A new Joseph Smith biography ‘John G. Turner, Joseph Smith: The Rise and Fall of An American Prophet’

[Fence Sitter]

Well, we know he used Clarke's Bible Commentary when he "translated" the Bible and no one, including Rigdon who was there, mentions that fact.

[malkie]

The "evidence" would mean something if Joseph were being observed continuously both before and during translation sessions. Who can tell what "books or manuscripts" Joseph consulted while not being observed. Otherwise, to me, it's very weak "evidence" to say that he didn't consult any documents.

Well we know for a fact that Joseph did consult “books or manuscripts” because of the verbatim KJV Bible content. Whether he consulted more than the KJV Bible, such as the Pilgrim’s Progress when “translating” the Abinadi story, is not known.

There are historical conclusions we draw based on reliable and corroborated eyewitness testimony. There are reasonable conclusions to draw based on the evidence we can see, even if we have no eyewitnesses. In the case of Joseph Smith's use of the KJV in his translation of the Book of Mormon, most historians are going to conclude based on the evidence of the Book of Mormon itself that it was produced with some form of use of the KJV. I would also say that the number of LDS historians who oppose this view is most likely smaller than the total number of LDS historians. In other words, I would guarantee that there is a number of LDS historians, good ones, who accept that Joseph Smith used the KJV, somehow, in the production of the Book of Mormon.

Since there is strong evidence that Joseph Smith used the KJV, the proposition that Joseph consulted 0 "books or manuscripts" is difficult to maintain.

Having dealt with the "0" case, does that make more or less likely the case for 2 or more? Even without any specific findings of parallels? Then when potential parallels are found (for example, between Pilgrim’s Progress and Abinadi's story) does that add weight to the proposition that Joseph may have consulted several “books or manuscripts”, including perhaps some for which no parallels have yet been discovered?

[PseudoPaul]

Historian uses the historical method when analyzing the life of Joseph Smith instead of uncritical hagiography: apologists mad.

[Equality]

Well we know for a fact that Joseph did consult “books or manuscripts” because of the verbatim KJV Bible content. Whether he consulted more than the KJV Bible, such as the Pilgrim’s Progress when “translating” the Abinadi story, is not known.

There are historical conclusions we draw based on reliable and corroborated eyewitness testimony. There are reasonable conclusions to draw based on the evidence we can see, even if we have no eyewitnesses. In the case of Joseph Smith's use of the KJV in his translation of the Book of Mormon, most historians are going to conclude based on the evidence of the Book of Mormon itself that it was produced with some form of use of the KJV. I would also say that the number of LDS historians who oppose this view is most likely smaller than the total number of LDS historians. In other words, I would guarantee that there is a number of LDS historians, good ones, who accept that Joseph Smith used the KJV, somehow, in the production of the Book of Mormon.

Since there is strong evidence that Joseph Smith used the KJV, the proposition that Joseph consulted 0 "books or manuscripts" is difficult to maintain.

Having dealt with the "0" case, does that make more or less likely the case for 2 or more? Even without any specific findings of parallels? Then when potential parallels are found (for example, between Pilgrim’s Progress and Abinadi's story) does that add weight to the proposition that Joseph may have consulted several “books or manuscripts”, including perhaps some for which no parallels have yet been discovered?

There is strong evidence he consulted The Late War (or at least had big chunks of it memorized).

There was a partner at my law firm who had if not an eidetic memory than something really close to it (there is some doubt as to whether true eidetic or photographic memory exists, though Stephen Wiltshire sure seems to fit the bill). He could rattle off quotes and citations from cases that he had not read in a very long time, from arcane cases.

I remember years ago when I was a fairly new member of the church (late 80s or early 90s) I listened--on cassette tape--to a series of lectures on Joseph Smith by Truman Madsen, in which Madsen described Smith as dictating word-for-word section 132 of the D&C without notes, and then re-dictated it word-for-word, again without notes, a pretty remarkable feat (assuming it's true). I think Madsen was trying to imply that Smith must have been inspired by God to be able to accomplish that.

But even as a super-duper-dee-duper TBM at the time, I remember simply thinking "oh, Joseph Smith must have had a great memory" like some of the people who would occasionally be featured on one of my favorite shows when I was a kid, "That's Incredible!"

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If Mormons aren’t going to write historically accurate books or make historically accurate films, then they forfeit the right to complain when someone else does.

[Fence Sitter]

I’ve ordered it. I really enjoyed Turner’s biography of Brigham Young, and I’m hoping this one offers perspectives and information about Smith that are new to me.

[Doctor Scratch]

He interprets the evidence to mean “that Joseph did not have golden plates.” Turner grants that the people closest to Joseph believed he had plates but says that because “he did not show his family and friends the plates, there aren’t witnesses in the ordinary sense of the term.” Knowing that Turner knows the historical record well, I initially thought he meant that as of 1827, Joseph had not shown the plates to anyone. Page 39 reads, “Other men stated that they experienced visions of the plates, but Joseph never let anyone examine them in an ordinary way.” I assumed that the never in that sentence was an overclaim that meant Joseph had not yet let anyone examine them, and that in a subsequent chapter, in chronological order, Turner would tell me about the Book of Mormon witnesses, eight of whom said Joseph put the plates into their hands to heft. But I was misreading and misunderstanding.

Turner meant that Joseph never showed anyone the plates—never ever. He simply dismisses the historical record related to the eight witnesses with the word ordinary.

Well....wait a second here. Did any of the Witnesses "examine" the plates in "an ordinary way"? To me, "ordinary" means that they were permitted to handle and inspect them: the plates were just out there in the open, on the table, and they could thumb through the different plates, look at the symbols, etc. at their leisure. Is *THAT* what actually happened? Do the apologists have evidence demonstrating it went down in that way? Because being able to "heft" some plates that are covered with a cloth is not "examining" them in an "ordinary way."

But this is just the usual Mopologetic diversion: no one except TBMs takes the witnesses seriously. C. S. Lewis, Winston Churchill, George Will, and Jane Austen all would have said that the Witnesses are not believable.

[Fence Sitter]

There is strong evidence he consulted The Late War (or at least had big chunks of it memorized).

There was a partner at my law firm who had if not an eidetic memory than something really close to it (there is some doubt as to whether true eidetic or photographic memory exists, though Stephen Wiltshire sure seems to fit the bill). He could rattle off quotes and citations from cases that he had not read in a very long time, from arcane cases.

I remember years ago when I was a fairly new member of the church (late 80s or early 90s) I listened--on cassette tape--to a series of lectures on Joseph Smith by Truman Madsen, in which Madsen described Smith as dictating word-for-word section 132 of the D&C without notes, and then re-dictated it word-for-word, again without notes, a pretty remarkable feat (assuming it's true). I think Madsen was trying to imply that Smith must have been inspired by God to be able to accomplish that.

But even as a super-duper-dee-duper TBM at the time, I remember simply thinking "oh, Joseph Smith must have had a great memory" like some of the people who would occasionally be featured on one of my favorite shows when I was a kid, "That's Incredible!"

I recently had an experience that convinced me someone truly had an eidetic memory. I was in the Church History Library, in the special collections section, doing research on books that interested me. To view some of the material, I had to register at the desk inside the collections room. A senior missionary couple was behind the counter recording my information.

After reading my name, the man paused, looked up at me, and asked whether I had lived on one of the tree-named streets in Provo, just east of the campus, in the early 1960s. I did a double take, because I had, and I said yes. He then proceeded to tell me which house I had lived in, which elementary school I attended, the name of my teacher, and that his sister had been in the same class. He went on to recall many other details about my house, the street, and even our ward building.

I sat there stunned and then heard his wife say, “It’s creepy, isn’t it?” He finished by saying, “I have an eidetic memory.”

[malkie]

There is strong evidence he consulted The Late War (or at least had big chunks of it memorized).

There was a partner at my law firm who had if not an eidetic memory than something really close to it (there is some doubt as to whether true eidetic or photographic memory exists, though Stephen Wiltshire sure seems to fit the bill). He could rattle off quotes and citations from cases that he had not read in a very long time, from arcane cases.

I remember years ago when I was a fairly new member of the church (late 80s or early 90s) I listened--on cassette tape--to a series of lectures on Joseph Smith by Truman Madsen, in which Madsen described Smith as dictating word-for-word section 132 of the D&C without notes, and then re-dictated it word-for-word, again without notes, a pretty remarkable feat (assuming it's true). I think Madsen was trying to imply that Smith must have been inspired by God to be able to accomplish that.

But even as a super-duper-dee-duper TBM at the time, I remember simply thinking "oh, Joseph Smith must have had a great memory" like some of the people who would occasionally be featured on one of my favorite shows when I was a kid, "That's Incredible!"

I recently had an experience that convinced me someone truly had an eidetic memory. I was in the Church History Library, in the special collections section, doing research on books that interested me. To view some of the material, I had to register at the desk inside the collections room. A senior missionary couple was behind the counter recording my information.

After reading my name, the man paused, looked up at me, and asked whether I had lived on one of the tree-named streets in Provo, just east of the campus, in the early 1960s. I did a double take, because I had, and I said yes. He then proceeded to tell me which house I had lived in, which elementary school I attended, the name of my teacher, and that his sister had been in the same class. He went on to recall many other details about my house, the street, and even our ward building.

I sat there stunned and then heard his wife say, “It’s creepy, isn’t it?” He finished by saying, “I have an eidetic memory.”

Are you sure that he wasn't being prompted by Mormon god, or the holy ghost, or some other source of inspiration? Why on earth would Mormon god allow a nasty critic to be exposed to an example of something that doesn't support the apologists' arguments about the creation of the Book of Mormon?

[Limnor]

My theory is there is almost as much biography as plagiarism in the book.