Case of the Missing Golden Plates

[charity]

BYU Alter Ego wrote: "Satan is equal to Santa Claus honey."

First, I am not your "honey." If you cannot respond to a woman's comments without trying to assert your arrogant male ego, you should head for a place where women expect to be treated as intellectual inferiors. This isn't that place.

Second, it would do you good to listen to the voice of a prophet, Elder David B. Haight. ("Power of Evil," Ensign, July 1973, p. 54) "To deny the existence of Satan and the reality of his evil power and influence is as foolish as ignoring the existence of electricity."

Third. . . . why would I try to engage a foolish man in any kind of discussion? A waste of time.

[e=mc2]

The scripture which Charity used that they mocked the messenger's of God is from the Hebrew la`ab {law-ab'} Meaning: 1) to joke, jest 1a) (in the Hiphil) to make jokes.

To dispise the words of the prophets is the Hebrew bazah {baw-zaw'} Meaning: 1) to despise, hold in contempt, disdain. The TWOT observes that "The person who acts contrary to the community founded on the "fear of the Lord" must be cut off from it (Num 15:31); those who treat the Lord with contempt will themselves be held contemptible by him (Mal 1:6-7, 12; Mal 2:9) and will die (Prov 19:16). Those who treated his messengers with disrespect experienced his wrath (2 Chronicles 36:16).

The Lord also condemns to insignificance those who despise what he chose: Esau for despising the birthright (Gen 25:34), worthless fellows for despising Saul's election (1 Sam 10:27), Goliath for despising David's youth (1 Sam 17:42), and Michal for despising David's religious enthusiasm (2 Sam 6:16)."

While misusing the prophets is the Hebrew ta`a` {taw-ah'} Meaning: 1) to deceive, misuse 1a) (in the Pilpel) 1a1) to be a mocker, mock 1a2) mocker (subst) 1b) (in the Hithpalpel) 1b1) to ridicule 1b2) mocking. The TWOT also notes that the verb Ta'tu'im "means "mock" and appears only twice in the Old Testament. In Gen 27:12, Jacob fears that Isaac will think he is mocking him if he pretends to be Esau. In 2 Chr 36:16, the people of Judah are criticized for having ridiculed the prophets; in the same verse, two other verbs meaning respectively "mock" and "despise" are used.

It also implies errors. "(ASV and RSV"delusion"; ASV marg. "mockery" in Jer 10:15.) This abstract plural noun means "mockery" and likewise appears only twice (Jer 10:15 = Jer 51:18). Used in the phrase "work of delusion, " it is an epithet of an idol in parallelism with hebel, "worthlessness, insubstantiality." As such, idols delude men and mock God."

So by despising the prophets and their words, after all, they have ascending into the Council of the Gods and participated in the Divine Decrees sent from there, and then come back and report, then one does, indeed despise God, and God will turn and despise that person. It's a pretty serious thing to mock the messengers.....

Best,

kerry

[BYU Alterego]

You mention archeological evidence, but failed to specifically mention DNA.  The DNA evidence is quite broad, and very reliable.  It clearly disproves any notion of the Hemispheric model.  We've discussed this before, but wouldn't the fact that Joseph clearly believed in the Hemispheric model be evidence (albeit inconclusive on it's own)of his fraud? 

I am butting in the conversation, but your so called evidences for fraud all fall apart. The fact that Joseph Smith believed a hemispheric model coupled with the observations that the text of the Book of Mormon indicates a limited geographical model fit right in with what the faithful paradigm holds for the Book's production. Joseph doesn't come across as the original author of the book if he didn't understand some of its meaning. On the hand, I know of no other coherent paradigm that accounts for all the data of the Book of Mormon's production that can particularly use Joseph's lack knowledge of a limited geography portrayed in the book as a star witness. To the contrary it is data point that acts an anomaly, not evidence to the Joseph-wrote-it crowd.

There are a multitude of occasions that show how Joseph certainly didn't "predict with certainty," ie; prophesy:

Prediction and prophesy are not synomous. The former can be done entirely without any inspiration. And prophesy usually comes with an expressed condition.

1. Kirtland Safety Society (ie; bank).  Joseph said it, "shall become the greatest of all institutions on EARTH."  The bank lasted less than a year.  Joseph was central in the bank's creation.

I see no reason why we should take William Parish's account over Wilford Woodruff's either:

. . .he did not

tell us at that time what the LORD said upon the subject but remarked

that if we would give heed to the commandments the lord

had given this morning all would be well. May the Lord bless Brother

Joseph with all the saints & support the above named institution &

protect it so that every weapon formed against it may be broaken

& come to nought while the kirtland safety society shall become

the greatest of all institutions on EARTH(see The Kirtland Diary of Wilford Woodruff by Dean C. Jessee Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 12 (1971-1972), Number 4 - Summer 1972, p. 381.)

We see Woodruff not Joseph Smith contributed the phrase "greatest of all institutions", that Joseph refused to relay his inspiration, and whatever enthusiasm he brought to the project he conditioned success on dilligent obedience. No fraud here, at worst there is only naive economic planning.

2. Money digging:  Most Gospel Doctrine acolytes know Joseph at one point got paid to dig.  But what they don't realize is that Joseph was mostly there because he said he knew where to find the treasure in the first place.  There's a huge difference there.

But does it amount to fraud? The accounts, pro, con and neutral all portray Joseph Smith as a reluctant participant that could only talk the diggers out of it after they were experiencing failure. And Joseph could see hidden treasure, after all he found the Book of Mormon and found Martin Harris's pin in a haystack. Again no fraud.

3. Kinderhook plates: The account of Joseph accepting and translating these, though they were absolute forgeries, comes from William Clayton.  As to questions of Brother Clayton's reliability, without him he would be without D&C 130, 131 and 132.  All of the above were recorded in his diary if I'm not mistaken.

The accounts are that Joseph Smith didn't accept them, he wanted their finders to authenticate them first. Joseph may have been speculating as to their contents. A brief inspection doesn't resemble any other translation he did and there are no translation documents. I trust Clayton's reliability in recording sermons, but trying to reconstruct this particular experience given all the varied accounts is by no means exact science. I have reasonable doubt on this accusation of fraud.

Joseph also lied for selfish reasons:  The best example is how he lied to his own wife Emma about polygamy.

Or alternatively he had noble reasons for lying like protecting his wife from divine punishment from rejecting a commandment.

Think of Emma throwing Eliza Snow down the stairs and out of the house if you need a good example.

The basis for this story is weak(mixed late famitly traditions) and not attested to in Eliza's diaries.

Overall, we have a great deal of history that is problematic with Smith, and little evidence of the same quality that promotes his claim as prophet. 

There is plenty of evidence if one accepts it as such: finding NHM in the predicted spot, wordprint studies which rule out Joseph Smith and his contemporaries with a high degree of probability, points of correspondences between the Book of Mormon and pre-exilic Jerusalem, rich paralells with early christian doctrines, 3 and 8 witnesses of the plates, shared visions with others, healings performed in front of skeptics, a number of correctly fulfilled prophecies (Kirtland a stronghold for just 5 years, Stephen Douglas for President, Civil War starting in S. Carolina). While all these aren't conclusive, they all fit in a coherent paradigm, hence their evidential value is much better than the supposed ones in your shotgun approach.

--fool

First, the notion that the BOM text supportsLGT is a big stretch. Second, Joseph related visions to his family that involved incredible, detailed knowledge about Nephite life, this btw was before he supposedly found the plates. The argument that he was an ignorant translator and can't be held responsible for the resultant inconsistencies is itself, inconsistent

Second, the definition I used for prophesy came straight from the dictionary, hence the quotes. So your wrong, sorry. Prediction and prophesy, while not identical, share a great deal in common and are thus, synonmous. Regardless, the fact that the predictions and/or prophesies were shown to be wrong is the entire point regarding the inspiration component.

You may be comfortable with "inspiration" that is inconsistent, but I am not.

Third, I was actually taking from the Woodruff account, sorry for the lack of citation. It wouldn't matter however, that portion is the same by both men. Why it's an issue only you can answer.

To attribute the phrasing only to Woodruff or Parish is misleading, they are both paraphrasing the prophet. Indeed all indications show that Joseph prophesied a great deal more about the institution than we're aware of.

By the way, the condition of obedience was to what commandment exactly? From what I've read we don't get that information. Sounds like an excuse to me.

Also, how rediculous for you to say on the one hand, if the bank were to have been successful it would have been according to obedience to commandment, but since the bank failed, it was naive economics. You really can't have it both ways. Either there promises made or there were not.

Promises were indeed made, and they were broken...period.

Fourth, telling someone you know were to find treasure and getting paid for that service when you never had the ability in the first place is indeed fraud. How can you say Joseph was reluctant? He got paid! Perhaps he acted reluctant, but he still took the money.

The sheer volume of excuses made on behalf of Joseph eludes conception.

Fifth, what accounts say that Joseph didn't accept them? Citation please. My source is the same diary that we pulled canonized scripture from. Can you show any reason to discredit Clayton's account of Joseph without discrediting his account of DC 130, 131 and 132? I doubt that you can.

Sixth, people who accept that Joseph lied to protect his wife's salvation are the same people who are ripe to get cheated on. Would you make the same allowance for your spouse? Would you expect God to blame you of all people if you didn't accept a situation like that?

How can you overlook this? How can you dismiss it? In the beginning is was solely Joseph who got to practice this "principle." How the practice can be viewed as anything other than a selfish invention is beyond me.

The bottom line is that Joseph crossed the bounds of his marriage, he had multiple sexual encounters, there are at least seven resulting children that I'm aware of.

And he lied about it to protect himself.

Seventh, The Eliza Snow incident is more than family tradition, there are multiple accounts. I give you that it's not a story that sits on the best of foundations. But considering the rest of Emma's history, I find no reason to believe it's inconsistent with her behavior in any way. It's been good enough for many faithful Church historians to hold onto, I see no reason to contradict them.

I never said that there weren't evidences that supported the BOM. Nor did I say that Joseph got all of his prophesies wrong. There are many instances were he seems eerily prescient. However the weight of the evidence if you were to lay it all on a massive scale, tips dramatically to the side of him being a fraud.

However, I do not believe that God would give us a prophet that got it wrong as much as he did. Joseph's "administration" if we can use that word, was chaotic, unorganized, inconsistent. It's very much what you would expect from a lesser educated, 19th century farmboy. It's very much not what you'd expect from someone who ask God, face to face, for advice.

edited for spelling/grammar

[thesometimesaint]

BYU Alterego:

"The bottom line is that Joseph crossed the bounds of his marriage, he had multiple sexual encounters, there are at least seven resulting children that I'm aware of. "

CFR

[Gohan]

BYU Alterego, love how you ignored my questions.....

[charity]

Gohan, you will find that ignoring questions they don't have an answer for is a standard tactic. It has been my experience that here on the board, the anti or counter-Mormon group will never come back with an honest, "I don't know." You will get used to it. And the harder you try to pin them down, the more you feel like you are trying to nail jell-o to the wall.

[Gohan]

Random Info: I tried nailing jello to a wall once....sorry wrong thread

[BYU Alterego]

BYU Alter Ego wrote:  "Satan is equal to Santa Claus honey."

First, I am not your "honey."  If you cannot respond to a woman's comments without trying to assert your arrogant male ego,  you should head for a place where women expect to be treated as intellectual inferiors.  This isn't that place.

Second, it would do you good to listen to the voice of a prophet, Elder David B. Haight. ("Power of Evil,"  Ensign, July 1973, p. 54)  "To deny the existence of Satan and the reality of his evil power and influence is as foolish as ignoring the existence of electricity."

Third. . . . why would I try to engage a foolish man in any kind of discussion?  A waste of time.

Yowsa...relax Charity. I haven't uttered a word that reflect's my arrogant male ego, though it may exist. People call people honey who come from both sexes. Please disarm your feminists canons.

Also, quoting prophets who believe is no argument that Satan exists. It certainly doesn't explain why I should attribute Joseph's persecution Satan.

[Gohan]

Again I've been ignored, *enters fetal position*, Nobody loves me......

[thesometimesaint]

Gohan:

Don't worry we love you.

[why me]

Again I've been ignored, *enters fetal position*, Nobody loves me......

I love ya! As charity stated: You will not get a response of proof. The anti makes a statement to stir the pot and then when challenged, the challenge is ignored and another comment is made to stir the pot again. It does go like this at times.

Our brother has read the anti speculation and believed it as fact and now he sits at the computer repeating what he has read...trying to justify or validate the decision that he has made. And yet, the book still stands tall in the saddle...

[Dale]

BYU Alterego:

"The bottom line is that Joseph crossed the bounds of his marriage, he had multiple sexual encounters, there are at least seven resulting children that I'm aware of. "

CFR

What does this polygamy issue have to do with the issue of Moroni taking back the plates for safe keeping.

[juliann]

The bottom line is that Joseph crossed the bounds of his marriage, he had multiple sexual encounters, there are at least seven resulting children that I'm aware of.

The below the bottom line is that you need to offer some proof for wild-eyed claims like this. To date, the only known children are from Emma. He may well have fathered another...but there is absolutely no evidence for it...including the ongoing DNA studies.

However, I do not believe that God would give us a prophet that got it wrong as much as he did.  Joseph's "administration" if we can use that word, was chaotic, unorganized, inconsistent.  It's very much what you would expect from a lesser educated, 19th century farmboy.  It's very much not what you'd expect from someone who ask God, face to face, for advice.

And you would know what to expect from God "face to face". Uh huh.

[juliann]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this Charity. There is more known about Joseph Smith's life than the vast majority of humans that ever lived. He was well known, and many had contributing opinions about his character for both good and bad. We have a lifetime of well documented actions and decisions taken by him. We have entire volumes dedicated to his words and his beliefs.

You have to be kidding. With this kind of criteria we are all intimately familiar with the everyday life of Jesus, too. Tell us...how many documents do we have from JS's hand?

How your comment could be anything other than a visceral, knee-jerk response eludes me.

Just because you like to spout off without offering a shred of evidence or documentation....does not mean that everyone else does the same visceral, knee-jerk responding that you do.

[juliann]

Then there's your claim that many members of the church never believed in it in the first place, some EVIDENCE of that would be highly appreciated.

You noticed a decided lack of that too, huh?

[Sparrowhawk]

Gohan, you will find that ignoring questions they don't have an answer for is a standard tactic. It has been my experience that here on the board, the anti or counter-Mormon group will never come back with an honest, "I don't know."

[Calm]

Well said. I find the use of the term "honey" in this context to be patronizing and condescending regardless of the gender of the recipient of such a comment.

Let me add my approval as well. Totally inappropriate with a practical stranger as well as on this message board.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am curious if any of J. Strang's witnesses ever denied their testimony of his plates. Maybe this is not such a great proof after all.

[Gohan]

I think Satan definitely had a hand in the persecution of the Church in the early days. Whenever and wherever there is persecution and hate, Satan is at the heart of it. He is not a "convienient scapegoat", he is the father of all lies and it is because of his influence on the hearts of men that the world is like it is today.

[BYU Alterego]

Did you just honestly pull the Satan card? Satan is equal to Santa Claus honey. Leave poor Satan out of this, he's just a scapegoat.

When envoking the name of Satan what you are really saying is that none of Joseph's persecution was earned, Satan made people hate him. That's patently rediculous. I'm sorry, but that's what people think of frauds. They hate them. They feel lied to, humiliated, cheated, and they want that fraud to pay.

Joseph made enemies easy. He sought power that was all but unprecedented. That always makes people jealous and afraid. More relevant is that because of Joseph people lost money, lost family, lost spouses and even died. Once people realized that those sacrifices were for a lie they were expectedly upset. Many never believed in the first place and abhorred what they saw happening.

I could just as easily say that Satan wanted George Bush and that all the acrimony that surrounds him is the result of Satan stirring up persecution. Wow, poor President Bush, I wish all those 65% of Americans that disapprove of his leadership would just leave him alone. It's not his fault... rofl.

Oooorrrrr, we could both just recognize that President Bush has given people a lot of reason to distrust him and dislike him. Just as Joseph left a wake of contention throughout his life that continues to ripple still today.

First of all, don't bring politics into this, that's an easy way to get this thread shut down. Second, I'm curious about Joseph "seeking unprecedented power", I don't believe I've heard that before, so if you could be kind enough to provide evidence of such (not being a smart aleck, just want some proof). You also said that because of Joseph "people lost money, lost family, lost spouses and even died", you can blame that on Joseph, but you should also probably consider: the Governor who issued the extermination order, the psychotic mobs, man's fear of the unknown, disease, and many other factors. It wasn't Joseph's fault that those things happened, it was the faults of other men. Then there's your claim that many members of the church never believed in it in the first place, some EVIDENCE of that would be highly appreciated.

Sorry about the Politics. You're right about that and I'm wrong. I think of better examples next time.

Second, sorry about the timeless of my response... I do have other things in my life to attend to, and with the sheer volume of turmoil I seem to always stir up it takes me a while to get to everyone.

Look as to responsibility for actions, I don't argue that any responsibility should be taken away from Governor Boggs for his decision, or the decisions of the mobs to resort to lawless violence. If there is justice in the universe, those people will pay.

However, that doesn't mean we should be surprised considering Joseph's history. We certainly can't in any rational universe attribute the vast majority of troubles, if not the whole, to Satan. That is beyond superstitious.

As to the power issue, Joseph had a presidential election, the Nauvoo charter gave extensive powers, he had an army, he held dramatic influence over his followers. He prophesied the downfall of the US government, he prophesied that his yet unborn son David would be the President and King of Israel. New York and Boston were to be destroyed for not accepting the Gospel.

He preached a fair amount of doom for the "heathen" while at the same time was actually growing in material power. To those on the outside looking in on Mormonism, the situation appeared very threatening.

Now whether or not the Mormons were really a threat, well, I tend to lean towards no. But for this discussion that is irrelevant.

The argument here is first whether Joseph defrauded to get where he was at. And secondly, and of far less relevance is whether is was Satan who was behind the persecution the whole time.

I think it's obvious that, justified or not (there are instances of both), those who persecuted Joseph didn't need Satan to motivate them.

[why me]

Did you just honestly pull the Satan card? Satan is equal to Santa Claus honey. Leave poor Satan out of this, he's just a scapegoat.

When envoking the name of Satan what you are really saying is that none of Joseph's persecution was earned, Satan made people hate him. That's patently rediculous. I'm sorry, but that's what people think of frauds. They hate them. They feel lied to, humiliated, cheated, and they want that fraud to pay.

Joseph made enemies easy. He sought power that was all but unprecedented. That always makes people jealous and afraid. More relevant is that because of Joseph people lost money, lost family, lost spouses and even died. Once people realized that those sacrifices were for a lie they were expectedly upset. Many never believed in the first place and abhorred what they saw happening.

I could just as easily say that Satan wanted George Bush and that all the acrimony that surrounds him is the result of Satan stirring up persecution. Wow, poor President Bush, I wish all those 65% of Americans that disapprove of his leadership would just leave him alone. It's not his fault... rofl.

Oooorrrrr, we could both just recognize that President Bush has given people a lot of reason to distrust him and dislike him. Just as Joseph left a wake of contention throughout his life that continues to ripple still today.

First of all, don't bring politics into this, that's an easy way to get this thread shut down. Second, I'm curious about Joseph "seeking unprecedented power", I don't believe I've heard that before, so if you could be kind enough to provide evidence of such (not being a smart aleck, just want some proof). You also said that because of Joseph "people lost money, lost family, lost spouses and even died", you can blame that on Joseph, but you should also probably consider: the Governor who issued the extermination order, the psychotic mobs, man's fear of the unknown, disease, and many other factors. It wasn't Joseph's fault that those things happened, it was the faults of other men. Then there's your claim that many members of the church never believed in it in the first place, some EVIDENCE of that would be highly appreciated.

Sorry about the Politics. You're right about that and I'm wrong. I think of better examples next time.

Second, sorry about the timeless of my response... I do have other things in my life to attend to, and with the sheer volume of turmoil I seem to always stir up it takes me a while to get to everyone.

Look as to responsibility for actions, I don't argue that any responsibility should be taken away from Governor Boggs for his decision, or the decisions of the mobs to resort to lawless violence. If there is justice in the universe, those people will pay.

However, that doesn't mean we should be surprised considering Joseph's history. We certainly can't in any rational universe attribute the vast majority of troubles, if not the whole, to Satan. That is beyond superstitious.

As to the power issue, Joseph had a presidential election, the Nauvoo charter gave extensive powers, he had an army, he held dramatic influence over his followers. He prophesied the downfall of the US government, he prophesied that his yet unborn son David would be the President and King of Israel. New York and Boston were to be destroyed for not accepting the Gospel.

He preached a fair amount of doom for the "heathen" while at the same time was actually growing in material power. To those on the outside looking in on Mormonism, the situation appeared very threatening.

Now whether or not the Mormons were really a threat, well, I tend to lean towards no. But for this discussion that is irrelevant.

The argument here is first whether Joseph defrauded to get where he was at. And secondly, and of far less relevance is whether is was Satan who was behind the persecution the whole time.

I think it's obvious that, justified or not (there are instances of both), those who persecuted Joseph didn't need Satan to motivate them.

But there was certainly a struggle going on at that time which eventually ended in the brutal murder of Joseph Smith and his brother. And if one believes in God then one would have to believe that the hand of satan was in the murder and persecution.

There are many interesting aspects to church history. The early members were pretty much persecuted from day one. As soon as the stories were spreading about the vision and the plates, the troubles began, unfortunately. I say unfortunately, only because it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if there were no persecution...and no intolerance of difference. Where the saints also responsible...no doubt.

My take on it is that everything was rather new for the saints. They were enthusiastic and in their enthusiaism, some went over board. Even Joseph himself probably went overboard due to the situation. But who is perfect? Joseph Smith however, stuck it out...and he saw it to the end and it matters little that he had a pistol and used it...he died for the faith.

Certainly members can claim the influence of satan in trying to destroy the church as they can today. Has the persecution ceased? It may not be violent...but it is out there wearing people down, if they allow it to do so.

However, I am not in favor in stressing the persecution complex today. It gets nowhere.

[BYU Alterego]

Then there's your claim that many members of the church never believed in it in the first place, some EVIDENCE of that would be highly appreciated.

You noticed a decided lack of that too, huh?

That is a misquote, you completely miss it. Personally I think Juliann is just trying to hold onto her "L337" status as a top poster because there is rarely substance to her arguments.

What I said was those who never believed in the first place, and therefore most likely didn't get baptised.

[charity]

For those who may be deceived into thinking that Joseph Smith caused the persecutions that plagued the Saints, and that there is no reality in Satan, maybe the following will be enlightening. I doubt it, however. I didn't include any references from the Book of Mormon because you wouldn't believe those, either. But at least, with the Bible, you have less excuse.

Zech. 3: 1 AND he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

2 Cor. 2: 11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

Oh well.

[Gohan]

As to the power issue, Joseph had a presidential election, the Nauvoo charter gave extensive powers, he had an army, he held dramatic influence over his followers. He prophesied the downfall of the US government, he prophesied that his yet unborn son David would be the President and King of Israel. New York and Boston were to be destroyed for not accepting the Gospel.

He preached a fair amount of doom for the "heathen" while at the same time was actually growing in material power. To those on the outside looking in on Mormonism, the situation appeared very threatening.

I believe the Nauvoo Legion was for the defense of the town, as has been said before, the Church had a lot of enemies in the early days (and still does today, only hopefully not as bad). I knew he announced he was going to run for President, but I don't think anything came of it. I don't know about "dramatic influence over his followers", but he certainly had some, any member of a church is influenced by its leader. I don't know much about your other information, I'll have to research it. I do know that some people, however, where threatened by the Church because of its opposition to slavery. That caused a certain amount of hatred for the church in some circles.

[BYU Alterego]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this Charity.  There is more known about Joseph Smith's life than the vast majority of humans that ever lived.  He was well known, and many had contributing opinions about his character for both good and bad.  We have a lifetime of well documented actions and decisions taken by him.  We have entire volumes dedicated to his words and his beliefs.

You have to be kidding. With this kind of criteria we are all intimately familiar with the everyday life of Jesus, too. Tell us...how many documents do we have from JS's hand?

Are you actually arguing that we know just as much about Jesus Christ as we do about Joseph Smith?

Isn't Early Mormon Documents through it's 5th or 6th volume now? That's like over 2500 pages of source material. How many source documents about Jesus do we have? None. We only have copies of copies of copies.

You should probably lay off the evidence card for a bit, because I see little reason to listen to that criticism coming from you.