Joseph Smith and Money Digging

[consiglieri]

On another note, I'm always confused by people who act as though they were totally OK with the possibility that the Father and the Son personally appeared and spoke to Joseph Smith, that a resurrected being descended through the same boy's roof one night and instructed him repeatedly, that Joseph Smith really obtained a set of ancient gold plates from a cement box inside a nearby hill in which was located a 'compass' on which various divine messages appeared and disappeared as needed, and that this same young man was given the gift to 'translate' the record on these gold plates by the power of God but who then claim to have lost their ability to believe because Joseph Smith seems to have translated at least part of the Book of Mormon using a single seerstone in a hat instead of two seerstones set into a silver bow.

Either the whole package is incredible, or the whole package is the real deal. I don't blame people for reaching the first conclusion, frankly. Were it not for my own experiences to the contrary, that's where I would be. But this whole pretense that one kind of miracle is enough to wreck one's belief in miracles full-stop is nonsense.

Wonderfully put!

I think what is at heart here is the kind of miracle we expect.

Because we are used to having eye-glasses in our society, we expect God will do a miracle that will resemble what we are accustomed to--in other words, looking through translucent stones at the plates and being able to see something not otherwise visible makes "sense" to us.

But taking a solid brown rock and putting it in a hat, and sticking your face in the hat and seeing glowing letters? We have nothing like that in our society, and so it seems "weird" and out of place.

That is actually why, when I introduce it, I plan on using the watch with the luminous dial. How many of us have never, when kids, taken a watch and cupped it in our hands and held it up to our eyes just to see the glow?

By this means, I am trying to introduce the "unexpected" miracle of the seer stone translation in terms of the ordinary, so that it doesn't sound so jarring.

Mercenary, perhaps, but that is the long and the short of it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hamba Tuhan]

The problem here is that Joseph failed to find any treasure....

Perhaps there was no treasure to be found. It was Joseph, after all, who apparently convinced Josiah Stowel to call off the search. But many contemporary witnesses had little doubt that young Joseph did indeed possess the ability to 'see.' In the 1826 examination, Josiah Stowel himself testified on the youth's behalf that, when he had met him in Palmyra, he had been able accurately to describe Stowel's property in southern New York, including a tree he had which had a man's hand painted on it--all 'by means of said stone' (link). Others, like Martin Harris, insisted that they had watched Joseph find lost objects by means of his seerstone, including a stolen mare. You may personally reject the possibility that Joseph Smith (or any other man) could successfully have used such a thing as a seerstone, but you have no historical basis for arguing that Joseph's contemporaries considered him a failure in this regard.

...and many would not think God would grant his power for such an enterprise.

A point seemingly not lost on Joseph Smith himself or on his family; hence, the aforementioned regret. In his account of the 1826 'glass-looking' examination, W.D. Purple, who had witnessed the event, recalled that Joseph Smith, Sr, had expressed at the examination that 'both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre,' and 'he trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning him' (link).

The Urim and thummim is generally viewed by members as a divinely created instrument for translating purposes, so finding out that the BoM was supposed to be translated mostly or part through a means that has been used by others for things like treasure hunting including Joseph doesn't quite have the same level of belief or trust for some members.

Fair enough, though I think one could safely argue that such members are rather ignorant of their own scriptures since, as already mentioned above, Old Testament prophets were paid to find lost objects by divine means.

Don't forget the third option of the whole package being made up.

Considering that the word incredible means 'not able to be believed, I'm quite sure I already covered your so-called third option--that the whole package was just made up. Again, I can understand why many people reach that conclusion. Outside of my personal experiences, it is the most rational choice. What I can't understand are people who claim they had no trouble believing in the efficacy of ancient Jaredite seerstones but who then fell apart when confronted with their 19th-century counterparts.

[Areabird]

Perhaps there was no treasure to be found. It was Joseph, after all, who apparently convinced Josiah Stowel to call off the search. But many contemporary witnesses had little doubt that young Joseph did indeed possess the ability to 'see.' In the 1826 examination, Josiah Stowel himself testified on the youth's behalf that, when he had met him in Palmyra, he had been able accurately to describe Stowel's property in southern New York, including a tree he had which had a man's hand painted on it--all 'by means of said stone' (link). Others, like Martin Harris, insisted that they had watched Joseph find lost objects by means of his seerstone, including a stolen mare. You may personally reject the possibility that Joseph Smith (or any other man) could successfully have used such a thing as a seerstone, but you have no historical basis for arguing that Joseph's contemporaries considered him a failure in this regard.

...

So is it Joseph who has the gift of 'seeing', or is it the seer stone that has the power? So God just sprinkled seer stones around the earth over the past hundred million years or so and whoever found them got to be a prophet? Maybe I should start digging in my back yard. You never know....

[Brant Gardner]

The problem here is that Joseph failed to find any treasure, and many would not think God would grant his power for such an enterprise. Also we see the use of seer stones as a prop used by others doing the same type of things as Joseph(I highly doubt members would believe they had been given a gift by God) so it is a little hard to believe he had any divine ability for treasure hunting.

What have you read about the use of the stones (or other methods of "seeing") over time and the world? For very, very long periods of the history of the world, seeing in a stone (or a cyrstal, or in oil in water) has been a method of seeing the hidden (and therefore divine) world.

In the case of upstate New York, Joseph didn't find treasure, but he otherwise demonstrated the ability to "see" (including finding a pin that Martin Harris lost). Joseph was involved with finding treasure because lots of people were looking, and he was known for "seeing."

If you back away from the myopia created by modern assumptions and re-state your question, why wouldn't one think that God allowed certain people to "see" things others could not? There is a lot of evidence from history (including biblical prophets) who fit that definition.

The gift of God was seeing, not treasure hunting.

[Brant Gardner]

So is it Joseph who has the gift of 'seeing', or is it the seer stone that has the power? So God just sprinkled seer stones around the earth over the past hundred million years or so and whoever found them got to be a prophet?

It is clearly the person and not the stone. Lots of people have looked at seer stones and seen a rock. Joseph eventually learned that as well, and after a certain point continued to receive revelations but no longer used a stone.

As for the history of the world, yes, there have been many who have used stones or some other method of scrying. It has a very long connection to human history, and always associated with what were considered special people who could see where others could not.

[Jeff K.]

Moses thought to open a ferry after leading the children of Israel out of Egypt. He wouldn't even have to build a boat and deal with shipboard maintenance. Everyone thought his ability was very valuable and after much pressure decided to give it a go. It didn't quite work out the way he wanted and he realized that he shouldn't have considered the issue a viable second career. The gift wasn't meant for that.

Side note. Was the power to create a snake from the staff given to the staff for Moses to command or given to Moses?

[consiglieri]

It is clearly the person and not the stone. Lots of people have looked at seer stones and seen a rock. Joseph eventually learned that as well, and after a certain point continued to receive revelations but no longer used a stone.

This makes sense and I tend to agree with you.

But I would like to get your imput on a possibly contradictory episode.

Specifically, Brant, how do you figure in Martin Harris' somewhat famous account of trying to trick Joseph by substituting a similar looking stone in the hat, only to have Joseph be unable to see anything, and crying out something to the effect of, "All is as black as Egypt"?

This would seem to indicate that there was something special about the stone itself.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Can such things be a two step process? Requiring both the seer and the stone?

[Bender]

consiglieri Posted Today, 06:25 AM

I think what is at heart here is the kind of miracle we expect.

Because we are used to having eye-glasses in our society, we expect God will do a miracle that will resemble what we are accustomed to--in other words, looking through translucent stones at the plates and being able to see something not otherwise visible makes "sense" to us.

But taking a solid brown rock and putting it in a hat, and sticking your face in the hat and seeing glowing letters? We have nothing like that in our society, and so it seems "weird" and out of place.

For many it's seeing something that is supposed to be divine, and then finding out about another that is to closely related to the conman. It doesn't make most lose their testimony but wisely makes them start to ask questions.

Hamba Tuhan

Perhaps there was no treasure to be found.

Most likely not, and I'm not arguing that Joseph may have been talked into it, but other descriptions like Isaac Hales describe Joseph as providing great encouragement. At some point you would need to convince him to stop looking. Many also have to wonder if he was so reluctant and trying to talk Stowell out of it, why others in his party blamed Joseph such that he had to go to court over it.

Considering that the word incredible means 'not able to be believed, I'm quite sure I already covered your so-called third option--that the whole package was just made up. Again, I can understand why many people reach that conclusion. Outside of my personal experiences, it is the most rational choice. What I can't understand are people who claim they had no trouble believing in the efficacy of ancient Jaredite seerstones but who then fell apart when confronted with their 19th-century counterparts.

That's one of the definition of incredible. As to rest of your statement I already covered it.

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 09:13 AM

What have you read about the use of the stones (or other methods of "seeing") over time and the world? For very, very long periods of the history of the world, seeing in a stone (or a cyrstal, or in oil in water) has been a method of seeing the hidden (and therefore divine) world.

As I've stated already most of those methods are seen by more people today, including church members, as the tools of the conman, etc and with good reason. So when you see Joseph using a method for translating the BoM that many others have used to con people it does tend to make people ask questions. More people today do not believe in these methods, and see them as hoaxes to get things like money. Their are still plenty who will spend their hard earned money to get their fortunes read, etc. Also some people today are wizely becoming more skeptical, particularly when the only evidence we see from these methods is not divine, but quite human in origin.

In the case of upstate New York, Joseph didn't find treasure, but he otherwise demonstrated the ability to "see" (including finding a pin that Martin Harris lost). Joseph was involved with finding treasure because lots of people were looking, and he was known for "seeing."

If you back away from the myopia created by modern assumptions and re-state your question, why wouldn't one think that God allowed certain people to "see" things others could not? There is a lot of evidence from history (including biblical prophets) who fit that definition.

The gift of God was seeing, not treasure hunting.

There are other witnesses of Joseph that are not favorable to his ability to see, just like the many others back then and today who profess these types of abilities and have multitudes of people who swear by them. I remember having a magician come and do different tricks including mind reading. Very impressive, but we all understand it to be a trick. If you had read all my posts you would understand its the modern assumptions I was purposely discussing.

I find it interesting that a couple of you have used Martin Harris's statement about the hat pin, which in another thread I was providing an example from the fair site of excluding information in his account that tells us Joseph was looking for the pin before being asked to use his seer stone. We don't know all the circumstances around these types of stories of Joseph's ability to see, so the possibility remains that simple tricks were used to make people believe. Even Joseph's description of Stowell home has been done countless times by other people like fortune tellers. People today are also much more aware of the simple tricks used to describe things and see the future, etc and as a result tend to be a little more skeptical, and the skepticism for some does make its way into the Old Testament, and even in church history, particularly when you see things like the rock in a hat, etc. Even things like literal world wide flood are not accepted by many believing members, so why not question the literalness of other things as well.

[Bender]

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 09:16 AM

It is clearly the person and not the stone. Lots of people have looked at seer stones and seen a rock. Joseph eventually learned that as well, and after a certain point continued to receive revelations but no longer used a stone.

As for the history of the world, yes, there have been many who have used stones or some other method of scrying. It has a very long connection to human history, and always associated with what were considered special people who could see where others could not.

Or possibly these special people were just doing the con like many today do to make a buck or get power, fame, influence, etc. I accept as well that many then and today really do believe they have some special ability, just a little skeptical though.

[Jeff K.]

Anything can be called a con, it depends on how much we project our views on the situation. The most innocuous thing can be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

[Bender]

Jeff K. Posted Today, 11:29 AM

Anything can be called a con, it depends on how much we project our views on the situation. The most innocuous thing can be viewed with the utmost suspicion.

Many are, so it might be a good idea to have some skepticism until you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, and I think some members when they read up on the seer stone in a hat tend to have a little skepticism, which I think is healthy.

[Areabird]

Or possibly these special people were just doing the con like many today do to make a buck or get power, fame, influence, etc. I accept as well that many then and today really do believe they have some special ability, just a little skeptical though.

In previous replies to this post folks have listed prophets of the old testament and even Jesus having used object to 'see' and prophesy. They have said, hey, if it was okay for the prophets and Jesus, why wasn't it okay for Joseph to do the same? But weren't those prophets priesthood holders who were using the priesthood power to 'see'? Joseph didn't have the priesthood, so how could he actually 'see' anything?

[ttribe]

In previous replies to this post folks have listed prophets of the old testament and even Jesus having used object to 'see' and prophesy. They have said, hey, if it was okay for the prophets and Jesus, why wasn't it okay for Joseph to do the same? But weren't those prophets priesthood holders who were using the priesthood power to 'see'? Joseph didn't have the priesthood, so how could he actually 'see' anything?

How do you know they were using the priesthood?

[Jeff K.]

Many are, so it might be a good idea to have some skepticism until you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, and I think some members when they read up on the seer stone in a hat tend to have a little skepticism, which I think is healthy.

Guilty until absolutely innocent eh? No such thing as benefit of the doubt?

I have known about the issue for several years and hardly find it a make or break question. If that is your general view, you build on false hopes.

[Areabird]

How do you know they were using the priesthood?

I doubt they were. I'm just playing out the argument that has been suggested.

[Bender]

Jeff K. Posted Today, 01:18 PM

Guilty until absolutely innocent eh? No such thing as benefit of the doubt?

I wouldn't say guilty, but belief should be reserved for until sufficient evidence is obtained of ones claims.

I have known about the issue for several years and hardly find it a make or break question. If that is your general view, you build on false hopes.

I don't think for most, including myself, it is a make a break question. Some have no problem with it , just as some have no problem with a literal worldwide flood. Others may be a little more skeptical or questioning, which I also don't have a problem with.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Many are, so it might be a good idea to have some skepticism until you have sufficient evidence to the contrary, and I think some members when they read up on the seer stone in a hat tend to have a little skepticism, which I think is healthy.

Actually, I agree with you: Skepticism is healthy, and we should maintain it until having sufficient evidence to the contrary. At the same time, as I'm sure you would agree, we should be open to being proven wrong and should be willing to take an active investigative role instead of just 'tending' toward an easy conclusion.

Unfortunately, one of the dangerous corollaries of Modernism is the assumption that every generation before our own was unsophisticated and insufficiently skeptical and therefore gullible. I face this very issue in my PhD thesis, which deals with sixteenth-century conversion to Christianity in what is now Indonesia. The unexamined assumption of all the historians who, for one reason or another (including that most historians of Indonesia can read Dutch but can't read the necessary Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and Latin), have never bothered even to look at the primary source materials, is that 'native' converts never really examined what they were converting to.

As I'm in the midst of demonstrating, however, contemporary records are filled with indirect references to the inherent skepticism of the 'natives.' They asked questions and observed the efficacy of rituals, not only of Jesuit priests but also of Portuguese traders and soldiers and other indigenous converts. They devised tests for both doctrine and ritual. They frequently spent time studying with both Catholic and Muslim missionaries, comparing the doctrine, the private behaviour of those attempting to share it, and the outcomes in the lives of those around them who had embraced both sets of teachings. They treated 'conversion' basically as a 'trial membership,' during which time they continued to assess the real-world efficacy of their adopted religion's truth claims, and they often went through a phase where they vacillated amongst Christianity, Islam, and paganism depending on where their current experiences were leading them.

We have stacks of data to indicate that those who knew Joseph Smith most intimately were no different. They didn't just swallow his truth claims without examination. We like to paint men like Martin Harris as gullible, but the man seems constantly to have been testing Joseph. The account, mentioned above, of when he swapped a river stone for the seerstone is just one example. I find it significant that the staunchest defenders of the veracity of the Book of Mormon were the men and women who had actually watched Joseph Smith engaged in the act of 'translating' it.

At the same time, it would be silly of me to believe simply because they did. I should be skeptical, and I have been. Had my personal experiences not provided me with more than 'sufficient evidence to the contrary,' I would dismiss Joseph Smith's truth claims as nonsense, and, though the charge is impossible to prove, I would tend to view him as a conman simply because it is the easiest explanation.

[Bender]

Hamba Tuhan Posted Today, 03:43 PM

Actually, I agree with you: Skepticism is healthy, and we should maintain it until having sufficient evidence to the contrary. At the same time, as I'm sure you would agree, we should be open to being proven wrong and should be willing to take an active investigative role instead of just 'tending' toward an easy conclusion.

I agree, which is why I have said several times most have not used this one issue as to whether to believe or not. One needs to look at it all, and even after reaching a conclusion either way should remain open minded to being proven wrong.

At the same time, it would be silly of me to believe simply because they did. I should be skeptical, and I have been. Had my personal experiences not provided me with more than 'sufficient evidence to the contrary,' I would dismiss Joseph Smith's truth claims as nonsense, and, though the charge is impossible to prove, I would tend to view him as a conman simply because it is the easiest explanation.

Ah, Acoms Razor. Another good piece of advice. I've also said that for many, including myself, it wasn't just the physical evidence, but the spiritual or personal experiences that have helped us to see differently. I would be delighted to find out that the Church is true. Maybe someday.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I've also said that for many, including myself, it wasn't just the physical evidence, but the spiritual or personal experiences that have helped us to see differently.

Indubitably. I've repeatedly said myself that anyone who's experienced what I have would have to be either evil or unbelievably foolish not to embrace 'Mormonism,' and I haven't really encountered that many totally depraved or thoroughly idiotic people. At the same time, I suspect that, were my experiences more in line with yours, my lack of 'belief' would also be more like yours. I'm convinced this is a healthier and more honest approach than insisting that our personal experiences of necessity are universal and then using that assumption to beat up on others who 'refuse to see the obvious truth.'

Of course, such an approach does not per se address how it is that people in similar situations can end up having such different experiences. This is a much more complex issue, and one for which I have only tentative answers, some of which, of necessity, involve the possibility that I've somehow been deceived.

I would be delighted to find out that the Church is true. Maybe someday.

Be careful what you wish for; based on my experience, such possiblities have a habit of catching one unaware.

[Bender]

Hamba Tuhan Posted Today, 05:05 PM

Of course, such an approach does not per se address how it is that people in similar situations can end up having such different experiences. This is a much more complex issue, and one for which I have only tentative answers, some of which, of necessity, involve the possibility that I've somehow been deceived.

I think we all do have different experiences, and some that are the similar even though we may not know it due to people interpreting those experiences differently. I'm not overly worried about it. Living a good life and obtaining things like happiness and meaning in life are far more important in my view than who is right or wrong on things we can't be absolutely sure on. Although I think its' still good to express our opinions as long as it's done in a nice way.

Be careful what you wish for; based on my experience, such possiblities have a habit of catching one unaware.

More good advice, but I would rather know one way or the other then be left in the dark.

[consiglieri]

Okay, I am coming back to return and report on my Sunday school class yesterday.

I took my hat to church with me, and did pretty much what I said I was going to do. My only dilemma was whether I should bring up the Martin Harris quote first. I decided that would not be as effective.

So, after announcing that we would be discussing the translation of the Book of Mormon, I presented my hat and asked for a watch with a luminous face from a member of the audience.

I told everybody that, when I was a kid, I was fascinated by things that glow in the dark.

(Lots of smiles and nods of agreement.)

I then cupped my hands and held the watch up to my eye and said that this is what I would do to see the glowing watch face.

(Again lots of nods, as this appears to have been a common experience.)

I then said that, although I could see the glow this way, I couldn't read the face or tell the time, because it was too close to my eye.

So I brought out the hat, dropped the watch inside of it, and held the hat to my face, using my hands to exclude the light, explaining that this way I could put a little distance between the watch and my face, and I could use both eyes, and still exclude the light, so that I could read the face of the watch.

At this point, something completely unexpected happened.

A middle-aged single sister was laughing so hard, she was making noise although she was obviously trying to suppress her laughter. I brought my head out of the hat and looked around to see what the problem was, and I looked over and saw her sitting there, her face beet-red, gasping for air, waving at me to continue.

I thought at this moment that this sister was in for an unpleasant surprise. Here she was laughing her guts out at a scene that she considered hysterical, and she was only moments away from finding out this is how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

As fate would have it, this is a sister I have locked horns with in the past over my teaching methods, so I will have to confess a grim satisfaction over the predicament headed her way unbeknownst to her as she laughed and gasped and turned red.

When I was done with my demonstration, I held the hat in one hand and the watch in the other and asked the class if anybody knew why on earth I was taking up class time doing something like this.

Nothing. Nobody raised their hand.

I asked again if there wasn't anybody who knew. I looked at a couple of people whom I felt probably would know, but they weren't willing to say anything.

So into this void, I finally said, "Because that's how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon!"

At this point, it was as quiet as if everybody had stopped breathing.

I thought I had killed my class.

Then a class member with hands folded over chest asked what the source was for my information.

I said I was glad they asked that, and whipped out my Ensign article from 1993 by Elder Russel M. Nelson and read the quote from David Whitmer, nice and slow so everybody could get the full impact.

(There was more that happened afterward, but wanted to post this part to see if there is still any interest.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Somebodyz]

(There was more that happened afterward, but wanted to post this part to see if there is still any interest.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

More! More! spit it out! (stamps feet, politely )

[consiglieri]

Okay, then, since you asked.

After reading the Martin Harris quote about how in the dark (of the hat) the spiritual light would shine, I said that this gives us insight into some Book of Mormon scriptures, and had the class turn to Alma 37, where Alma is giving the plates and the interpreters and the Liahona to his son Helaman, and had a class member read the scripture where the Lord says, "And I will give unto my servant Gazelem a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light . . ."

I said that this is in the context of speaking about the interpreters; that this is what these stones "do," they shine.

I mentioned the 16-stones that the brother of Jared had the Lord touch with his finger so that they would shine in the dark and give them light in their vessels as they crossed the great waters.

At this point, I was on the verge of going into the Book of Raziel, and the Jewish legend that sounds so remarkably like the translation process of the Book of Mormon.

But right then, another class member's hand shot up, and the question was raised, "If Joseph Smith didn't look use the plates in the translation, why did he even need them? Why all the trouble and fuss to get them and preserve them?"

I observed that that is a question that frequently gets brought up at this point, and it is a bit of a mystery. We simply don't know, although others have speculated in response.

I then whipped out my copy of Nibley's "The Egyptian Endowment" and read two paragraphs I had previously marked, dealing with why it was that Nibley thought this was the case. This ended up taking the rest of my class period, as the sacrament meeting had gone long, and we had only 30-minutes for Sunday school.

But I had also mentioned at the outset that the idea that Joseph Smith had a blanket between him and the scribe was an incorrect idea; but one that had gained acceptance in the Church through repeated usage.

I read from the Deseret Times article on Daniel C. Peterson's address regarding this, where he states that this is not correct, but that a blanket may have been used in the latter stages of the translation at the Whitmer home; but it was not placed between Joseph and the scribe, but over the door or the window in order to keep curious passers-by from looking in.

I read from Emma Smith that Joseph sat in the middle of the room with his face buried in the hat while the plates lay nearby on a table wrapped in a napkin. I also read the part about where Emma said that Joseph did not have any manuscript or anything else that he could have been reading from, and emphasized that the reason Emma could know this is because she was present working in the very room while the translation was occurring, and because Joseph Smith was not behind a curtain, but was right out there in the middle of the room with his face in the hat.

I then asked the class if I were the only one who would find it somewhat suspicious if Joseph Smith had concealed what he was doing by sitting behind a blanket. The class seemed to be astonished that I would find that at all suspect. One asked why that would be suspicious. I said, "Because who knows what he would have been doing behind the curtain, or what he had with him?"

Somebody identified that as a lack of faith on my part. Another member (who is a friend that I home teach), said that was because I was a lawyer.

"And a magician," I added.

I said that I was much more comfortable with Joseph Smith translating with his face in a hat in plain view than I was with the idea of Joseph Smith hidden behind a curtain and dictating from who knows what.

I mentioned that almost the entirety of the Book of Mormon was translated between April 7, 1829 (when Oliver Cowdery showed up in Harmony, Pennsylvania) and June 30, 1829 (when the translation was completed); and how what with other things that were being done during the time, the total time for translation has been estimated at 63-days.

That means that Joseph Smith dictated about 5,000 words per day.

I then said that there are only three explanations that take this into account.

The first is that Joseph Smith was translating by supernatural means.

There are only two other possibilities for what happened, in order to explain this by naturalistic methods.

The first naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith simply made up the Book of Mormon on the fly, but that anybody who has seriously studied the Book of Mormon recognizes this to be an impossibility.

The second naturalistic explanation is that Joseph Smith had a manuscript somewhere that he kept hidden on which was written the Book of Mormon, and that he memorized and regurgitated 5,000 words a day; and that he did this day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day . . . after day.

One young lady audibly exclaimed "Wow!" at this point.

I said this second naturalistic explanation is just about as impossible as the first.

That God had arranged for the production of the Book of Mormon to take place in such a manner as to be utterly inexplicable by any method other than supernatural intervention.

I closed by saying the Book of Mormon is a miracle, and it is a miracle that forms the foundation of our religion; that it is the "keystone of our religion," as Joseph Smith said; and that through understanding the manner in which it was brought forth, we are better able to understand the miracle that it really is.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Because I posted this in a thread that really dealt with the prior Sunday school class about money-digging, I have started a new thread dealing with the discussion in Gospel Doctrine about how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri