Explaining the Book of Mormon

[_canpakes]

Here is A day in the life of Jo and Oli, translators and scribes extraordinaires. This may not account for 100% of the content of the Book of Mormon, but I suspect that it could explain a good proportion of it...

(outlines procedure for creation of the Book's content)

Bingo. This is exactly the most logical scenario by my reckoning. Quite doable at an average of 8 pages a day, and it accounts for being able to keep the story coherent while putting on an occasional show for anyone invited to briefly observe.

You've mentioned a major point that is lost on most folks attempting to justify any of the conflicting supernatural translation methods; that being that whatever spoken content that Joseph was repeating in front of an occasional 'guest witness' need not ever make it into the finished product. No Church or apologetic source that I am aware of discusses the chain of custody of any written portion of the final work between 'translation' and printing. That would seem to be an important factor to consider.

[_Nevo]

I'm a bit surprised that there is so much resistance here to the idea that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone. Every observer of the translation process said that that's how it was done, but apparently the consensus view in this thread is that all of these witnesses were either mistaken, were duped, or were lying—even Emma's hostile family members.

Here's a quick review of some of the main statements:

• Emma Smith: "In writing for [Joseph Smith] 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. . . . He had neither mss nor book to read from. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me. . . . O. Cowdery and J.S. wrote in the room where I was at work." (EMD 1:539)
  
  
• Joseph Knight, Sr.: "Now the way he translated was he put the Urim and Thummim into his hat and darkened his eyes, then he would take a sentence and it would appear in bright Roman letters, then he would tell the writer and he would write it." (EMD 4:17-18)
  
  
• Isaac Hale: "I went to the house where Joseph Smith, Jr., lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book. . . . The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!" (EMD 4:287)
  
  
• Michael Morse (as reported by William W. Blair): "Says he many times called in at Jos[e]phs on business, when J would be engaged [in] translating the plates. J. put the seer stone in a hat and leaning forward would place his face in the hat, and then dictate to his scribe, sentence by sentence" (EMD 4:341-342)
  
  
• Hiel Lewis: "Smith translated his Book of Mormon mostly with this same peep stone and hat—he, sitting in his house, and the plates hid far away. . . . Smith translated the Book of Mormon by means of the same peep stone, and under the same inspiration that directed his enchantments and dog sacrifices; it was all by the same spirit." (EMD 4:309)
  
  
• Joseph Lewis: "It is a fact that [Joseph Smith] translated nearly all of [his golden Bible] with this same stone and hat." (EMD 4:313)
  
  
• J. L. Traughber (quoting David Whitmer): "I . . . have heard Father Whitmer say that he was present many times while Joseph was translating; but I never heard him say that the translation was made by the aid of Urim and Thummim [the Nephite interpreters]; but in every case, and his testimony is always the same, he declared that Joseph first offered prayer, then took a dark colored, opaque stone, called a 'seer-stone,' and placed it in the crown of his hat, then put his face into the hat, and read the translation as it appeared before him. This was the daily procedure . . ." (EMD 5:59)
  
  
• David Whitmer: "He had [one stone] of a chocolate color, nearly egg shaped and perfectly smooth, but not transparent . . . which were given him with the plates. He did not use the plates in the translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light . . ." (EMD 5:76)
  
  
• David Whitmer (as reported by James H. Hart): "'In regard to the translation,' said Mr. Whitmer, "it was a laborious work for the weather was very warm, and the days were long, and they worked from morning until night. . . . The way it was done was thus: Joseph would place the seer-stone in a deep hat, and placing his face close to it, would see, not the stone, but what appeared like an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear, and also the translation in the English language, all appearing in bright luminous letters. Joseph would then read them to Oliver, who would write it down as spoken." (EMD 5:104)
  
  
• David Whitmer: "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. . . . 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." (EMD 5:196-197)
  
  
• Elizabeth Ann Whitmer: "I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his <face in his> hat, so as to exclude the light, and then [read?] to his scribe the words (he said) as they appeared before him." (EMD 5:260)

[Guest]

[*]David Whitmer: "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. . . . 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." (EMD 5:196-197)

You've made an interesting edit to Whitmer's account that introduces a conflict about whether words or letters were appearing.

"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."

(... considering 'reformed egyptian'...)

Nevertheless, Oliver Cowdery's account mentions a different method:

"...Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history or record called 'The Book of Mormon.'"

... and Cowdery again...

“ ...(Smith) found with the plates, from which he translated his book, two transparent stones, resembling glass, set in silver bows. That by looking through these, he was able to read in English, the reformed Egyptian characters, which were engraven on the plates.”

Wasn't Cowdery Smith's principal scribe?

[_malkie]

I'm a bit surprised that there is so much resistance here to the idea that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone. Every observer of the translation process said that that's how it was done, but apparently the consensus view in this thread is that all of these witnesses were either mistaken, were duped, or were lying—even Emma's hostile family members.

Here's a quick review of some of the main statements:
...

• David Whitmer: "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. . . . 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." (EMD 5:196-197)

...

If you stick to what could actually be observed, I don't think that there's nearly as much resistance:

• David Whitmer: "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.. . . 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." (EMD 5:196-197)

In each case, replace the struck-out text with something within the scope of an actual observation.

[_souldier]

I'm a bit surprised that there is so much resistance here to the idea that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone. Every observer of the translation process said that that's how it was done, but apparently the consensus view in this thread is that all of these witnesses were either mistaken, were duped, or were lying—even Emma's hostile family members.

If Joseph made the whole thing up, it would be easier to comprehend it as him pretending when visitors came by. I wonder how much of a genius he really was. In my opinion, from his account at the beginning of the Book of Mormon about a four year period of seeing the plates to actually receiving them, he spent a good four years planning out how he would go about writing this book. I remember reading a source quoting his mother about him telling incredibly detailed stories to his family about Nephites and Lamanites before "receiving" the plates. Maybe after four years of planning and coming up with stories, he possibly could have had long stretches of time with him face down in his hat dictating the content. However, I really haven't done much study into the stories of the Book of Mormon origins, and his testimony at the beginning was written down in 1838, so most likely it was all just a show for when visitors came by. It would also explain why him and Oliver wrote so quickly after Oliver became the chief scribe.

I don't know if this is just a rehash of what has been written earlier on this post since I didn't take the time to read every page.

[_Bazooka]

I'm a bit surprised that there is so much resistance here to the idea that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone. Every observer of the translation process said that that's how it was done....

I have a difficulty coming to terms with why, knowing what you state so clearly was the case, the Church chose for most of my life to portray the translation process as something different. In fact, I was in a meeting just the other week where a lifelong member included in his testimony a witness that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph deciphering the engravings on the plates by looking through the Urim & Thummim. This individual has served a lot of callings, including being Bishop. I suppose your question then becomes why was there so much resistance from the Church to teaching the idea that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone?

[_Roger]

tld:

Interesting thread. I skimmed over most of the content but haven't read every post. I am particularly interested in this discussion especially since Dan Vogel and I and some others had an interesting exchange about this a couple years ago here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16575

Unfortunately the conversation got a bit contentious on this never ending thread, but there is still the basis of an interesting discussion.

Another thread that might interest you:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13663

There is so much you've already stated that I would like to comment on, but time not being infinite, I will have to choose a few comments from your recent posts to respond to. So how about we start here:

I agree, and some of it is probably my fault. I guess if I were trying to defend anything it was that Joseph Smith had an experience in which he saw words/phrases in his seer stone. If that were true, then how do we make the jump to Joseph Smith having written the Book of Mormon?

I don't think it's very likely that Joseph actually saw words in his stone. I accept the possibility of the supernatural, but given the specific circumstances in this case (which have already been discussed many times) coupled with Joseph's credibility in other scenarios, I think it's a long-shot compared to other more plausible explanations.

Furthermore, how do we explain the errors in the Book of Mormon if each word/phrase Joseph Smith saw was dictated to and faithfully recorded by his scribe?

Many of the errors can only be accounted for by a poor understanding of English grammar. To me, that also argues against the credibility of the eyewitness accounts that, as you and Skousen point out, unanimously have God producing every word and Joseph merely reading them off.

The way around this by many has been to deny that Joseph Smith actually had the experience he is purported to have had and, rather, that he wrote the Book of Mormon, somehow memorized what he wrote, and dictated that to his scribe.

We have hints that some sort of memorization was likely involved at some point. Testimony at one of Joseph's trials or legal hearings or whatever you want to call them (1826 I think) has Joseph attempting to impress someone by reading the pages of a book from his stone. This strongly suggests memorization. However, I do not believe Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon on his own. I think it was in the works for a number of years and actually began with Solomon Spalding.

Those who make this claim have to deny all of the accounts describing his experience and insert their own speculation as to what might have happened.

The way you phrase this is interesting. I certainly don't deny the existence of the accounts describing the "translation" process, but I certainly do question the reliability of the witnesses. As I pointed out in my conversation with Dan, these witnesses were all devoted followers of Joseph Smith. Certainly some of them became disillusioned later on, but never to the point of wanting to discredit the Book of Mormon. This would be like asking the followers of Warren Jeffs for information about what goes on behind the FLDS fence and then expecting reliable testimony.

I find this troublesome because we are allowing our belief system to dictate what might or might not have happened rather than trying to explain the evidence.

We all have belief systems. Having a belief system can interfere with objectivity but it doesn't have to.

This happens quite frequently when we are confronted by evidence that goes against our particular belief system. I wish it were otherwise.

You seem to be using this as support for the notion that words appeared in a stone. Or am I missing your point?

In this presentation he pretty much presents all of the known evidence surrounding the dictation of the Book of Mormon. My understanding, however, is that he also thinks the Book of Mormon is a 19th century document. This is likely what initiated my starting this thread. How do we get from Joseph Smith putting his head in his hat and dictating words/phrases that associates claimed appeared on his seer stone to the conclusion that Joseph Smith himself wrote the Book of Mormon?

Good question. In my opinion, that's one of the problems with Dan's too heavy reliance on the Book of Mormon witnesses.

Again, speculation of what <might> have taken place has to ignore all of the evidence that supports things happening as described.

I don't see the connection between what little "evidence" we have and the notion that things happened as described. In fact, I think the evidence suggests it is more likely that things did not happen as described - at least for the most part.

I fail to see how the content of the Book of Mormon negates what was described as having taken place. You are certainly entitled to your views concerning the content of the Book of Mormon, and I share some of them with you, but I can find no reason to reject the claims of what took place other than a belief that it was impossible.

For starters, the KJVB quotations illustrate that things did not happen as described. Again, Dan and I disagree on this and it took several pages to come out, but ultimately Dan's position was that even though no one ever mentions that a KJVB was used (which he concedes) that still doesn't mean any of the witnesses, including Cowdery, were trying to hide anything. They just didn't think it was worth mentioning. Needless to say, I disagree.

The bottom line is that Dan sees the witnesses as fairly gullible dupes of Joseph Smith who were doing their absolute best to describe what they believed they were seeing. I disagree and especially in the case of Cowdery.

How do you explain that he was making up the whole Book of Mormon and yet he did not necessarily write the Book of Mormon. Oh, I see. OC wrote down what Joseph Smith dictated, so OC wrote the Book of Mormon but Joseph Smith thought it up and dictated it to OC. Is this what you are implying?

This was obviously not directed to me, but I will respond to it nonetheless. The S/R theory - and I think it explains the evidence best - suggests that Smith was one of but not the sole contributor of the content of the Book of Mormon. The theory suggests that the original manuscript was produced prior to 1816 by one Solomon Spalding and that Sidney Rigdon eventually obtained a copy which he embellished and passed on to Joseph Smith. This helps to explain, for example, why Alvin would suggest that Joseph do everything he can to "obtain the record" before his death in 1826.

At various points he must have taken his head out of his hat and read from his Bible or The Last War or a variety of other sources that are thought to be included in the Book of Mormon.

Correct, at least in reference to the Bible which was mostly used for filler material.

He must have had quite a stack of books on the table beside him.

Not necessarily. Spalding borrowed from a number of sources and Rigdon many have also. There was also a rich cultural context from which Joseph and/or Oliver could have drawn the portions they supplied.

Did Joseph Smith or OC mention this?

Of course not and I wouldn't expect them to.

Did anyone else?

Why would devoted followers mention it even if they saw it?

All that I have read and viewed (Dan Vogel) leads me to believe that Joseph Smith pretty much kept his head in his hat all of the time that he was dictating.

Yes, that is Dan's take on it. I disagree.

From his article and his conclusion, I conclude that the process we have been describing (head in hat, etc.) was used throughout the whole "translation" of the Book of Mormon.

But that's obviously not the case in regard to the rather substantial KJVB quotations. If a KJVB was used but no one ever mentioned it, why can we not suspect that other materials were used but never mentioned?

All the best.

[cacheman]

Starting with my OP, there are several questions that need answering: (1) What was the "translation" process?

There's the problem: we don't have any testimony as to the process from the "translator" or his main scribe. Absent that, we can't assume anything. This entire thread is based on assumptions.

(2)How do we deal with the hypothesis that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon?

I think that's a reasonable hypothesis given his record of creative writing.

(3) How do we account for all of the anachronisms, etc. in the Book of Mormon.

Because most posters on this thread have concentrated on questions 2 and 3, the evidence for question 1 has been rejected out of hand.

I don't reject it out of hand. I've been very clear: Absent evidence that the whole book was "translated" by that method, we can't assume that was the process, yet you do that anyway. The anachronisms, etc., clearly suggest there wasn't anything divine going on. That's all.

Let me state again. All of the evidence for the "translation" process supports the head in hat hypothesis. There is no other evidence for an alternative hypothesis, period. Wishing otherwise does not make it so. The research of Royal Skousen seems to demonstrate that whatever process was involved, it continued throughout the "translation" of the Book of Mormon. No evidence has been presented to challenge this conclusion. It cannot be changed simply through wishful thinking.

Hmmmm. My recollection is that there is also testimony that the Urim and Thummim were used for part of the translation. Are you rejecting that testimony? Why?

Because of the tight translation and the evidence obtained from the original manuscript, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. To the contrary, the evidence seems to deny this possibility.

That's ridiculous. The "tight translation" rests on the assumption of a source text. Absent said source text, the evidence points to Joseph or one of his contemporaries having written the text. What you have to do is show good reason to believe there was a source text. I'm dying to hear what that reason is.

And so we are left with question 3: how do we account for the anachronisms and other questionable material in the Book of Mormon? The only possibility that I can see is that they were a part of the text that was "revealed" to Joseph Smith. There is no evidence of any other possibility, assuming a tight translation.

This is spectacularly bad logic. Take away the assumption that there was a source text that was translated, and suddenly a whole range of possibilities opens up.

Given all of this, we have to make the decision. Did God purposely "reveal" a document that has so many obvious errors or was there some other source for the Book of Mormon, a source which, for whatever reason, "revealed" a flawed document? The latter is the conclusion I have reached based on the evidence I have available to me.

Either that, or it's not a revealed text at all.

[_Runtu]

I'm a bit surprised that there is so much resistance here to the idea that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon using a seer stone. Every observer of the translation process said that that's how it was done, but apparently the consensus view in this thread is that all of these witnesses were either mistaken, were duped, or were lying—even Emma's hostile family members.

I don't assume that at all. My best guess is that it was misdirection, but there are other possibilities.

[_Runtu]

Just curious, but do those who believe he was reading words or letters off the stone in the hat believe he could also find lost items and treasure using the same method? If so, why was he unsuccessful in his treasure-hunting career? If not, why would he use that same failed method to translate an ancient document?