" content explained.
3) Witness evidence consistent.
4) A method known to be used by automatic writers.

However, automatic writing is still a taboo subject with scientists and most people who prefer to look for more rational explanations. I don't blame them, and I think that's what largely motivates the Spalding theory, because it's a rational explanation, and no matter how long and how far one has to dig for evidence to sustain it, the quest will go on in preference to entertaining "taboo" subjects.

Interesting. I'll have to check out Scott Dunn's paper.

You make a good point about different approaches people take to the book - automatic writing, to some, having an element of the supernatural, is insufficient as an explanation, because it lacks hard evidence, and therefore automatic writing is on a similar plane as translation without plates.

That said, there are some apparent "misses," though, with the automatic writing theory, in a similar vein as the Spalding/Rigdon theory, in my view.

The Spalding/Rigdon theory, as far as I can tell, doesn't account for some anachronisms within the book that are unlikely to have been known by Spalding or Rigdon, such as the similarities between Lehi's dreams and those found in Lucy Mack Smith's biographical sketch of Joseph. I see similar "life events," such as the chopping off of the arms of Ammon's opponents, as another expression of an external event that ended badly was suppressed into the subconscious, only to be reproduced with the desired outcome in the text.

At the same time, an authorship based on automatic writing coming solely from the mind of Joseph Smith Jr doesn't account for the theological views that Dale has insisted, quite convincingly to me, come from the mind of Sidney Rigdon. I don't see the inclusion of Rigdon's theological views as coming from the mind of Joseph.

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

Anyway, thanks again for the information about Scott Dunn.

[_marg]

Have you read what the witnesses said?

Yes, years ago.

Yes, Cowdery was the main scribe, and the reason he couldn't explain "how it was done" was because it was a mystery to him as well. Let's see how well you know the witness accounts. What did Oliver Cowdery say about the translation, about why it mystified him?

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

If Smith had a great ability to write "automatically" then that would have been observed by many others besides the select few of under 10 friends and family, and Smith would have wanted others not closely connected to him to observe his prolific speedy writing ability and there would have been no need to be so secretive about it all.

There was no secrecy,

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

so no notes,

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

so no manuscript was read from (how do you read a MS with your head in a hat?),

Oi vay, you don't!!!!!

all of the witnesses who were present at the "translation" at one stage or another said he dictated it without notes.

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

Later on when he received revelations that became the D&C witnesses said the same thing, that it came to him as they were present in the same room. Section 76 is another example.

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

The possibilities are not endless, the possibilities in your imagination and others is what is endless.

The Spalding theory takes a lot more imagining.

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

Maybe one day someone will find that precious missing link.

What link? The actual Spalding manuscript used? I'm sure it was destroyed by Smith and co.