A Challenge to Critics

[DrW]

At least you are honest and will come out and call her a liar. I'm not saying I agree with you, but at least you don't try to dodge the issue on this one.

UD is not the only one who is willing to voice doubts regarding Emma's veracity.

The prophet Brigham young did not mince words in describing poor Emma's problems with the truth, either.

[ttribe]

UD is not the only one who is willing to voice doubts regarding Emma's veracity.

The prophet Brigham young did not mince words in describing poor Emma's problems with the truth, either.

Your point being, what, exactly?

[DrW]

That was substantive.

Thank you.

[Mike Reed]

Okay. I agree. What I should have said is that, without further evidence, all such speculation remains just that.

Cool.

On the other hand, it is possible to address the central question of "fraud or magic " by looking at relevant, objective, physical evidence generated by qualified, disinterested third parties.

Agreed. This may be the topic of my next research project.

[DrW]

Your point being, what, exactly?

Point being that folks here seem to put a lot of weight on what they believe Emma said, or saw, or did. Knowing that she was considered, by some at least, to be less than truthful in some matters, that weight should logically be reduced.

When the someone claiming that Emma was a liar was Brigham Young, a prophet of God, it would seem logical for TBM's to put little, if any, weight in her statements of fact.

But again, that's just me.

[SilverKnight]

Okay. I agree. What I should have said is that, without further evidence, all such speculation remains just that.

On the other hand, it is possible to address the central question of "fraud or magic " by looking at relevant, objective, physical evidence generated by qualified, disinterested third parties.

I completely agree.

I would love to see a working theory developed (based on physical evidence by qualified, disinterested third parties), that outlines the hoax, establishes the chronology, the parties involved, the resources to pull it off, etc.

What would be extremely valuable would be someone who was in on the hoax: an eye-witness, a co-conspirator, any one of the dozens of individuals who must have been involved. Someone willing, even years after the fact, to shed some light on the whole monstrous affair and finally divulge the logical, falsifiable, naturalistic truth of what really happened back in those dimly-lit cabins and wooded groves.

[ttribe]

I completely agree.

I would love to see a working theory developed (based on physical evidence by qualified, disinterested third parties), that outlines the hoax, establishes the chronology, the parties involved, the resources to pull it off, etc.

What would be extremely valuable would be someone who was in on the hoax, an eye-witness, a co-conspirator, any one of the dozens of individuals who must have been involved. Someone willing, even years after the fact, to shed some light on the whole monstrous affair and finally divulge the logical, falsifiable, naturalistic truth of really happened back in those dimly-lit cabins and wooded groves.

Agreed.

[Uncle Dale]

... the whole monstrous affair...

Agreed.

Unless, the "affair" was a series of events, largely guided by Divine Providence, in which

some things were kept secret and some things were misrepresented, for practical purposes.

Heck, let's just abandon the entire Judeo-Christian faith, because Abraham was not

totally forthright in explaining his relationship to a certain woman.

Let's throw it all down the drain, because the Book of Kings does not match well with Chronicles,

or because Peter denied Christ, or because Joseph Smith did not publicly admit Nauvoo polygamy.

I, for one, am willing to look at the fruit of a tree, before I chop away all of its supposedly diseased roots.

UD

[Abulafia]

Joseph, your mentioning of drugs, led me to this article.

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/holy-ghost.htm

Which discusses and includes excerpts from an article written by Dr Robert Beckstead called

'The Restoration and the Sacred Mushroom'

The full article appears here

http://www.mormonelixirs.org/

With all the presentism that I can muster, this all seems pretty bizzarre, but I guess from a historical standpoint, the use of 'drugs' to produce visionary and religious experience is as old as human civilisation itself...

Mary

[Joseph Antley]

QUOTE(Mortal Man @ Jun 8 2009, 12:39 PM)

I'll agree with you here. Although, in the future, I reserve the right to interchange you and JA at will.

That was pretty good...keep in mind, he's 19 and I'm 37...but look 19. I can see how that might happen.

Not sure how I feel about this...

[ttribe]

That was pretty good...keep in mind, he's 19 and I'm 37...but look 19. I can see how that might happen.

Not sure how I feel about this...

C'mon...am I really THAT ugly!?

[ttribe]

Just a refresher from Dr. Peterson: Go to Peterson Link

Edited to add: Mary pointed out that the Peterson link I gave wasn't working (thanks, btw, Mary) and she was right (don't know what the problem is). So I changed the link to just take you to the page on FAIR where the link is and you can click on it yourself.

[ttribe]

Point being that folks here seem to put a lot of weight on what they believe Emma said, or saw, or did. Knowing that she was considered, by some at least, to be less than truthful in some matters, that weight should logically be reduced.

When the someone claiming that Emma was a liar was Brigham Young, a prophet of God, it would seem logical for TBM's to put little, if any, weight in her statements of fact.

But again, that's just me.

I'm not saying that Emma was pure as the driven snow. Nor am I saying that the fact that her honesty was questioned more than once shouldn't be taken into consideration. However, on the other hand, I've seen no evidence that she was a habitual liar either. Furthermore, she's not the only witness. She's one of several. I simply referred to her before because she was there, or nearby, the most.

[Abulafia]

SilverKnight, the only link I could get to work was the first one by Dan P. Thanks.

Ttribe, I can't get the link you posted to work?

Mary

[Abulafia]

SilverKnight said:

Yes, please do backpedal from the master hypnotist theory.

I mentioned 'hypnotic techniques' SK, I didn't say that Joseph was a master hypnotist. I'm not sure how far I would want to take it, but I do think that Joseph had a charismatic, persuasive personality, much along the lines of the one described for Mesmer. That may have contributed considerably to his success.

I'm not familiar with this.

Luman Walters came up on the board that shall not be named. He is someone I had not registered as particularly significant, but apparantly he worked with Joseph on the money digging exercise, and the suggestion from wiki is that he was educated in Europe -Paris and England. See wiki for more information. Joseph's earliest converts included quite an interesting bunch as the above article by Beckstead also mentions. I would have thought some of these names were worth researching, just to see what kind of men they were and why they were attracted to the church. Walters seemed to be a distant relation to Emma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luman_Walter

Sorry about the wiki link, but there's not much on the web that I can find.

It is mostly the whole picture I think. Characterizing Joseph Smith as a "plowhand", an agrarian menial laborer, with little formal education, who spent most of his time working on his parents farm, is mostly accurate. I am simply unaware of any extensive tutelage he received in his youth. I never said he was stupid, but the level of literacy, esoteric knowledge and specialized training required for him to be the polymath genius you require was highly unlikely given his circumstances - and you and I both know it.

We'll have to agree to disagree here, I don't believe it is any where near the whole picture and utterly misses some of the early and interesting events and peoples that might have influenced Joseph's development..(child development is my speciality in terms of my own education, so it is something I can appreciate)

Formal and informal education doesn't wash with me SK, even as a teacher I can appreciate that some of the most valuable and influential learning takes place outside and not inside the classroom. My son is self-educated and goes to school for the social life. Trust me on this!

Joseph's reading of James 1:5, as any teacher of reading would pick up on, puts him in the category of an able reader. Those early newspaper articles that Dan referred to in the link you gave just got it wrong on those points I think..

Mary

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph's reading of James 1:5, as any teacher of reading would pick up on, puts him in the category of an able reader. Those early newspaper articles that Dan referred to in the link you gave just got it wrong on those points I think.

According to Joseph's brother William, the two attended a Methodist meeting where the minister discoursed on how to know which church was right and he focused on James 1:5. William said that this sermon is what inspired Joseph to go home and find the passage in the family Bible, and subsequently enter the Sacred Grove. Joseph reading James 1:5 is not necessarily evidence towards him being "an able reader".

Likewise, Lucy Smith claimed that Joseph never read the Bible through in his life (prior to, IIRC, the Book of Mormon translation), and also stated that, unlike her other children, Joseph was less inclined towards reading and more inclined towards "meditation and deep study".

Had Joseph been an avid reader, I also believe that we should expect his earliest writings to show dramatically better grammar and spelling than they do. Someone who was an avid reader of the Bible and other texts, including View of the Hebrews and the various esoteric books that some critics claim he had read, should demonstrate more skill in writing than Joseph did--especially considering his intelligence (and we can all agree that he was certainly a naturally intelligent man).

No, I see no evidence that Joseph was much of a reader during his youth and much to the contrary.

[Chris Smith]

1. Did Joseph Smith believe that he had visions and revelations or was he lying?

Both. I think he really believed, more or less, that whatever he said or thought or imagined was God's will. As the prophet, his power to reveal, seal, and shape reality was absolute. On the other hand, his followers sometimes needed some help to accept this. JS deliberately engaged in deceptive practices to aid their faith. I think his attitude is fairly well summed up by this quote from one of his sermons: "f you have power to seal on earth & in heaven then we should be Crafty, the first thing you do go & seal on earth your sons & daughters unto yourself, & yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory, & go ahead and not go back, but use a little Craftiness and seal all you can; & when you get to heaven tell your father that what you seal on earth should be sealed in heaven[.] I will walk through the gate of heaven and Claim what I seal[.]"

2. Did the Smith family believe in the authenticity of Joseph’s visions or were they lying?

They believed.

3. Did Emma Smith believe in the authenticity of Joseph’s visions or was she lying?

I think she disbelieved at least some of it, especially near the end.

4. Did Oliver Cowdery believe in the authenticity of Joseph’s visions and the Book of Mormon translation or was he lying?

He believed.

5. Did Martin Harris believe in the authenticity of Joseph’s visions and the Book of Mormon translation or was he lying?

He believed at least some of the time, but may have disbelieved at other times and occasionally engaged in some willful misrepresentation.

6. Did Joseph Smith construct or acquire something that resembled gold plates?

He constructed them.

a. If so, how was this accomplished?

I'll abstain from this question for the moment since I don't want to give away an idea a friend intends to publish.

b. Did the Three Witnesses actually handle something that they believed were the plates?

All of the above saw something under a sheet. As for whether they saw/handled them while uncovered: Cowdery and Whitmer may have, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Martin Harris did not.

c. Did the Eight Witnesses actually handle something that they believed were the plates?

Probably not.

i. If not, why do you think they claimed to?

Joseph Smith drafted their statement. They signed it out of peer pressure, enthusiasm, or some combination of motives of that nature.

ii. If not, why do you think they never repudiated their claim?

When you and your whole family have invested your entire lives in something, especially if you really believe it's true, you have no incentive to repudiate your testimony of it even if you're aware that it was false or exaggerated.

7. Did Joseph Smith construct or acquire something that resembled what he described as a Urim and Thummim and breastplate?

The Urim and Thummim, yes. The breastplate, no.

[i'm going to skip some questions for time's sake.]

8. Were the Three Witnesses lying or deluded when they claimed to have seen the vision of the angel who showed them the plates and Nephite artifacts?

Cowdery and Whitmer were likely deluded. Believe it or not, this sort of thing is neither unprecedented nor even uncommon. Harris I think was lying. (Even JS actually seemed to suspect Harris was lying.)

9. Who (if anyone), besides Joseph Smith, contributed to the Book of Mormon?

It is the product of Joseph Smith's mind alone (albeit with extensive borrowing of text and ideas, especially from the Bible).

10. Did Joseph Smith have written sources present during the Book of Mormon dictation?

It's possible that he sometimes used a Bible.

i. If so, why do you think they lied about it?

Their denials that a manuscript was present were directed against accusations of plagiarism from Spalding. Admitting the presence of a Bible on some occasions would only have unnecessarily muddied their strong denials of the Spalding plagiarism claims. So they omitted mention of it.

a. If Joseph Smith used a seer-stone as the accounts claim, how do you reconcile this translation ritual with blatant fabrication?

I am more willing than some others to consider the possibility of automatic writing. But I don't see anything contradictory between conscious, deliberate fabrication and use of a seer stone as a prop, either.

[Chris Smith]

Mike,

The quote on the breastplate as a masonic prop was fascinating!!!

[Abulafia]

Joseph said:

According to Joseph's brother William, the two attended a Methodist meeting where the minister discoursed on how to know which church was right and he focused on James 1:5. William said that this sermon is what inspired Joseph to go home and find the passage in the family Bible, and subsequently enter the Sacred Grove. Joseph reading James 1:5 is not necessarily evidence towards him being "an able reader".

Joseph, I'm sorry, but if Joseph read James 1:5 without help it indicates that he was able to read, and that he was not a novice at it.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him

.

Look at this sentence from James KJV....

'any' cannot be decoded phonetically, Joseph would have to have known that the y in this context was equal to an 'eee' sound, and the 'a' was equal to an 'eh' sound. That just doesn't happend naturally in my experience it has to be taught.

'lack' in order to decode this word, Joseph would have to know the 'ck' combination is equal to a 'kicking k' sound. Again this would need to be taught.

'giveth' in order to decode this word Joseph would have to understand that the 'th' combination is equal to a sound whereby the tongue is placed under the front teeth to pronounce the word, and indeed that this is what you do with that particular combination of letters. He would have needed to learn it from somewhere.

'all' in order to decode this word Joseph would have needed to be familiar with word strings, otherwise it would appear as 'ah' 'luh' 'luh', again he would have needed to learn it from somewhere.

This is not a sentence I would give to a beginning reader if I were teaching them to read. It is complex in terms of the ability needed to decode it.

Likewise, Lucy Smith claimed that Joseph never read the Bible through in his life (prior to, IIRC, the Book of Mormon translation), and also stated that, unlike her other children, Joseph was less inclined towards reading and more inclined towards "meditation and deep study".

Well, that's interesting, but note that Lucy doesn't say that Joseph couldn't read, only that he was less inclined to. I'd love to know what she meant by deep study, and remember Joseph's father had taught school. Do you really think that Joseph sr did not use his own skills to the benefit of his children, the same with Lucy who was clearly literate.

Had Joseph been an avid reader, I also believe that we should expect his earliest writings to show dramatically better grammar and spelling than they do. Someone who was an avid reader of the Bible and other texts, including View of the Hebrews and the various esoteric books that some critics claim he had read, should demonstrate more skill in writing than Joseph did--especially considering his intelligence (and we can all agree that he was certainly a naturally intelligent man).

As a teacher, I can tell you that the ability to read well, and the ability to translate that into the skills necessary for writing are two very different things.

They are often linked, but certainly not always.

No, I see no evidence that Joseph was much of a reader during his youth and much to the contrary.

I'm not arguing that he was a great reader in his youth, (before the age of 14 say) but I am arguing that there is evidence there that he had been taught to read and could read well.

[Anijen]

After reading these posts and the opinions of the critics. I will have to agree to disagree with some.

For example those who feel the witnesses were somehow duped ,hypnotized, on drugs whatever and never divulged the fraud because they were worried about their reputations seems like a very weak theory. Most men in the United States in the early nineteenth century were men of integrity. Many, if not them, their recent ancestors came to the US for religious freedom.

The CoJCoLDS was considered peculiar even in its early times by secularist. Would not divulging it as a fraud be seen as more reputable, especially after leaving and especially on their deathbed when confession of fraud would help them into Heaven at the judgment?

The witnesses, who stand historically as honest men, where targets to that times version of the paparazzi and where hounded throughout their lives. Their wives and children who knew them best could see the sincerity in their eyes and knew they spoke the truth.

Another item I think was Sidney Rigdon's "salt sermon" and the secret threatenings of Sampson Avard (not approved by Joseph) the witness fled in fear. To keep telling yourself, family and town folk a lie seems not likely unless their witness statements are true then I can see why they never denied their statements. The words of the witnesses speak for themselves

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph, I'm sorry, but if Joseph read James 1:5 without help it indicates that he was able to read, and that he was not a novice at it.

I'm certainly not arguing that Joseph was unable to read. Obviously he could read. But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, William Smith remembers the two attending a sermon where this verse was quoted and explained to them. Joseph did not find James 1:5 while casually reading; after having it explained to him by a minister, he went home, looked it up, and thought about it.

Well, that's interesting, but note that Lucy doesn't say that Joseph couldn't read, only that he was less inclined to. I'd love to know what she meant by deep study, and remember Joseph's father had taught school. Do you really think that Joseph sr did not use his own skills to the benefit of his children, the same with Lucy who was clearly literate.

I'm sure that Joseph was capable of reading, but I imagine him reading on an elementary school level. The Bible, however, was familiar because he was raised having it read to him. If Joseph had not been raised to be so familiar with the Bible, I do think he would have been able to easily read it.

I'm not arguing that he was a great reader in his youth, (before the age of 14 say) but I am arguing that there is evidence there that he had been taught to read and could read well.

Of course he could read, but I would not agree that he could "read well". I think that reading something substantive outside of the Bible would have been frustrating, although certainly not impossible.

[DrW]

Chris, Joseph, Uncle Dale, and Anyone else who would care to respond:

I have noticed that in a large number of responses to the topic questions, folks have stated their belief that JSJ was the sole 19th century author of the Book of Mormon.

My question is; Why is the Stanford University study being essentially ignored here?

Could it be that the study is from one of the top 10 universities in the world and not from FAIR or FARMS?

To save time and money, here is the title, authors, and abstract:

Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification

Matthew L. Jockers

Department of English, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Daniela M. Witten

Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Craig S. Criddle

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Abstract

Mormon prophet Joseph Smith (1805â??44) claimed that more than two-dozen ancient individuals (Nephi, Mormon, Alma, etc.) living from around 2200 BC to 421 AD authored the Book of Mormon (1830), and that he translated their inscriptions into English. Later researchers who analyzed selections from the Book of Mormon concluded that differences between selections supported Smith's claim of multiple authorship and ancient origins. We offer a new approach that employs two classification techniques: â??deltaâ?? commonly used to determine probable authorship and â??nearest shrunken centroidâ?? (NSC), a more generally applicable classifier. We use both methods to determine, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, the probability that each of seven potential authors wrote or contributed to the Book of Mormon. Five of the seven have known or alleged connections to the Book of Mormon, two do not, and were added as controls based on their thematic, linguistic, and historical similarity to the Book of Mormon. Our results indicate that likely nineteenth century contributors were Solomon Spalding, a writer of historical fantasies; Sidney Rigdon, an eloquent but perhaps unstable preacher; and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher with editing experience. Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased).

[Abulafia]

Joseph, how about the term 'fluent reader' could we agree on that?

One other thought about Joseph in terms of his abilities with regard to grammar and writing (and perhaps public speaking).

I wonder the extent to which, considering he disliked false piety, (there's a nice quote around about how he viewed some of the other fine worded preachers who lived in his neighbourhood) was considered a generally congenial, earthy type of man, whether his colloquialisms were actually aspects that he wished to hold on to ie it was a considered move, that he wished to keep a view of a generally uneducated farm boy with a down to earth, friendly, congenial personality?

Mary

[sleepyhead]

me>>>At the risk of thread drift let me say that you have presented some valid points. If I can believe in the novel Jonathan livingston seagull you can believe in a historical book of mormon. What I find illogical is the claim that since A is true therefore B is true, which makes C true, culminating in the CoJCoLDS is the one true church, without any logical thought behind it.<<<

Proof that there's no logical thought behind the conclusion?

Hello ttribe,

The proof is in the fact that in the many months I have been here, that there has never been a discussion about which of the many restoration churches, if any, one should be a part of, if we assume the book of mormon is true.

[Uncertain]

Chris, Joseph, Uncle Dale, and Anyone else who would care to respond:

I have noticed that in a large number of responses to the topic questions, folks have stated their belief that JSJ was the sole 19th century author of the Book of Mormon.

My question is; Why is the Stanford University study being essentially ignored here?

Could it be that the study is from one of the top 10 universities in the world and not from FAIR or FARMS?

To save time and money, here is the title, authors, and abstract:

Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification

Matthew L. Jockers

Department of English, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Daniela M. Witten

Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Craig S. Criddle

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Abstract

Mormon prophet Joseph Smith (1805â??44) claimed that more than two-dozen ancient individuals (Nephi, Mormon, Alma, etc.) living from around 2200 BC to 421 AD authored the Book of Mormon (1830), and that he translated their inscriptions into English. Later researchers who analyzed selections from the Book of Mormon concluded that differences between selections supported Smith's claim of multiple authorship and ancient origins. We offer a new approach that employs two classification techniques: â??deltaâ?? commonly used to determine probable authorship and â??nearest shrunken centroidâ?? (NSC), a more generally applicable classifier. We use both methods to determine, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, the probability that each of seven potential authors wrote or contributed to the Book of Mormon. Five of the seven have known or alleged connections to the Book of Mormon, two do not, and were added as controls based on their thematic, linguistic, and historical similarity to the Book of Mormon. Our results indicate that likely nineteenth century contributors were Solomon Spalding, a writer of historical fantasies; Sidney Rigdon, an eloquent but perhaps unstable preacher; and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher with editing experience. Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased).

Hi DrW,

Well I find the study interesting and it is an important first step in moving the debate into the wider academic community. But I do feel caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of this study. Frankly I do believe there are issues with the this study that greatly weaken it's conclusions. Now I do not of course expect you to take my word for it. If I have the time within the next week or so I will try and start a thread discussing what I find problematic about this study. There was a recent thread on this here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...0&start=260

(Although this thread does not really address what I find problematic in this particular paper)

All the Best,

Uncertain