Uncle Dale Posted July 7, 2007 Author Share Posted July 7, 2007 Ever read Philip K. ****? That guy's reality was stranger than his "fiction,"...I read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" before the Blade Runner movie came out.Yes, some people appear to live out most of their lives in an "alternate reality" that barely overlaps the common consensus experience of life -- they have strange experiences and strange results to the actions. I know not why.Altered states of consciousness can be temporarily induced by changing brain chemistry in various ways -- fasting, great physical exertion, meditation, drugs, hypervenilation, body whirling, etc. etc.But inducing altered states of consciousness in other people (so that they are unaware of it), and then manipulating those people to think and do unusual things, is not an easy task. Hypnotists and highly charismatic persons can sometimes alter the consciouness of others, but I think not generally in predictable ways (i.e. making several people see an angel).However -- I am here not asking for speculation on how Joseph Smith might have induced others to experience visions or seeming supernatural events. I am just asking for some plausible way that he himself might have been fooled into believing in Nephites.If we postulate that Walters the Magician fed the young Joe Smith some "magic mushrooms," or some such thing, then that might be a start --- but such a tranistory event does not well explain the intricate stories, prophecies and preaching in the Book of Mormon.We must still be overlooking some possibilities here.UD Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share Posted July 8, 2007 One possibility I thought of was for Satan having physical plates created at some point. It might not be impossible for Satan to miracelously make gold plates if he wanted. He could have earthly person's make, and hide up fake gold plates for his future act of fraud.... If Joseph Smith was guilty of an act of fraud in creating plates then he knew his experiences with God, angels were lies. The only situation I see he could dupe himself is if he had an odd short-lived form of a multiple personality disorder. That one of his personalities created plates, and he had no knowledge of creating plates in that state....Interesting set of speculations -- though I think that if JS really had a split personality, we would have more evidence of that impairment from historical sources. I do not think there is any reliable evidence for such a thing.There are also various sorts of "split thinking" disorders/manifestations that some people suffer, without actually having distinct multiple personalities. For example, Sidney Rigdon evidently heard voices in his head, from which he produced numerous "revelations" in his post-Nauvoo years.Here is a link to some allegations regarding forged Nephite metal plates:http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/na....htm#120088-4a5UD. Link to comment
USU78 Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Rigdon's a fascinating character, at least as compelling as anyone in the early Restoration except for JSJr himself.Seems to me, ol' hoss, that the sine qua non of the case for the Rigdonian composition/expropriation of the BoM is not only a cogent, non-self-contradictory explanation of JSJr's motivations, but also of Rigdon's motivation in undertaking such a project. Just where would that there evidence take us?USU "Who thinks Rigdon was quite sincere, at least early on" 78 Link to comment
Pem Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Did JS invent Mormonism (and some of his extraordinary claims of the 1820s and 1830s) If so, explain to me how on earth such a thing could have happened.???? What was the mindset during the Second Great Awakening? What were people teaching? How liberally did they interpret the Bible and form theologies? What movements were said to have arisen from the SGA? Perhaps the answers to these questions might help us to understand how Joseph Smith could have been deceived. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Just where would that there evidence take us?I'll advance an unsettling possibility --That one half of Herr Rigdon's brain "knew not" what the other half was doing (see D&C).I'll also say that "the ends never justify the means" --- but that with our God, all things are possible.Were there really Nephites?Maybe, when all is said and done, it really does not matter -- and our current preoccupation with such questions is of no great consequence in the cosmic scheme of things. God knows.Uncle "and how thoughtless of me, to speak of 'schemes' when tredding upon holy ground!" Dale Link to comment
Thinking Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I think that JS really believed what he professed, otherwise I don't think he would have endured what he did. I also think that he was addicted to the power of leadership which resulted in things like polygamy. I think that D&C 121:39 is his recognition of his (and others') addiction to power.We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I like the way Michael Coe expressed it during the PBS documentary The Mormons.I really think that Joseph Smith, like shamans everywhere, started out faking it. I have to believe this -- that he didn't believe this at all, that he was out to impress, but he got caught up in the mythology that he created. This is what happens to shamans: They begin to believe they can do these things. It becomes a revelation: They're speaking to God. And I don't think they start out that way; I really do not. ...It's as though P.T. Barnum had started to believe his own fakeries. In many respects he was a great man, [and] he could have done something of the same thing, but he didn't. He didn't have this kind of inner spirit and this sense of destiny that Joseph Smith had. Joseph Smith had a sense of destiny -- and most fakers don't have this -- and this is how he transformed something that, I think, was clearly made up into something that was absolutely convincing, convincing to him and to a lot of people, and he never could have convinced a lot of people if he hadn't been convinced himself.At a early age it's clear that Joseph believed in his magical abilities including the use of his seer stone. And IMO Joseph believed himself a prophet. Whether or not this falls under the pious fraud umberella I don't know. Phaedrus//It's a interesting interview for those who care to read the whole thing. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 What was the mindset during the Second Great Awakening? What were people teaching? How liberally did they interpret the Bible and form theologies? What movements were said to have arisen from the SGA? Perhaps the answers to these questions might help us to understand how Joseph Smith could have been deceived.I'm not a big fan of Dan Vogel books, but I find some interesting stuff in his Religious Seekers volume. It is worth reading, just to get a flavor of what the non-mainstream of those days thought.One notion that was expressed by some professors of the gospel back then, was that ALL the churches were corrupt and that ALL the leaders/teachers/ministers were priestcrafters.In such a perceived spiritually dark environment, there were no doubt some reformers, or restorers, who felt that ANYTHING they might do to lead people back to Christ was BETTER than the unholy work of the "abominable" established sects.Given that sort of conclusion, we might expect pious frauds as a means of "fighting fire with fire."I doubt that Joseph Smith, Jr. was deceived about much of anything.... or at least not for very long.Uncle Dale. Link to comment
Doctor Steuss Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I like the way Michael Coe expressed it during the PBS documentary The Mormons.[...]This is certainly possible (although the Mormon in me shies away from the probability of it). In high school, I had a couple of friends that broke into someoneâ??s house. Evidence began to pile up, and accusations began to find their way to my friends. They vehemently denied the accusations for as long as they existed. Eventually the individual whose house they broke into decided that since nothing was stolen (and a confession was never going to come out of my two ruffian comrades) that she would drop the matter. Years later I was talking with one of these friends and he told me that he had denied taking part in the act so many times that he began to believe in his innocence himself.Perhaps, given enough time and motivation, we can tell ourselves a lie enough that it begins to convince even ourselves. Link to comment
auteur55 Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I like the way Michael Coe expressed it during the PBS documentary The MormonsThis is certainly one possible explanation for Joseph.But again...It doesn't explain 3 and 6 witness's, Temple manifestations, Oliver Cowdery and the Priesthood restoration, countless other testimonies, etc. This is where these pious fraud arguments fall. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 ...countless other testimonies, etc. This is where these pious fraud arguments fall.And so they also fail with Joseph Smith III. Though Mormons seem to dismiss him as a false prophet and his revelations as being either terribly mistaken, or downright fabrications, there are indeed "countless testimonies" of his prophetic ministry, his place in the latter day work, and the positive spiritual goodness he effected in the lives of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of Latter Day Saints.Do I therefore believe that ALL Joseph Smith III said and did was just, righteous and honest?In a word, no.He was a complex man -- a mixture of genuine God-fearing piety and theocratic manipulation. Some observers might judge at least a few of his relgious acts as pious frauds -- just as he so judged his own father's production of the Book of Abraham (it was never accepted by the RLDS).With all of that in mind, dare I voice a testimony that Joseph Smith III was God's true prophet -- the holder of the keys to the last dispensation and leader of the "one true church" (all other sects and denominations being false and abominable in God's eyes)????Not on your life, brother!Uncle Dale Link to comment
PacMan Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Dale,With all of that in mind, dare I voice a testimony that Joseph Smith III was God's true prophet -- the holder of the keys to the last dispensation and leader of the "one true church" (all other sects and denominations being false and abominable in God's eyes)????Not on your life, brother!I daresay most would agree with you! PacMan Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Dale,I daresay most would agree with you! PacManWe can also agree that the moon is not made of green cheese and that neither of us will be the winners on American Idol next year.We're practically theological twins -- like two peas in a pod, we are.Uncle "latter day message boards make strange bedfellows -- hey, yer hogging the sheets!" Dale Link to comment
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 But that is not my question.Leaving aside the inevitable cat-calls of "magician" and "tool of Lucifer," is there any possible explanation of how Nephites might be fictional, and yet the intents and outcomes of the religious ministry of Joseph Smith, Jr. be sincere and righteous?UDIt was not a con! Con-men don't die for the con. He believed it completely.Pa Pa Link to comment
Drone Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 It isn't implausible to me that JS thought he was telling--translating--the truth, more or less. This is from the Oxford Classical Dictiionary: "Muses: goddesses upon whom poets--and later other artists, philosophers, and intellectuals generally--depended for the ability to create their works....[T]hey are divinely contemptuous of humankind (it does not matter to them whether the poetry they inspire is true or false)."I don't think the muses should be thought of just as part of a doctrinaire mythological framework into which creative types, and everyone else, were acculturated. It's likely, rather, that the idea reflects the experience of producing something new: it must seem, often, a good explanation of the origin of an idea, or a series of ideas, or a book, that it was planted inside one's mind by divinities. The confidence with which many describe their interactions with the Holy Ghost, often in reference to their own encounter with the idea that the BoM is true, is another example: the chain of suggestivity keeps growing. In general, the mind is still such an obscure thing that it is almost forgivable if someone attributes some of its doings to outside forces. We've all probably been surprised at the persuasiveness or the depth of certain dreams, which we have created without being aware of it. Link to comment
auteur55 Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 It doesn't explain 3 and 6 witness's3 and 8 witness's naturally. Slip of the finger.And so they also fail with Joseph Smith III. Though Mormons seem to dismiss him as a false prophet and his revelations as being either terribly mistaken, or downright fabrications, there are indeed "countless testimonies" of his prophetic ministry, his place in the latter day work, and the positive spiritual goodness he effected in the lives of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of Latter Day SaintsIn your expert opinion, how comparable are they? Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 I don't think the muses should be thought of just as part of a doctrinaire mythological framework into which creative types, and everyone else, were acculturated. It's likely, rather, that the idea reflects the experience of producing something new: it must seem, often, a good explanation of the origin of an idea, or a series of ideas, or a book, that it was planted inside one's mind by divinities....Come take my handYou should know meI've always been in your mindYou know I will be kindI'll be guiding youBuilding your dreamHas to start nowThere's no other road to takeYou won't make a mistakeI'll be guiding youYou have to believe we are magicNothin' can stand in our wayYou have to believe we are magicDon't let your aim ever strayAnd if all your hopes surviveDestiny will arriveI'll bring all your dreams alive -- For youI'll bring all your dreams alive -- For youFrom where I standYou are home freeThe planets align so rareThere's promise in the airAnd I'm guiding youThrough every turnI'll be near youI'll come anytime you callI'll catch you when you fallI'll be guiding you...Uncle "with my deepest apologies to Olivia, Gene, and the Oracle at Delphi" Dale. Link to comment
Ray Agostini Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 In general, the mind is still such an obscure thing that it is almost forgivable if someone attributes some of its doings to outside forces. We've all probably been surprised at the persuasiveness or the depth of certain dreams, which we have created without being aware of it.If it's obscure, then can you certainly attribute to it the power to "create" visions? How do you know that real "outside forces" cannot be at work? If you think there are simple solutions, then do some reading in parapsychology, which to you might be "mumbo jumbo", because you already "know" that the mind creates all apparent "outside forces". You've apparently reached a conclusion that the mind is "mysterious", yet you seem to be saying something like "it's all in the mind". There are no "outside forces" ever at work, nor can there be such. If I'm reading you wrongly, then correct me. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 3 and 8 witness's naturally. Slip of the finger.If we add Joseph hismelf to the list, that makes a biblical twelve -- a divine number.But if we then in add Mother Whitmer (to whom the plates were also revealed), then that adds up to thirteen witnesses -- an ill-starred "baker's dozen" of problematic proportions.In your expert opinion, how comparable are they?Well, the son never asked that "Praise to the Man" be sung for him -- and word has it that he asked the choir to end off their singing of "We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet" after the first verse, whenever he presided over General Conference.I rather like the fellow.UD Link to comment
auteur55 Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Well, the son never asked that "Praise to the Man" be sung for him -- and word has it that he asked the choir to end off their singing of "We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet" after the first verse, whenever he presided over General Conference.I rather like the fellow.Sounds like an interesting church with a lot of potential and some great leadership.Shame they never really went anywhere. I wonder what went wrong? Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Sounds like an interesting church with a lot of potential and some great leadership.Shame they never really went anywhere. I wonder what went wrong?Partly in believing that the church leadership should remain in the Smith family -- because of some mythical "patriarchal priesthood" handed down from Joseph in Egypt to Joseph in Palmyra.Their never facing up to the historical facts of polygamy was another factor.In the final analysis, I'd say that many of the members have generally been more in tune with the will of God than the leaders -- but that is an oversimplification.I still have hopes for some righteous remnant --- say six elders gathered together in a little house, open to God's direction and with a prophet in their midst....Uncle "say -- that's where I came in on this movie!" Dale Link to comment
Mighty Curelom Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 It doesn't explain 3 and 8 witness'sOne doesn't even need to resort to mass hallucinations to explain the 11 witnesses. A simpler explanation is that nobody saw anything. They each thought the others saw angels and plates, and since it was explained beforehand that they would see them if they were worthy, each of them just lied and said they could see them. Nobody wants to be thought of as unworthy, especially the religious zealots that JS picked as his witnesses. It's a classic case of a naked emperor, only in this instance there was no kid to point it out. Link to comment
Uncle Dale Posted July 10, 2007 Author Share Posted July 10, 2007 One doesn't even need to resort to mass hallucinations to explain the 11 witnesses. A simpler explanation is that nobody saw anything. They each thought the others saw angels and plates, and since it was explained beforehand that they would see them if they were worthy, each of them just lied and said they could see them. Nobody wants to be thought of as unworthy, especially the religious zealots that JS picked as his witnesses. It's a classic case of a naked emperor, only in this instance there was no kid to point it out.Here's what Thomas Ford, Governor of Illinois had to say, on pages 256-258 of his "History of Illinois":And the prophet was not without his witnesses. Oliver Cowdrey, Martin Harris, and Daniel Whiteman, solemnly testify that we have seen the plates which contain the records; that they were translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us, wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true; and we declare with words of soberness that an angel of God came down from heaven and brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates and the engravings thereon." Eight other witnesses certify that "Joseph Smith, the translator, had shown them the plates spoken of, which had the appearance of gold; and as many of the plates as the said Smith had translated, they did handle with their hands, and they also saw the engravings thereon, all of which had the appearance of ancient work and curious workmanship."The most probable account of these certificates is, that the witnesses were in the conspiracy, aiding the imposture; but I have been informed by men who were once in the confidence of the prophet, that he privately gave a different account of the matter. It is related that the prophet's early followers were anxious to see the plates; the prophet had always given out that they could not be seen by the carnal eye, but must be spiritually discerned; that the power to see them depended upon faith, and was the gift of God, to be obtained by fasting, prayer, mortification of the flesh, and exercises of the spirit; that so soon as he could see the evidences of a strong and lively faith in any of his followers, they should be gratified in their holy curiosity. He set them to continual prayer, and other spiritual exercises, to acquire this lively faith by means of which the hidden things of God could be spiritually discerned; and at last, when he could delay them no longer, he assembled them in a room, and produced a box, which he said contained the precious treasure. The lid was opened; the witnesses peeped into it, but making no discovery, for the box was empty, they said, "Brother Joseph, we do not see the plates." The prophet answered them, "O ye of little faith! how long will God bear with this wicked and perverse generation? Down on your knees, brethren, every one of you, and pray God for the forgiveness of your sins, and for a holy and living faith which cometh down from heaven." The disciples dropped to their knees, and began to pray in the fervency of their spirit, supplicating God for more than two hours with fanatical earnestness; at the end of which time, looking again into the box, they were now persuaded that they saw the plates. I leave it to philosophers to determine whether the fumes of an enthusiastic and fanatical imagination are thus capable of blinding the mind and deceiving the senses by so absurd a delusion. http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/frd1854b.htm#pg166UD Link to comment
auteur55 Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 One doesn't even need to resort to mass hallucinations to explain the 11 witnesses. A simpler explanation is that nobody saw anything. They each thought the others saw angels and plates, and since it was explained beforehand that they would see them if they were worthy, each of them just lied and said they could see them. Nobody wants to be thought of as unworthy, especially the religious zealots that JS picked as his witnesses. It's a classic case of a naked emperor, only in this instance there was no kid to point it out.So even when they become enemies to Joseph Smith they still don't want to confess they didn't see the plates because someone might think them unworthy? Being excommunicated didn't do that already?These convenient, simplistic explanations do little to explain 11 men's almost inexplicable dedication to a vision they never saw. Link to comment
Mighty Curelom Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 So even when they become enemies to Joseph Smith they still don't want to confess they didn't see the plates because someone might think them unworthy? Being excommunicated didn't do that already?Those who left or were excommunicated used the Book of Mormon for their own religious enterprises. Why would they sink the ship that they were still sailing on? Even aside from that, what would they gain by announcing they were liars? Also, being excommunicated didn't mean they were unworthy. Remember that those who left the church believed Joseph was a fallen prophet--that the Church had become corrupt under his leadership. In leaving the church, their "worthiness" was preserved, not invalidated. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.