â??either On The One Hand Or On The Otherâ?�

[Paul Ray]

He [Orson Pratt] was using logic to draw a conclusion that was both historical and theological, while I am limiting my conclusion to the historical. I see the point of his implicit theological argument, but...

What conclusion do you believe he was making?

I believe he was basically saying the book is either true or not true.

What do you mean by saying that his conclusion was both historical and theological?

Are you referring to something other than the truthfulness of the book?

I know the book is a record of history, and that God inspired men to write it.

Is that what you are referring to as historical and theological?

If so, it still is either true or not true.

The people who wrote it were telling the truth, or they weren't, when they wrote what they wrote in the book.

And only God can assure us if those people told the truth when they wrote what they wrote in that book.

I'm not certain that God, if he exists, would damn people for an honest mistake in accepting such a book and...

Heh, you seem to be presupposing that the people who wrote that book weren't telling the truth, since you seem to say it's an honest mistake to accept it.

The writers were either telling the truth, or they weren't telling the truth, and God will hold us all accountable for what we write, say, think, and actually do.

I'm also not sure God could never possibly work through human moral weaknesses as well as through our strengths. I don't think even religionists can really claim to understand God's ways well enough to draw such conclusions. In fact, I think the scriptures of the monotheistic faiths positively rule out our ability to understand God's ways.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I believe God works through us to the extent we allow Him to work through us, through our Savior.

[DonBradley]

Paul,

I believe the answers to your questions are actually in my initial write-up.

Best,

Don

[T-Shirt]

What the Eight Witnesses experienced is a different issue, and not what I'm addressing.

But isn't this a rather big issue?

Obviously, if they did handle uncovered golden, ancient-appearing plates, this would constitute evidence that Joseph Smith's claims were true. But that is another discussion.

Why are you avoiding this discussion? It seems to me that this matter throws a great big wrench into your theory, yet you seem to want to ignore it.

My point here was just that if Joseph Smith didn't have plates, he took measures to deceive others into thinking he did, and was therefore, to that extent, using fraud.

Yet there are thirteen people who have testified to have actually seen the plates, many of whom have handled them. Why is it that you focus primarily on those who claim to have seen or handled them through some sort of covering? How do you so easily set aside the witness of those who have seen them?

T-Shirt

[Paul Ray]

Paul,

I believe the answers to your questions are actually in my initial write-up.

Best,

Don

Please state your point again, while using some other words, to make your point more understandable.

I read your first post and yet I still don't understand you.

What point are you making, exactly?

... and please state your intent as simply as you know how.

Our Father has way of explaining things so I can understand Him. Can you do that?

[Paul Ray]

And btw, just in case you didn't get the point I was making in my last comment.

The Book of Mormon is either true or not true regardless of who wrote the book.

... even if it was written by people long, long ago.

... just as God is true or not true regardless of what anyone says or writes.

The whole thing could be a fraud that has been perpetuated for ages.

... OR, the stories that people tell are actually true.

[DonBradley]

T-Shirt,

Why just have me address the Eight Witnesses? Why not have me address chiasmus, wordprints, NHM, and every other evidence that has been adduced for the Book of Mormon? How about, because that's not the topic. I'm not arguing that the Book of Mormon is fictional and Joseph Smith never found plates. I'm giving my perspective on the truth vs. fraud dichotomy as someone who, for reasons that are not the topic of this thread, believes that the Book of Mormon is fiction and Joseph Smith didn't have plates.

In that vein, I'm pointing out that we know Joseph Smith showed his family and neighbors a wrapped object he claimed was the plates. If it wasn't, then he was using deception.

Of course, if he didn't have the plates but found a way to get the witnesses to believe they'd seen them or sign the testimony without seeing them, then this would include additional acts of deception. But we needn't address the witnesses to know that Joseph Smith presented to others something he claimed was the plates. It either was, or it wasn't--so, he was either telling the truth about this, or lying about it--which is my point.

Don Bradley

[DonBradley]

Our Father has way of explaining things so I can understand Him. Can you do that?

No. My godlike powers are failing me.

However, your questions deal with specific distinctions that I have already made on this thread, and don't want to rehash simply because you're unwilling to go back and look at the answers.

Don

[Paul Ray]

No. My godlike powers are failing me.

However, your questions deal with specific distinctions that I have already made on this thread, and don't want to rehash simply because you're unwilling to go back and look at the answers.

Don

Is that the way you always respond when someone asks you for more clarification of your ideas?

I think I understand you fairly well, based on what you have said, but I'm asking for more clarification.

Do you only want me to assume I understand you and your thoughts?

If so, sorry, I don't like to assume anything.

[DonBradley]

Paul,

I'll give a few examples of questions to which you appear to have overlooked the answers, and then I'll let you search out the others on your own.

What do you mean by saying that his conclusion was both historical and theological?

Pratt was saying if false, it was both fraudulently produced (historical) and would lead people to damnation (theological).

Heh, you seem to be presupposing that the people who wrote that book weren't telling the truth, since you seem to say it's an honest mistake to accept it.

All you'd need to do to understand this was look at the context--what just preceded it. You asked me to comment on my agreement or disagreement Pratt quote, and that's what I was doing--saying I disagreed with Pratt that people believing a fraudulent book would go to hell. And, yes, btw, I've stated all along that I think the book isn't true, and this isn't a mere presupposition, isn't a conclusion from previous research--which I've also stated in this thread. See what I mean about having already provided the answers to your questions?

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

I believe God works through us to the extent we allow Him to work through us, through our Savior.

I was disagreeing with Pratt's absoluteness that if the BoM weren't what it purports to be, it must be evil, and expounding on my previous observation that for all we know God might use human fraud to his own ends.

For any future questions I've already answered, I'll refer you back to my previous posts.

Don

Is that the way you always respond when someone asks you for more clarification of your ideas?

I think I understand you fairly well, based on what you have said, but I'm asking for more clarification.

Do you only want me to assume I understand you and your thoughts?

If so, sorry, I don't like to assume anything.

No, Paul, I want you to read carefully, instead of plying me with pre-answered questions.

Arrgh!

BTW, I have nothing against you. I just don't want to doublepost the same material.

Don

[Paul Ray]

I was... expounding on my previous observation that for all we know God might use human fraud to his own ends.

Thank you for making this point more clear to me. I didn't see that this is what you were saying.

So you think God might use human fraud to His own ends. In a sense, I agree with that statement.

But that doesn't mean I believe God perpetuates any fraud, or gets any fraud started to begin with.

I believe God works with all of us to accomplish His own ends, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop Him, and sometimes He uses a fraud to teach us what to NOT do, while hoping we can learn from our own experience.

I think you need a basic understanding of God to begin with. I think you need to know God is always good.

And if there is ever any time when you thiink God is not good, it isn't God you are thinking of. That is Satan.

God is the good guy. Satan is the bad guy. The one who lies and cheats and frauds people is Satan.

I know I'll never convince you to believe that what I'm saying is true, but know that I know how to know what is good.

I'd like you to know at least a little bit about God.

[DonBradley]

Paul,

I appreciate the good will in your intentions and remarks.

Don

[Alf O'Mega]

What it seems to me probably does have to be absolute is that Joseph Smith found plates or he purposely deceived others into thinking he did. He wrapped up something in that cloth, and presented it to others as the plates, in order to show them that he had the plates. If this object was not the plates, and he knew this, then, by definition, he used deception and was--at least to that extent--a conscious fraud.

My conclusion that if not correct or conniving he would have to be using fraud applies only to his claim to have the plates wrapped up in that cloth. I cannot find it credible that someone not in the grip of something like psychosis could locate or create an object tailored to be passed of as a book of metal plates, and not consciously know that he was doing so. Unless he both searched for the object and wrapped it up while sleep-walking, and never dared look at it, he knew what he was doing. That he may have done it for the welfare of others, to save them from false doctrine and lead them to accept Jesus, and may have even believed that God wanted him to do this is entirely possible. But he would still have used conscious deception.

No argument here. I have contemplated the possibility that Joseph retroactively reconstructed the plates' origin in his memory, but that's just one step down an unnecessarily elaborate set of ad hoc hypotheses that get more and more strained as we try to preserve Joseph's absolute sincerity. Far better to concede early fraud while still recognizing his overarching religious sincerity and, well, piety. The evidence for the genuineness of his piety seems weighty enough to me that I really can't take seriously any fraud theory that dismisses it. Joseph was a true believer, even if he felt justified in over-egging the pudding occasionally.

FWIW, Alf, I've explored the pious fraud model quite a bit. It's certainly a coherent model, and potentially explains a great deal. But I'm not sure it's the best explanation. I think we should also take seriously the possibility that Joseph Smith had more self-interested ends in mind in pursuing a religious vocation.

I'm open to the possibility of a belatedly acquired religious sincerity, although I see a real continuity from his treasure-seeking career to his prophetic career: since his belief in folk magic seems to have been real, I think his religious convictions were as well. Certainly both phases may have involved a healthy amount of self-interest, and in fact it's not hard to see even in the final years of his life. Once again, I think there are a lot of positions available in this neighborhood. It would be naive to deny the robust self-interest at work in Joseph's career(s), but I think it's entirely possible that he believed he had divine warrant for sometimes acting in ways that seem primarily intended to promote his own benefit, and I think his streak of altruism was almost equally prominent.

Self-interest or piety? I don't think I have to choose one or the other.

[DonBradley]

Hi Alf,

Well, some of Joseph Smith's actions seem clearly self-interested, IMO. The fact, for instance, that some his wives were young and notably attractive doesn't seem to me merely providential.

I doubt that anyone who holds to a pious fraud explanation of Joseph Smith believes all aspects of his prophetic career were religiously motivated.

However, some of his behavior seems to conflict with piety--for instance, telling women they would be damned if they didn't marry him, or that they could save their families by marrying him (e.g., Helen Mar Kimball), or telling the saints "in the name of the Lord" during a sermon that the swampy, malarial land he was selling in the upper part of Nauvoo was "the most healthful." Now, there may be sincere and pious explanations for all these actions, but they are a few out of many that tend to suggest that Joseph Smith was a fraud of the self-serving sort, and not personally pious. If you're genuinely pious, wouldn't you find it blasphemous to seek your own profit by invoking the name of the Lord, in vain, as it were, and threatening others with eternal damnation?

Presently, I question Joseph Smith's piety.

Don

[Paul Ray]

Presently, I question Joseph Smith's piety.

I think the important question is whether or not Joseph was a prophet of God, not whether or not Joseph was a perfect person.

Did God appoint Joseph Smith to translate some writings that we now know as the Book of Mormon?

And did God continue to work with Joseph Smith to restore God's true church on this Earth?

When you know the answer to those questions you'll know all you need to know about Joseph Smith.

And btw, did you know that you just fulfilled one of his prophecies?

Feel free to continue to tell us what you really think about Joseph Smith.

[Uncle Dale]

I doubt that anyone who holds to a pious fraud explanation of Joseph Smith believes all aspects

of his prophetic career were religiously motivated.

There are other ways of looking at the history though. They may not be very palatable to most of the

Latter Day Saints, but I mull them over in my mind now and then, nevertheless.

Chief among these alternative viewpoints I have considered, is this one (tabulating its main points):

1. All prophets and all prophetic scriptures are problematic -- none are perfect; not all are holy.

2. Nevertheless, God is able to make use of imperfect beings and imperfect scriptures for good purposes.

3. Joseph Smith may have been either more pious or more fraudulent at some times than at others.

4. The writer(s) of the BoM may have felt "the gift and power of God," even in some fraudulent activities.

5. Incipient Mormonism was a very secretive program; there were differences in people's motivations

6. Although not all of JS's acts were spiritually motivated; most may have been "religiously" motivated

7. Ergo -- to understand a godly purpose in the BoM we must transcend popular "religious" constraints.

Uncle Dale

.

[Warship]

There are other ways of looking at the history though. They may not be very palatable to most of the

Latter Day Saints, but I mull them over in my mind now and then, nevertheless.

Chief among these alternative viewpoints I have considered, is this one (tabulating its main points):

1. All prophets and all prophetic scriptures are problematic -- none are perfect; not all are holy.

2. Nevertheless, God is able to make use of imperfect beings and imperfect scriptures for good purposes.

3. Joseph Smith may have been either more pious or more fraudulent at some times than at others.

4. The writer(s) of the BoM may have felt "the gift and power of God," even in some fraudulent activities.

5. Incipient Mormonism was a very secretive program; there were differences in people's motivations

6. Although not all of JS's acts were spiritually motivated; most may have been "religiously" motivated

7. Ergo -- to understand a godly purpose in the BoM we must transcend popular "religious" constraints.

Uncle Dale

.

In the past, I have thought being a fallen prophet might reconcile JS' bad behavior in his later life with the idea of an authentic BOM. This doesn't seem to be popular with anyone though.

[Paul Ray]

In the past, I have thought being a fallen prophet might reconcile JS' bad behavior in his later life with the idea of an authentic BOM. This doesn't seem to be popular with anyone though.

Some people will tell you he was. You're likely to hear all kinds of stories.

But how will you know who and when to believe... how will you know?

[Tsuzuki]

Presently, I question Joseph Smith's piety.

I question the historical Buddha's existence.

[Uncle Dale]

I question the historical Buddha's existence.

I question my own existence.

Uncle "I think, therefore I am.... I think" Dale

In the past, I have thought being a fallen prophet might reconcile JS' bad behavior in his later life with

the idea of an authentic BOM. This doesn't seem to be popular with anyone though.

I hear that the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) is currently in need of a 12th Apostle... got a resume?

UD

[Paul Ray]

To be, or not to be, that is one question.

Another is how many grapes should you put in fruit salad?

[Tsuzuki]

I question my own existence.

Uncle "I think, therefore I am.... I think" Dale

"Laughter seems to be the only defence against the realisation that one does not even have a real self."

- Peter Carroll,

Liber Kaos

[Warship]

Some people will tell you he was. You're likely to hear all kinds of stories.

But how will you know who and when to believe... how will you know?

How does one know anything? I trust my own judgement...not the opinions of others.

[Warship]

I hear that the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) is currently in need of a 12th Apostle... got a resume?

UD

Forgot about them..I'll get my resume ready.

But wait...what is there to do in Missouri

I'd rather soak up some rays where you're at.

[Paul Ray]

How does one know anything? I trust my own judgement...not the opinions of others.

I know and/or seek to know God's will on everything. I don't simply trust my own judgement, alone.

If I did that I could be just as wrong as other people, but with God I can know I know the truth.

[Alf O'Mega]

Well, some of Joseph Smith's actions seem clearly self-interested, IMO. The fact, for instance, that some his wives were young and notably attractive doesn't seem to me merely providential.

That's one example of what I was referring to when I said, "Certainly both phases [of his career] may have involved a healthy amount of self-interest, and in fact it's not hard to see even in the final years of his life."

I doubt that anyone who holds to a pious fraud explanation of Joseph Smith believes all aspects of his prophetic career were religiously motivated.

As I explicitly acknowledged.

However, some of his behavior seems to conflict with piety--for instance, telling women they would be damned if they didn't marry him, or that they could save their families by marrying him (e.g., Helen Mar Kimball), or telling the saints "in the name of the Lord" during a sermon that the swampy, malarial land he was selling in the upper part of Nauvoo was "the most healthful." Now, there may be sincere and pious explanations for all these actions, but they are a few out of many that tend to suggest that Joseph Smith was a fraud of the self-serving sort, and not personally pious. If you're genuinely pious, wouldn't you find it blasphemous to seek your own profit by invoking the name of the Lord, in vain, as it were, and threatening others with eternal damnation?

Not if you genuinely believe that the Lord has commanded the apparently self-serving behavior.

Presently, I question Joseph Smith's piety.

I have difficulty squaring that opinion with his apparently pious musings from his private diary, written in his own hand:

November 13th [1833] Nothing of note transpired from the 4th of Nove[m]ber u[n]til this day. In the morning at 4 Oh clock I was awoke by Brother Davis knocking at /my/ door saying "Brother Joseph come git /up/ and see the signs in the heavens." I arrose and beheld to my great Joy the stars fall from heaven. Yea they fell like hail stones. A litteral fullfillment of the word of God as recorded in the holy scriptures and a sure sign that the coming of Christ is clost [close] at hand.

Oh how marvellous are thy works Oh Lord and I thank thee for thy me[r]cy u/n/to me thy servent. Oh Lord save me in thy kingdom for Christ['s] sake. Amen (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith [salt Lake City: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1989], 14).

Sunday the 20th [of December, 1835] At home all day. Took solled [solid] Comfort with my Family [and] had many serious reflections. Also Brothers Palmer and Tailor Came to see me. I showed them the sacred record to their Joy and satifaction. O may God have mercy upon these men and keep them in the way of Everlasting life in the name of Jesus. Amen.

Monday morni[n]g, 21st At home. Spent this [day] in indeavering to treasure up know[l]edge for the be[n]ifit of my Calling. The /day/ pased of[f] very pleasantly for which I thank the Lord for his blessings to my soul [and] his great mercy over my Family in sparing our lives. O Continue thy Care over me and mine for Christ['s] sake.

Tu[e]sday, 22d At home this. Continued my studys. O may God give me learning even Language and indo[w] me with qualifycations to magnify his name while I live. I also deliv[er]ed an address to the Church this Evening. The Lord blessed my Soul.

My scribe also is unwell. O m[a]y God heal him and for his kindness to me O my soul be thou greatful to him and bless him and he shall be blessed of God forever. I believe him to be a faithful friend to me therefore my soul delighteth in him. Amen.

Joseph Smith, Jr (ibid., 90â??91).

These data must be incorporated into any coherent solution to the Prophet Puzzle. If he was occasionally fraudulent, I am of the opinion that Joseph was usually sincere. I have no doubt that his strategies of self-justification were robust (like most of ours). How much more so, in fact, when your interior life includes conversations with God, especially a God who occasionally commands deception (e.g., Abr. 2:24â??25)? But even if he didn't feel divine warrant for every selfish thing he did, I have a hard time believing that his whole ministry was primarily motivated by self-interest.