Joseph Smith's ability to memorize lengthy sections of text

[_marg]

Sorry if I'm talking from a position of ignorance..while I took an interest years ago, I currently don't read much about it, other than this message board. My impression is that when it came to dictation... that Smith used a blanket to separate himself from Harris. So of course in that situation, no memorization necessary. Emma, appears to be in on the con, willing to lie ...re polygamy. With Cowdery I think both he and Smith worked together on it, wrote it together using Rigdon/Spalding manuscript...so again no memorization. Who else was a scribe? D. Whitmer? Both he and Cowdery were friends, the 2 of them in on it, willing to to say they saw an angel, God, plates while Harris sees nothing...so that was an instance of the two of them working together..and Harris not fully in on the con.

The people who may have observed Smith dictating likely did so for brief periods and at times when Smith & Cowdery or whomever were prepared..and could put on a brief show.

in my opinion..when one is working in collusion with others, as Smith was with Cowdery, Emma and D. Whitmer it's easy to stage an act, but it doesn't mean what was said or written down during that act, ever went into the Book of Mormon.

[_Jersey Girl]

Critics need one theory, stick to it, and try to make a touch down.

Would you advise apologists to do the same?

[_Roger]

marg:

Sorry if I'm talking from a position of ignorance..while I took an interest years ago, I currently don't read much about it, other than this message board. My impression is that when it came to dictation... that Smith used a blanket to separate himself from Harris.

If I remember right, that idea comes from Charles Anthon. I am willing to accept it, but LDS probably don't.

So of course in that situation, no memorization necessary. Emma, appears to be in on the con, willing to lie ...re polygamy. With Cowdery I think both he and Smith worked together on it, wrote it together using Rigdon/Spalding manuscript...so again no memorization. Who else was a scribe? D. Whitmer? Both he and Cowdery were friends, the 2 of them in on it, willing to to say they saw an angel, God, plates while Harris sees nothing...so that was an instance of the two of them working together..and Harris not fully in on the con.

You may be right. I tend to see Whitmer as a legitimate dupe however; his later actions leading me to that conclusion, but it's difficult to say.

The people who may have observed Smith dictating likely did so for brief periods and at times when Smith & Cowdery or whomever were prepared..and could put on a brief show.

With the exception of the Whitmers I think I agree with you.

in my opinion..when one is working in collusion with others, as Smith was with Cowdery, Emma and D. Whitmer it's easy to stage an act, but it doesn't mean what was said or written down during that act, ever went into the Book of Mormon.

I agree. It's quite reasonable to conclude plagiarism has occured when you have copies of King James mistakes in the Book of Mormon. The only question then is did Smith memorize the passages, mistakes and all, or did someone copy them directly? The only reason I can see for non-believers wanting to picture Smith memorizing is to still maintain harmony with the witnesses. However, in my opinion, ANY concession of plagiarism is out of harmony with the witnesses since they pretty much unanimously maintained that every word--indeed every character--was God given and God-corrected.

[_marg]

The only question then is did Smith memorize the passages, mistakes and all, or did someone copy them directly?

Roger,

Wasn't Cowdery the main scribe for the majority of the Book of Mormon and didn't the rate of pages per day which they completed average about 6? That scenario is not conducive for Smith having the time & energy to memorize. If he didn't memorize when Cowdery was scribe, then who of other scribes would he have memorized passages for? It apparently went much slower with Harris and a blanket could have been used. With Harris he likely hid the papers he read from. e He's not going to memorize with Emma being a scribe. I think Whitmer and Cowdery were friends. There is no way Whitmer saw an angel, God as per Book of Mormon witness testimonies, or plates because Harris didn't see the plates at the time, so Whitmer as well as Cowdery were both willing accomplices to the Book of Mormon creation.

My guess is that it was a combination of Smith dictating to Cowdery material they had, both of them working on and adding to papers they had from Rigdon...and perhaps at times Cowdery copying directly from material such as the Bible or from Rigdon's papers. Smith would have wanted to dictate when possible to make sure he had some control of what went into the Book of Mormon which would enable him to learn what it contained. I don't know how much of the Book of Mormon Whitmer was a scribe for, but didn't he testify to Smith using a seer stone which glowed the words which Smith would read while his head was in a hat, so Whitmer knew full well it was a con. How would he know the seer stone glowed words, it's not something he personally observed, so he was willing to make up stories or tell stories consistent with what Smith wanted him to say.

[_why me]

Critics need one theory, stick to it, and try to make a touch down.

Would you advise apologists to do the same?

Apologists generally believe that the story that is told by Joseph is the truth. The Book of Mormon was divinely given to him for translation by god. And also the rest of the story all fits together to make a great happening: witnesses, the restoration of the priesthood, etc.

I see no major disagreements or storylines. However, for the critics, they seem to latch on to anything if it helps them to rationalize their choices. I am not saying that it is an useless endeavor. If the book is a fraud, then I wish them all luck in proving it. But...to see farfetched theories as truth is quite nutty (like was is happening on this thread). It is a little embarrassing to read the superhuman traits attributed to Joseph Smith.

And of course, as we read the superhuman traits of Joseph Smith, we also have to come up with a reasonable idea about the witnesses. And why they all kept their mouths shut, including Emma. And may I add Lucy Mack since her husband (Joseph Smith sr.) was one of the witnesses. She must have been in on it too.

From such a foundation we have a world wide church that has been defending itself ever since its very beginning.

And as for apologists, they have to defend the church against all sorts of nutty theories.

[_Roger]

Marg:

Roger,

Wasn't Cowdery the main scribe for the majority of the Book of Mormon and didn't the rate of pages per day which they completed average about 6? That scenario is not conducive for Smith having the time & energy to memorize.

Why not? We're not talking about 6 pages in 3 or 4 hours are we? We're talking about 6 per day on average probably with a good number of breaks in between. I know I can't memorize that much but there certainly are people who can--apparently without any visible help from God.

On the other hand, I agree with you. I don't think the theory requires that Smith memorized anything that actually made the final cut.

If he didn't memorize when Cowdery was scribe, then who of other scribes would he have memorized passages for? It apparently went much slower with Harris and a blanket could have been used.

I agree. I think a blanket was used during the Harris phase. I take Anthon at his word.

With Harris he likely hid the papers he read from. e He's not going to memorize with Emma being a scribe. I think Whitmer and Cowdery were friends. There is no way Whitmer saw an angel, God as per Book of Mormon witness testimonies, or plates because Harris didn't see the plates at the time, so Whitmer as well as Cowdery were both willing accomplices to the Book of Mormon creation.

You might be right but I'm hesitant to include Whitmer. Whitmer's "Address..." and subsequent actions make him seem like a true believer to me. He may not have seen an angel as you and I might think of "seeing" but as Harris aptly demonstrates seeing with one's "mind's eye" could be just as real to 19th century believers as reality---maybe even more so.

My guess is that it was a combination of Smith dictating to Cowdery material they had, both of them working on and adding to papers they had from Rigdon...and perhaps at times Cowdery copying directly from material such as the Bible or from Rigdon's papers.

I think that's a pretty decent assessment.

Smith would have wanted to dictate when possible to make sure he had some control of what went into the Book of Mormon which would enable him to learn what it contained.

Not only that but it also fits with Emma's story about Joseph allegedly being surprised to discover things coming off the text such as Jerusalem being a walled city. It also explains how he could know how to spell words and yet still manage to introduce thousands of grammatical errors. For example, the text reads: "Moroni was coming" but Smith dictates "Moroni was a comin'"

I don't know how much of the Book of Mormon Whitmer was a scribe for, but didn't he testify to Smith using a seer stone which glowed the words which Smith would read while his head was in a hat,

Yes

so Whitmer knew full well it was a con.

why do you make that leap?

How would he know the seer stone glowed words, it's not something he personally observed, so he was willing to make up stories or tell stories consistent with what Smith wanted him to say.

If I'm not mistaken, Whitmer had a seer stone of his own. Also, Whitmer was "sold" on the seerstone thing. He thought Joseph started going astray when he thought he no longer needed a seer stone.

How would he have known? I can only assume Whitmer was fascinated that Smith got so much out of his seer stone and asked him: what do you see Joseph? Might have been a little awe there sort of like the magician who can only do cards tricks being inspired by David Copperfield.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Whitmer's "Address..." and subsequent actions make him seem like a true believer to me. He may not have seen an angel as you and I might think of "seeing" but as Harris aptly demonstrates seeing with one's "mind's eye" could be just as real to 19th century believers as reality---maybe even more so.
...

1881 interview (from 1887 reprint):

"First of all, I have heard that you saw an angel: I never saw one: I want your description
in its shape, voice and brogue, and the construction of his language. I mean as to his style
of speaking. You know we can often determine the class a man belongs to by his language."

Whitmer: "It had no appearance or shape."

"Then you neither saw nor heard anything?"

Whitmer: "Nothing, in the way you understand it."

"How, then, could you bear testimony that you saw and heard an angel?"

Whitmer: "Have you never had impressions?"

"Then you had impressions, such as a Quaker has when the spirit moves him, or as a good Methodist
in giving a happy experience -- a [mere] feeling?"

Whitmer: "Just so."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO ... htm#121687

Whitmer subsequently wrote a "proclamation" in which he criticized the above report and
re-affirmed his support for the Book of Mormon. However -- and very significantly -- David Whitmer did
NOT retract or revise the published disclosure of the "angel" being "a mere feeling."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO ... htm#032581

THIS is the evidence that WhyMe and others rely upon, to confirm the traditional story
of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

On the other hand, Whitmer says that he saw the gold plates now and then at his father's
house, when "translating" was going on there. So, I do not question his having seen some
sort of metal plates. I do question his having seen an angel turn over the pages of REAL
plates during the late June episode in the woods. Sounds like Whitmer was drugged or
hypnotized --- or both, and that Smith and Cowdery supplied the "angel" "feelings" to him.

UD

.

[_why me]

THIS is the evidence that WhyMe and others rely upon, to confirm the traditional story
of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

UD

.

Actually, I rely on this evidence:

Richmond, Mo


July 15, 1887

Mr. Robert Nelson

Dear Sir:

I did see the angel as it is recorded in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. The Book Is True.

………

David Whitmer

Short and sweet.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I did see the angel
...

I do not dispute his claim to have perceived what he thought was an angel.
The experience obviously changed David's life.

But, as he admitted in 1881, and never thereafter denied -- the "seeing" involved
was not the same thing as seeing an object that everybody else can see. David
later likened the experience to Saul's vision -- in one version of which nobody but
Saul actually saw what he "saw."

David "saw" with his "spiritual eyes" as one sees a "city through a mountain."
David "saw" the angel in a vision or with his imagination (his faith).
David "saw" the Nephite artifacts displayed by that angel, not with his eyes, but by faith.

Martin Harris was not there at that moment to verify what David "saw;" and
David himself admits that it was a feeling or perception ---- how is that any
different than a drug-induced hallucination or a post-hypnotic fantasy?

UD

[_why me]

...
I did see the angel
...

I do not dispute his claim to have perceived what he thought was an angel.
The experience obviously changed David's life.

But, as he admitted in 1881, and never thereafter denied -- the "seeing" involved
was not the same thing as seeing an object that everybody else can see. David
later likened the experience to Saul's vision -- in one version of which nobody but
Saul actually saw what he "saw."

David "saw" with his "spiritual eyes" as one sees a "city through a mountain."
David "saw" the angel in a vision or with his imagination (his faith).
David "saw" the Nephite artifacts displayed by that angel, not with his eyes, but by faith.

Martin Harris was not there at that moment to verify what David "saw;" and
David himself admits that it was a feeling or perception ---- how is that any
different than a drug-induced hallucination or a post-hypnotic fantasy?

UD

And then we have this:

Years later in an interview with Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, David gave an account of the events of witnessing the Golden Plates: "It was in June, 1829, the latter part of the month, and the Eight Witnesses saw them, I think, the next day or the day after (i.e. one or two days after). Joseph showed them the plates himself, but the angel showed us (the Three Witnesses) the plates, as I suppose to fulfill the words of the book itself. Martin Harris was not with us at this time; he obtained a view of them afterwards (the same day). Joseph, Oliver and myself were together when I saw them. We not only saw the plates of the Book of Mormon, but also the brass plates, the plates of the Book of Ether, the plates containing the records of the wickedness and secret combinations of the people of the world down to the time of their being engraved, and many other plates. The fact is, it was just as though Joseph, Oliver and I were sitting just here on a log, when we were overshadowed by a light. It was not like the light of the sun, nor like that of a fire, but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away round us, I cannot tell how far, but in the midst of this light about as far off as he sits (pointing to John C. Whitmer, sitting a few feet from him), there appeared, as it were, a table with many records or plates upon it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the sword of Laban, the directors (i.e., the ball which Lehi had) and the interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking the bed beside him with his hand), and I heard the voice of the Lord, as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life, declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God."

Pratt: "Did you see the angel at this time?"

Whitmer: "Yes; he stood before us. Our testimony as recorded in the Book of Mormon is strictly and absolutely true, just as it is there written. "

http://www.gapages.com/whitmd1.htm