An Irritating Argument

[Mortal Man]

I have often heard apologists state that Joseph Smith did not understand what he was doing:

Why did he name the drumlin in Manchester the Hill Cumorah? "Because he mistook that hill for the one Mormon buried his records in."

Why did he put horses in the BoM? "Because he didn't know what tapirs were."

Why did he give different accounts of the First Vision? "Because he didn't understand its full significance until many years later."

Why did he ordain Elders before receiving or conferring the High Priesthood? "Because he didn't understand that Elder is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood."

Why did he say that the BoA was written by Abraham's own hand upon papyrus? "Because he didn't realize that it was actually a Jewish redaction of the real BoA."

Why does the BoA refer to Facsimilie 1 "at the commencement of this record"? "Because JS didn't realize that the BoA was further into the scroll, after the breathing permit."

...and so on and so forth.

Silly Joseph.

This line of apologetics is weak for several reasons. Imagine what would happen if such reasoning were applied to other prophets.

QUESTION: Why did the Israelites wander in the wilderness?

RESPONSE: Because Moses was lost and unwilling to admit it. Fortunately with today's GPS units this could never happen.

If you were a nurse, would you say to the patient, "I'm afraid our surgeon doesn't quite understand triple-bypass procedures, but if you'll just have faith I'm sure everything will turn out okay."? If you were a stewardess, would you say to the passengers, "This will be our captain's first flight and he is still figuring out what some of the instruments say, but if you'll all just pray really hard, then I'm sure we'll be fine."?

The defense is essentially this, "Don't worry you guys, Joseph may have been a clueless country bumpkin but we've got some really smart professors now who can straighten out all his foul ups." Is it not a double standard to "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah" on the one hand, while dismissing him as hopelessly ignorant on the other? We marvel at the genius of the religious system he organized and then claim that he did not understand his own revelations?

When confronted with evidence for which you do not have a ready answer, you can say either of two things: "I don't know" or "Joseph didn't know..." The first requires humility and I have no trouble believing. The second requires me to believe that you have travelled back in time and read Joseph's mind.

Saying that "Joseph was human like the rest of us" is not the same as saying that he didn't understand his own revelations. When a scholar writes an original paper, do we not presume that he knows more about his subject than anyone else?. It is simply not valid to cherry pick the occasions when Joseph got it right and arbitrarily toss out the pits whenever it is suitable to claim he got it wrong.

[ttribe]

For non-Mormons the "Joseph's ignorance" defense is a cheap dodge to legitimate inquiries. It's tiresome and insulting. It's time to lay it to rest.

For faithful members of the Church it's also tiresome and insulting for these so-called dodges to be characterized as the sum total of the counterargument.

[Zakuska]

For non-Mormons the "Joseph's ignorance" defense is a cheap dodge to legitimate inquiries. It's tiresome and insulting. It's time to lay it to rest.

The irony of course being... Joseph's Ignorance was the first line of attack used against him. Now people like RAbanes have promoted him to some sort of Religious Geneius.

[smac97]

Over and over again we hear that Joseph Smith did not understand what he was doing.

Why did he name the drumlin in Manchester the Hill Cumorah? "Because he mistook that hill for the one Mormon buried his records in."

Why did he put horses in the BoM? "Because he didn't know what tapirs were."

Why did he give different accounts of the First Vision? "Because he didn't understand its full significance until many years later."

Why did he ordain Elders before receiving or conferring the High Priesthood? "Because he didn't understand that Elder is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood."

Why did he say that the BoA was written by Abraham's own hand upon papyrus? "Because he didn't realize that it was actually a Jewish redaction of the real BoA."

Why does the BoA refer to Facsimilie 1 "at the commencement of this record"? "Because JS didn't realize that the BoA was further into the scroll, after the breathing permit."

...and so on and so forth.

Most of these are not the sole, or predominant, apologetic responses to the issues raised.

For Mormons, this "trump card" of apologetics is objectionable for its sheer arrogance. "Don't worry you guys, Joseph may have been a clueless country bumpkin but we've got some really smart BYU professors now who can straighten out all his foul ups."

You have cherry-picked a handful of issues that might involve an error of some sort by Joseph Smith. Your list is not representative of Joseph Smith's prophetic activities as a whole, nor does it fairly represent how LDS apologists treat him.

Is it not a double standard to "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah" on the one hand, while dismissing him as hopelessly ignorant on the other?

No such dismissal has occurred.

We marvel at the genius of the religious system he organized and then claim that he did not understand his own revelations?!?!

No, we don't.

For non-Mormons the "Joseph's ignorance" defense is a cheap dodge to legitimate inquiries.

You speak for all non-Mormons?

It's tiresome and insulting. It's time to lay it to rest.

"Shut up," he explained.

-Smac

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For non-Mormons the "Joseph's ignorance" defense is a cheap dodge to legitimate inquiries. It's tiresome and insulting. It's time to lay it to rest.

I would love for you to count the times I have said this. Further more I am unaware of erally most mormons even saying this. Give it up.

Your Obama politics of, "It's time to lay it to rest." wont work here, the consensus isn't in and science doesnt need to be restored to anything.

[Daniel Peterson]

Over and over again we hear that Joseph Smith did not understand what he was doing.

I think it's demonstrable -- besides being intuitively obvious -- that Joseph wasn't omniscient.

I intend to continue to view him as human. With your permission, of course.

Why did he name the drumlin in Manchester the Hill Cumorah? "Because he mistook that hill for the one Mormon buried his records in."

Who makes that argument?

Reference please.

Why did he put horses in the BoM? "Because he didn't know what tapirs were."

Who makes that argument?

Reference please.

Why did he give different accounts of the First Vision? "Because he didn't understand its full significance until many years later."

Of course, that's not the whole argument.

But do you really want to insist that we have to believe that Joseph's appreciation of the significance of his experience, call, and mission remained static and unchanging from 1820 to 1844?

There are several reasons why Mormons and non-Mormons alike should object to this line of apologetics.

One of my objections would have to be that much of what you allege appears to be pure fiction.

For Mormons, this "trump card" of apologetics is objectionable for its sheer arrogance. "Don't worry you guys, Joseph may have been a clueless country bumpkin but we've got some really smart BYU professors now who can straighten out all his foul ups." Is it not a double standard to "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah" on the one hand, while dismissing him as hopelessly ignorant on the other?

There's absolutely nothing arrogant, of course, about manufacturing straw man caricatures and attributing them to your targets.

[Jason]

"Shut up," he explained.

Best post of the thread.

[Mortal Man]

For faithful members of the Church it's also tiresome and insulting for these so-called dodges to be characterized as the sum total of the counterargument.

I never said that it was "the sum total of the counterargument." However, I am saying that it is a crutch on which apologists increasingly rely when they can't come up with anything better. I am a big fan of Bushman, but when I'm reading RSR and he begins to delve into something truly interesting, I say to myself, Oh no, don't do it. Oh crap, here it comes... please don't say it... And then it hits, "...from these events we must conclude that Joseph simply did not understand the nature of..." ARGH!!!!

[Zakuska]

I intend to continue to view him as human. With your permission, of course.

But Dr. P. Dontcha know... we Worship Joseph Smith! Our Modern Jesus!

[smac97]

Best post of the thread.

Just to make sure, my comment ("'Shut up,' he explained") was intended to tweak Mortal Man's absurd declaration that LDS apologetic arguments are "tiresome and insulting" and should be laid "to rest."

A unilateral declaration that an opposing viewpoint has been defeated and should be silenced, without even attempting to demonstrate such defeat, is tantamount to the classic "'Shut up,' he explained" line.

-Smac

[Jeff K.]

I do not believe they increasingly rely on any one school of thought or even any one answer. The characterization is false and presumptive.

[Jason]

Just to make sure, my comment ("'Shut up,' he explained") was intended to tweak Mortal Man's absurd declaration that LDS apologetic arguments are "tiresome and insulting" and should be laid "to rest."

A unilateral declaration that an opposing viewpoint has been defeated and should be silenced, without even attempting to demonstrate such defeat, is tantamount to the classic "'Shut up,' he explained" line.

That's why it was the best.

EDIT: Although you've killed the funny a bit in explaining it.

[ttribe]

I never said that it was "the sum total of the counterargument."

You didn't have to SAY it; you set it up as such with the structure of your argument.

[smac97]

I never said that it was "the sum total of the counterargument."

It sure came across that way.

In the presence of additional and/or non-caricatured apologetic responses, your complaint totally fizzles.

However, I am saying that it is a crutch on which apologists increasingly rely when they can't come up with anything better.

With respect, I disagree. No such crutch reliance exists.

I am a big fan of Bushman, but when I'm reading RSR and he begins to delve into something truly interesting, I say to myself, Oh no, don't do it. Oh crap, here it comes... please don't say it... And then it hits, "...from these events we must conclude that Joseph simply did not understand the nature of..." ARGH!!!!

Oh no! Extrapolated conclusions based on available data! How could Bushman do such a thing?! Oh, the humanity!

-Smac

[Daniel Peterson]

I am saying that it is a crutch on which apologists increasingly rely when they can't come up with anything better.

I see no sign of increased reliance on it, and I don't see it as a "crutch," anyway.

I am a big fan of Bushman, but when I'm reading RSR and he begins to delve into something truly interesting, I say to myself, Oh no, don't do it. Oh crap, here it comes... please don't say it... And then it hits, "...from these events we must conclude that Joseph simply did not understand the nature of..." ARGH!!!!

I think Richard makes a good case for his position when he says such things.

Richard shares my view that Joseph was human, and that he wasn't omniscient. Others do, too. I've spoken with them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I never said that it was "the sum total of the counterargument." However, I am saying that it is a crutch on which apologists increasingly rely when they can't come up with anything better. I am a big fan of Bushman, but when I'm reading RSR and he begins to delve into something truly interesting, I say to myself, Oh no, don't do it. Oh crap, here it comes... please don't say it... And then it hits, "...from these events we must conclude that Joseph simply did not understand the nature of..." ARGH!!!!

At first I thought you were saying that the irritating thing is when people attack the LDS Church with straw men, etc. Instead, I find that you are actually the one advancing the irritative argument.

If this crutch is so often used, perhaps you can provide an actual and specific source example that we can look at in further detail. Recognizing the Joseph Smith wasn't omniscient, nor claimed to be, we can evaluate a specific example if you'll provide one. Otherwise, this is nothing but a smoke-and-mirrors argument of nothingness.

[Mortal Man]

I intend to continue to view him as human. With your permission, of course.

I hereby grant Prof. Peterson the exclusive right to view Joseph Smith as human.

smac97, on the other hand, will not be granted any rights until he makes nice.

Who makes that argument?

Reference please.

Um, everybody who believes in the LGT?

Who makes that argument?

Reference please.

Um, half the people who believe in the LGT?

But do you really want to insist that we have to believe that Joseph's appreciation of the significance of his experience, call, and mission remained static and unchanging from 1820 to 1844?

So as to remove the sensitivity of this subject, let me ask a completely unrelated question concerning a completely different issue. When a defendant changes his alibi, is that usually considered a good thing?

There's absolutely nothing arrogant, of course, about manufacturing straw man caricatures and attributing them to your targets.

Oh come on. Sometimes it's just more fun that way.

[smac97]

I hereby grant Prof. Peterson the exclusive right to view Joseph Smith as human.

smac97, on the other hand, will not be granted any rights until he makes nice.

Have I been not nice?

-Smac

[Daniel Peterson]

Um, everybody who believes in the LGT?

Bzzzzzt. Nope.

Thanks for playing!

[The Dude]

For non-Mormons the "Joseph's ignorance" defense is a cheap dodge to legitimate inquiries. It's tiresome and insulting. It's time to lay it to rest.

Why in the world is it a "cheap dodge" if you make the argument that Joseph was ignorant and apologists agree with you?

[smac97]

That's why it was the best.

EDIT: Although you've killed the funny a bit in explaining it.

Yeah, I killed it. I just wanted to be sure that nobody was going to think that I was telling MM to "shut up."

-Smac

[Zakuska]

I see no sign of increased reliance on it, and I don't see it as a "crutch," anyway.

I think Richard makes a good case for his position when he says such things.

Richard shares my view that Joseph was human, and that he wasn't omniscient. Others do, too. I've spoken with them.

The thing that gets me is people thinking that a prophet some how is super human. Christ incarnate. Like people listing Josephs suposed "failed prophecies" and turns out they werent prophecies at all, or they fail to applying the same rule to Bible prophets. If we compare some of the failings of supposed bible Prophets with the failings of Joseph. He looks like Mother Teresa.

[Mortal Man]

If this crutch is so often used, perhaps you can provide an actual and specific source example that we can look at in further detail. Recognizing the Joseph Smith wasn't omniscient, nor claimed to be, we can evaluate a specific example if you'll provide one. Otherwise, this is nothing but a smoke-and-mirrors argument of nothingness.

When Joseph pointed to a hieroglyph on the papyrus and said, "There, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham", did he know what he was doing?

[jadams_4242]

Over and over again we hear that Joseph Smith did not understand what he was doing.

Why did he name the drumlin in Manchester the Hill Cumorah? "Because he mistook that hill for the one Mormon buried his records in."

Why did he put horses in the BoM? "Because he didn't know what tapirs were."

Why did he give different accounts of the First Vision? "Because he didn't understand its full significance until many years later."

Why did he ordain Elders before receiving or conferring the High Priesthood? "Because he didn't understand that Elder is an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood."

Why did he say that the BoA was written by Abraham's own hand upon papyrus? "Because he didn't realize that it was actually a Jewish redaction of the real BoA."

Why does the BoA refer to Facsimilie 1 "at the commencement of this record"? "Because JS didn't realize that the BoA was further into the scroll, after the breathing permit."

...and so on and so forth.

Silly Joseph.

There are several reasons why Mormons and non-Mormons alike should object to this line of apologetics. Imagine what would happen if this reasoning were applied to other prophets.

QUESTION: Why did the Israelites wander in the wilderness?

RESPONSE: Because Moses was lost and unwilling to admit it. Fortunately with today's GPS units this could never happen.

For Mormons, this "trump card" of apologetics is objectionable for its sheer arrogance. "Don't worry you guys, Joseph may have been a clueless country bumpkin but we've got some really smart BYU professors now who can straighten out all his foul ups." Is it not a double standard to "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah" on the one hand, while dismissing him as hopelessly ignorant on the other? We marvel at the genius of the religious system he organized and then claim that he did not understand his own revelations?!?!

For non-Mormons the "Joseph's ignorance" defense is a cheap dodge to legitimate inquiries. It's tiresome and insulting. It's time to lay it to rest.

Joseph smith just as all the prophets in ancient history was not perfect; And everyone needs to take that to the bank.

[smac97]

When Joseph pointed to a hieroglyph on the papyrus and said, "There, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham", did he know what he was doing?

What was he pointing at? CFR, see voo play (unless it's this one, in which case you can just say so).

-Smac