Towards the end, however, there was a paragraph of interest:
When Smith produced the Book of Mormon, he did not sit down and carefully compose and revise his narratives the way most authors do. Adapting a practice from folk magic, he placed a seer stone in the bottom of an upturned hat, held his face to the hat to block out light, and then proceeded to dictate the Book of Mormon to a scribe, without reference to texts or notes. In approximately sixty working days, he completed the Book of Mormon – a work in excess of 500 printed pages – and did not return to revise the text, beyond minor adjustments (mostly spelling and punctuation). Yet, the work contains a highly complex and powerful narrative structure that remains internally cohesive. The significance of the work, in literary terms, is that the text of the Book of Mormon represents a first draft – one with little revision to Smith’s original stream of narrative creation. Few authors have ever attempted a comparable feat.I don't think I had heard before that the Book was dictated in such a peculiar way; or if I had, I had forgotten. My recent assumption was that Joseph Smith had written it in private, working with the gold plates in front of him. (Before they disappeared back into heaven, or whatever.)
So is there somewhere else to confirm this?
Well, the grandly named "Institute for Religious Research," an American Christian evangelical set up of unclear size which seems to devote much of its time to trying to convince Mormons to become mainstream Christians, appears to confirm it, with a drawing to illustrate:
The part about it being a "folk magic" method somewhat like trance mediumship is interesting. The period of its creation (in the 1820's) is a couple of decades ahead of the creation of the modern Spiritualist movement, with its extensive use of trance mediumship, that got underway in New York at the end of the 1840's with the Fox Sisters.
But can I trust this Christian group in its account? Well, yes it seems I can, because a long article from the Journal of Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University acknowledges that much of it came this way:
During the translation process, the witnesses were able to observe, in an open setting, the following:Reading this reminded me of how the Quran is supposed to have been a recited, received text as well.
•Joseph Smith placing the interpreters (either the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone) in a hat and placing his face into the hat;
•Joseph dictating for long periods of time without reference to any books, papers, manuscripts, or even the plates themselves;
•Joseph spelling out unfamiliar Book of Mormon names;
•after each dictated sequence, the scribe reading back to Joseph what was written so that Joseph could check the correctness of the manuscript;
•Joseph starting a dictation session without prompting from the scribe about where the previous session had ended.
And this, I realised, explains why both books are incredibly dull to read.
Yeah, yeah, I know: the Quran is supposed to be like powerful poetry in its original Arabic and loses a lot in translation. (I have read Karen Armstrong's book Muhammad - A Biography of the Prophet recently, and that is how she explains it anyway. I must give a review of the book soon.) But as I have noted before on this blog, you can get great narrative stories in the Bible that can keep your interest; yet in comparison reading either the Quran or the Book of Mormon (in the short periods I have tried) is perfectly described as "chloroform in print," as Mark Twain said of the Mormon source.
Is it any wonder this is the case when they were both composed via lengthy dictation?
It's also somewhat amusing to realise that a modern, influential religion was derived, literally, from a man talking into his hat.

