Bob Bennett's new BoM Story Reviewed

[robuchan]

OK, but you have failed to demonstrate that your comment even remotely applies to Joseph Smith, and in fact have been presented with substantive counter-evidence.

And how do we know this? And why would it even be relevant?

Ah, then you have misguided ideas about money-digging as well, then. You present it here as something of a lazy man's pursuit. That is simply historically inaccurate.

I have an acquaintance who tells me that he is in the process of translating the Bible himself, and discovered a miraculous steam-powered city described in the book of Ezekiel, and that the US Government and others do not want us to discover the description because it will upset the royalties they receive from oil magnates in the Middle East. What I am saying is that we, you and me, can bring governing assumptions to a text that help dictate what we see therein. Kevin Christensen has beautifully laid out the implications of what I am talking about in his Paradigms Crossed article. He shows how parallels and so forth can be analyzed and accounted for, and shows how the analysis of folks like Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel pales in comparison with an ancient reading, in rather impressive ways. I recommend that article it's a good one. And there are more.

If you're concerned about the word lazy, then replace it with a neutral word concerning avoiding farming as a living. It's pretty obvious that Joseph was thinking outside the box when it comes to employment opportunities.

I'm really surprised you guys are being so stubborn on the possibility for a financial motive.

[ttribe]

If you're concerned about the word lazy, then replace it with a neutral word concerning avoiding farming as a living. It's pretty obvious that Joseph was thinking outside the box when it comes to employment opportunities.

I'm really surprised you guys are being so stubborn on the possibility for a financial motive.

I think "possibility" has been acknowledged.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you're concerned about the word lazy, then replace it with a neutral word concerning avoiding farming as a living. It's pretty obvious that Joseph was thinking outside the box when it comes to employment opportunities.

I'm really surprised you guys are being so stubborn on the possibility for a financial motive.

Certainly it's possible there was a financial motive. It's just not plausible in the least, and not borne out by the subsequent events.

[Gervin]

Certainly it's possible there was a financial motive. It's just not plausible in the least, and not borne out by the subsequent events.

LifeOnaPlate (what a logical screen name ) if you're still participating could you answer my question in post 29ish? thanx

[LifeOnaPlate]

if this is the evidence:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,

having faith

in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

then, is the faith in verse 4 a leap of faith? How can you make a leap of faith that uses as evidence the requirement to first make a leap of faith?

A leap of faith occurs in believing it possible enough to ask God and that such an action can result in an answer. I have faith that turning off the computer will make my wife happier, and making my wife happier is better than talking to Gervin right now. There is the possibility I am wrong, but I'll have faith that she means it when she sas she prefers I spend some time with her rather than you right now.

[Jaybear]

Certainly it's possible there was a financial motive. It's just not plausible in the least, and not borne out by the subsequent events.

What an absurd statement. Your conclusion that its not plausible is obviously driven by your deep affection for your prophet, which colors your objectivity.

By all objective, observable external facts, the creation of the book was a profit driven enterprise. Smith found a financial backer. He copyrighted the book in his name. He attempted to profit from sales of the book, and then tried to sell the copyright. Indeed, the marketing concept for the book, was that it was the sequel to the bible, the best selling book in the history of man.

Now, if we are supposed to believe that Smith was not the kind of man motivated by financial gain, how then do we reconcile the fact that shortly before he got into the book publishing business, he scoured the countryside looking for buried treasure. Not exactly the kind of vocation that someone engages in who is exceptionally driven by the need to serve fellow man.

As for the nonsensical "borne out by future events" at what in time during these events you are referring, did Smith not have a core group of followers that, like you, believed that Smith was God's mouthpiece, and would do anything he asked, to please God?

Here you have a man would had the ability to convince his followers to give them their wives and daughters, yet you think that were he financially motivated, in rough times, he would have walked away from these people and what .... go into beet farming.

Its funny, not only do you believe that, but you think it irrational to believe otherwise, and you make that remarkable statement in hindsight, knowing that he at the time he died, he was living in mansion, with servants.

[TOmNossor]

Hello Uncertain,

I enjoyed your first post. I also think how someone weighs the evidence is strongly dependent on the prior probabilities a person brings to the table. If for example they think the probability of God existing is very low this will necessarily weigh how they view the external evidence for the BOM. I think it is also strongly dependent on environmental factors. Which is another of the reasons I have a problem with the idea of a "one true church".

In any case with regards to this post I think you make a good point. Most LDS don't view the evidence as even because they include a spiritual witness as part of that evidence. Which is fine, however it does presuppose that personal spiritual experiences are a reliable means to obtain universal religious truths. I don't know if you have followed any of the debates on LDS epistemology on this board. But I for one think there are some very good arguments against using a personal spiritual experience as strong evidence for a particular universal truth claim. Primarily the lack of intersubjectivity. That is lots of people have personal spiritual experiences supporting one universal claim or another frequently these claims contradict each other. Lacking some reliable and objective way to determine which personal spiritual experiences are teaching "truth" and which personal spiritual experiences are not. Using a personal spiritual experience as strong evidence for a particular religious claim seems unwarranted.

Thanks and thanks for reading my insanely long post. I have a few comments about what you have said here.

First let me start with something from here and one of your earlier posts. You said that you were a religious “pluralist” rather than a religions “exclusionist.” I consider myself a religious “inclusivist.” While there certainly are religious experiences that may not come from God or may not fit into a “from God to imperfect man” category within my inclusivist paradigm, I think a large volume of religious experience can fit. The presence of religious experiences that in the mind of the receiver point away from the CoJCoLDS as coming from God, can be real contacts with the divine filtered through imperfect humans. The obvious corollary of this is that my religious experiences can be labeled as such by non-LDS inclusivist (or pluralists for that matter).

So from my original post, I claim that RE (Religious Experience) is a strong indicator that God exists, but that I do not lean so much upon my RE when suggesting that the CoJCoLDS is the church God would have folks with whom I dialogue join. For someone with no belief in God, I suggest that RE (mine and volumes of others) are sufficient reason to believe that God does in fact exist. If it is important abiogenesis and “fine tuning” can be discussed (it was abiogenesis that lead to Anthony Flew ceasing to be an Atheist).

From an acknowledgement that God exists, I think the evidence for the BOM is suggestive of supernatural origins. I think it is only the radical skeptic that can take the BOM and suggest that it is 50/50 or likely of naturalistic origins when all the pros and cons are weighed. So, if you believe in God, I think it is the most reasonable thing to conclude that the BOM is not of human origins.

Once at this point, I think it best to do two things. One, pray to know if the BOM is of God and if you (one) as an individual are called to be a LDS. Two, determine if absent this spiritual witness if you (one) should be a LDS while pursuing a spiritual confirmation. I was a LDS without a spiritual witness for quite some time, BUT the CoJCoLDS teaches that one should join as a product of a spiritual witness so I would not demand that absent this one should not stay outside the CoJCoLDS.

Now, as you can see from above, if one believes that there is a God, I do not think the EXTERNAL evidence is even. So when you said, “Most LDS don't view the evidence as even because they include a spiritual witness as part of that evidence” that is not SOLELY my point. I believe that without powerful naturalistic assumptions the EXTERNAL evidence is not even, but is pro-BOM. I believe that INTERNAL evidence is valid evidence for an INDIVIDUALS decision. Thus with this combination of internal and external evidence I think few LDS think it is even. I only suggest it is even if one brings strong naturalistic presuppositions to the table.

I think you and I disagree. As a religious pluralist you seem to acknowledge the supernatural, but you seem to suggest that evidence for supernatural origins of the BOM is about 50/50. I am aware of MANY problems with setting the BOM in Mesoamerica. I am aware of many real (from a 21st century perspective and within the 1800’s) and imagined flaws with Joseph’s character. I am aware of witnesses who left the church or spoke against Joseph Smith. And … However, I find placing all of that within a BOM is from God framework more consistent than I find placing all the pro-BOM evidences within a BOM is a human production framework. It is only if I prejudice any “from God” perspective by a strong anti-supernatural bias that I could possible see a 50/50 equation.

In my mind the impetuous to be a religious pluralist comes from the recognition that RE of similar external appearance point to different religions each of which has some exclusivist claims (and folks often claim there REs include exclusivist components). However, from where are you specifically coming? Do you have an individual pluralist RE (what I call INTERNAL evidence for God –and internal evidence for religious pluralism)? Do you have an individual RE that points to a specific religion, but you cannot embrace exclusivist paradigms because you respect the individual REs of other folks? Do you believe there are EXTERNAL evidences for religions pluralism (or you religion within a religiously plural framework)?

I have not followed recent LDS Epistemological discussions on this board. I assume you have been pointed to Ostler’s FAIR and Sunstone presentation from a little over a year ago. I think that religion is an internal commitment, ultimately a covenant of love between God and the individual believer. As such, I think internal evidence is an appropriate way to decide to make that commitment. I am not sure science will ever be able to probe the connection between the lover and the beloved. We can measure behaviors and even some physiological responses, but the love will be something the lover just KNOWS exists. If God is capable of communing with man in ways as intimate as the lover/beloved do but in a totally non-observable way, I think we should not rule out such communion from the realm of evidence. I would suggest there is something externally observable that suggests that God or something outside of oneself does communicate with the believer. I would then suggest that the perceived content of this communication cannot be universally applied to all of mankind (because of its individual nature AND because it is generally non-transferable / non-communicable). But, I think the relationship built between God and the beloved can be individually applied to defining lifetime commitment.

Charity, TOm

[Daniel Peterson]

What an absurd statement.

Were you responding to LOAP or, as seems more likely, introducing your own?

By all objective, observable external facts, the creation of the book was a profit driven enterprise.

That's simple nonsense, counselor.

[Jaybear]

That's simple nonsense, counselor.

Well then professor, as you are the expert, kindly tell me which of the facts upon which I draw my conclusion are false.

1. At the time, the Bible was the best selling book in history.

2. The BoM was presented as a sequel to the Bible, ie another Testament of Christ.

3 Smith sought out a financial backer for the production of the BOM.

4. Smith copyrighted the book of mormon in his own name.

5. Smith attempted to sell the book for a profit, ie for more money that he secured from his backer to publish the book.

6. When the book failed to sell, Smith tried to sell the copyright.

Perhaps then, you could also tell me what facts that I omitted, that are relevant and inconsistent with a belief that Smith sought to profit financially from the production of the Book of Mormon.

Tell me, what did Smith tell or promise Martin to cause him mortgage his farm to pay for the printing of the book of mormon.

Some time ago, you told me that Martin had a shrewd Yankee sensibility, or something of that sort. As he seemed quite distraught over the failure of the book to sell, something tells me that Martin considered the money to be an investment, not a donation. But you know this history better than I do. So was Martin also driven by a desire to serve humanity, or was he looking to make money?

[ttribe]

Well then professor, as you are the expert, kindly tell me which of the facts upon which I draw my conclusion are false.

1. At the time, the Bible was the best selling book in history.

2. The BoM was presented as a sequel to the Bible, ie another Testament of Christ.

3 Smith sought out a financial backer for the production of the BOM.

4. Smith copyrighted the book of mormon in his own name.

5. Smith attempted to sell the book for a profit, ie for more money that he secured from his backer to publish the book.

6. When the book failed to sell, Smith tried to sell the copyright.

Perhaps then, you could also tell me what facts that I omitted, that are relevant and inconsistent with a belief that Smith sought to profit financially from the production of the Book of Mormon.

Tell me, what did Smith tell or promise Martin to cause him mortgage his farm to pay for the printing of the book of mormon.

Some time ago, you told me that Martin had a shrewd Yankee sensibility, or something of that sort. As he seemed quite distraught over the failure of the book to sell, something tells me that Martin considered the money to be an investment, not a donation. But you know this history better than I do. So was Martin also driven by a desire to serve humanity, or was he looking to make money?

Why continue the fraud when it failed so miserably then?

[Daniel Peterson]

Jaybear, your six points, whether taken either individually or collectively, don't live up to your extravagant declaration that "By all objective, observable external facts, the creation of the book was a profit driven enterprise."

If you have relevant evidence, I hope you'll share it.

[Jaybear]

Why continue the fraud when it failed so miserably then?

Your question assumes a fraud, as if there is something inherently wrong with profiting from the circumstances presented to him by God.

As to your question, as long as Smith had a core group of followers that believed that he was God's chosen prophet, I fail to see how his financial prospects would have improved by disavowing that belief. The world can be very lonely for those who confess to have defrauded others. Hence I suspect most people only confess to such a crime after having been caught, and most often in a bid for leniency.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear, your six points, whether taken either individually or collectively, don't live up to your extravagant declaration that "By all objective, observable external facts, the creation of the book was a profit driven enterprise."

If you have relevant evidence, I hope you'll share it.

How about this fact:

Prior to publishing the book of mormon, Smith spent considerable time in the woods looking for, or leading others who were looking for buried treasure. Treasure hunting is about as far removed from an altruistic occupation that one can imagine.

As this adventure occurred after he allegedly met with both God and Jesus Christ, I have to wonder if there was some other event the led him to henceforth devote his life to the service of others.

I could go on, but if my statement is manifestly incorrect, please identify one single solitary external observable fact that undermines my conclusion. As you consider my opinion to be "desperate" there must a wealth of such facts. When you do so, I gladly retract my statement.

[LifeOnaPlate]

2. The BoM was presented as a sequel to the Bible, ie another Testament of Christ.

Aside from the book itself frequently discussing the dangers and potential pitfalls of wealth, I only have time right now to respond to one of your points.

The marketing scheme cooked up by Joseph Smith, that of "another testament of Jesus Christ," didn't appear on the scene for over a century. Actually around a century and a half. That subtitle was added around 1982. It was never called a "sequel" to anything. It was another record of scripture, the majority of the narrative is contemporary with Hebrew scripture.

So you're simply being imprecise here. And further, the scheme was rather fool-hardy in that many folks already believed the Bible was complete, sola scriptura made the venture quite the risk indeed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

How about this fact:

Prior to publishing the book of mormon, Smith spent considerable time in the woods looking for, or leading others who were looking for buried treasure. Treasure hunting is about as far removed from an altruistic occupation that one can imagine.

Introducing the muddy word "considerable" with no comparative is slippery and silly. Calling your description a "fact" is even more silly.

[Jaybear]

The marketing scheme cooked up by Joseph Smith, that of "another testament of Jesus Christ," didn't appear on the scene for over a century. Actually around a century and a half. That subtitle was added around 1982. It was never called a "sequel" to anything. It was another record of scripture, the majority of the narrative is contemporary with Hebrew scripture.

Your point?

If people genuinely believed that there was another book of scripture that added to their understanding of God and Christ, wouldn't you expect that they would be willing to pay for that book? In this day and age, I can't imagine that there are many homes which don't have copy of what they consider "scripture."

Back then, I am sure the percentage that owned a book of their scriptures was much lower, but still considerable.

There was an expectation, at least by Martin, that people would be willing to pay for the book. Now do you suppose that JS encouraged or dissuaded Martin from that belief.

Introducing the muddy word "considerable" with no comparative is slippery and silly. Calling your description a "fact" is even more silly.

He engaged in the business of treasure hunting long enough that Emma's father did not consider him worthy to marry his daughter. But you are more than welcome to precisely define the extent and duration of his adventures in hunting for buried treasure.

[Calm]

I have a few comments about what you have said here....

One of the things I really like about your posts, Tom, is that I always understand my own POV better after reading about yours...not that mine is identical with yours, but you cause me to think about details I don't normally focus on.

Thank you.

[LifeOnaPlate]

There was an expectation, at least by Martin, that people would be willing to pay for the book. Now do you suppose that JS encouraged or dissuaded Martin from that belief.

I'm certain Martin Harris hoped to regain the money and most especially to keep his farm, which he didn't. Martin Harris's motivations weren't evidently financial either, though, despite your insinuations. He was a practical man, a farmer of some success. Rather than seeking the market value of the book or the projected sales he spent considerable time trying to gauge the truthfulness of the book and of Joseph's experiences. He sought to find out if the book was actually a translation or if JS was putting him on. He didn't coral demographics or seek to discover what the projected financial value would be based on advertising, polling, or testing it out with different markets. As a matter of fact, the very reason he had to mortgage his farm to fund the publication was because the general and overwhelming feeling of his neighbors was that the book would be a monumental financial failure. There was a boycott against it being cooked up before it even rolled off the press which led the printer, Mr. Grandin, to have second thoughts himself- based on financial considerations. It is clear from the evidence at hand that Martin Harris's concerns were primarily over the truthfulness of the book and what God, whom he believed in dearly, wanted him to do. Any financial considerations were secondary, and far secondary as we can imagine based on the opposition from his own wife. These are opinions I am crafting based on Harris's known actions and words. Your expectation is building on a foundation of speculation only.

Now, aside from this you have failed to show any significant details about the financial considerations of publishing such a book. If making money was the scheme we might expect there to be some evidence of calculation and so forth designed to make the venture profitable. But lacking such evidence we could at least try to find some information about the financial considerations ourselves.

-How much did it cost to publish a book at the time, and how does the cost compare to running other schemes like a farm, or a well-digging enterprise and so forth? We can compare this to the amount of money that might be made by hiring out as a laborer, or making money from a nice crop. Even then we would be speculating only.

-How much money was the first print run supposed to make compared to the cost? What was the overhead, in other words, should the scheme be fully successful and sell out of the first run?

-What was the estimated first run supposed to be, and did this change at any point?

-How much did a Book of Mormon cost? How did the price change over time? How was it advertised or sold and what was done with the money that was collected? Who actually profited?

-What was the reaction in the community when the publication was previewed or announced, and how might this bear on the hopes of success?

There are many other questions like this that you have failed to address. Instead, you say that I am not being "objective" enough in my analysis because of my "adulation" for the prophet. Well, that sword cuts both ways, and it can just as easily be said that you seek a greedy motive because of a lack of "objectivity" and the hope to make a person whom you disdain look bad. So we can trade accusations like this until the cows come home, but it's odd to see a fellow (you) talk about objectivity and so forth and at the same time give no measurable or empirical evidence to support his point. To the contrary, those accused of not being "objective," (a pipe dream, anyway) are the ones bringing testable questions to the table and considering them.

He engaged in the business of treasure hunting long enough that Emma's father did not consider him worthy to marry his daughter. But you are more than welcome to precisely define the extent and duration of his adventures in hunting for buried treasure.

So you are basing your estimate of what constitutes "considerable time spent" upon the opinion of an antagonist who didn't actually delineate how much time was spent at all? That is simply fallacious.

[Calm]

And further, the scheme was rather fool-hardy in that many folks already believed the Bible was complete, sola scriptura made the venture quite the risk indeed.

And this would have been the dominant view in JS's environment so even if he knew of others that did not hold with a sola scriptural position, he would have been aware that they were few and not likely to lead the BoM to be a runaway bestseller like the Bible was.

In fact, by the time the BoM was created he would have been aware of the profound distrust and opposition toward such a creation---and therefore the likelihood of it being a flop based solely on secular reasons--would be if the reports of the responses to his sharing his spiritual experiences with the general public is even close to accurate.

[Calm]

Introducing the muddy word "considerable" with no comparative is slippery and silly. Calling your description a "fact" is even more silly.

How many episodes of "treasure hunting" are actually documented as opposed to reports that this was how JS was spending his time? (and what is the level of that documentation? firsthand, second...third or more distant?

[Calm]

Emma's father did not consider him worthy to marry his daughter

And we know that is the sole reason that Isaac Hale didn't want his daughter to marry Joseph? And was it the occupation of treasure seeking itself that was an issue or the likelihood of being to support his daughter decently that Hale was concerned about.

I was of the impression that Hale was financially situated much better than the Smiths; such a situation would cause any father concern especially if he didn't see any gainful employment besides working as a temporary farm hand or money digger moving from place to place on the horizon. Sounds like something on par with immigrant farm workers today, not something an educated, financially secure father would want for his daughter.

His affidavit doesn't specify reasons for the refusal: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/Hale_Affidavit.html

According to Mormon Enigma, it seems it was the failure of the venture rather than the venture itself that Hale had a problem with:

http://books.google.com/books?id=UjHEhhqVu1UC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Isaac+Hale+mormon&source=bl&ots=NewPGvv3Gh&sig=4U_Hrp9HMEdK9XQEsdm5hq_QcNw&hl=en&ei=iF6lSoCQB4L0sgOfoYWNDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Isaac%20Hale%20mormon&f=false

Also according to Mormon Enigma (see page 18), Hale stated he was refusing because Joseph was a stranger. They speculate he may have already had a man in mind for Emma from their neighbourhood or it may have been the money digging activity.

edit: added some details after reading ME

[LifeOnaPlate]

How many episodes of "treasure hunting" are actually documented as opposed to reports that this was how JS was spending his time? (and what is the level of that documentation? firsthand, second...third or more distant?

Exactly, cal, and this is something jaybear would need to provide or document, and the information is available, in order to make a substantive claim worthy of notice. Instead he offers an anecdotal response of an antagonist (without even providing the actual words or a reference citation) that doesn't actually contain the most relevant information to his claim anyway.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And we know that is the sole reason that Isaac Hale didn't want his daughter to marry Joseph? And was it the occupation of treasure seeking itself that was an issue or the likelihood of being to support his daughter decently that Hale was concerned about.

I was of the impression that Hale was financially situated much better than the Smiths; such a situation would cause any father concern especially if he didn't see any gainful employment on the horizon.

His affidavit doesn't specify reasons for the refusal: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/Hale_Affidavit.html

According to Mormon Enigma, it seems it was the failure of the venture rather than the venture itself that Hale had a problem with:

http://books.google.com/books?id=UjHEhhqVu1UC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Isaac+Hale+mormon&source=bl&ots=NewPGvv3Gh&sig=4U_Hrp9HMEdK9XQEsdm5hq_QcNw&hl=en&ei=iF6lSoCQB4L0sgOfoYWNDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Isaac%20Hale%20mormon&f=false

Also according to Mormon Enigma (see page 18), Hale stated he was refusing because Joseph was a stranger. They speculate he may have already had a man in mind for Emma from their neighbourhood or it may have been the money digging activity.

Oh, now you're doing his homework! And even still it isn;t sufficient to show what a "considerable time spent" would be.

[Calm]

Exactly, cal, and this is something jaybear would need to provide or document, and the information is available, in order to make a substantive claim worthy of notice. Instead he offers an anecdotal response of an antagonist (without even providing the actual words or a reference citation) that doesn't actually contain the most relevant information to his claim anyway.

The only one I can recall that was well established is the episode of Josiah Stowell, who states that it was his idea and that Joseph tried to talk him out of it IIRC (I know Lucy said this). And digging holes in the ground doesn't seem like a lazy way of making money, lol. Stowell had not heard of other moneydigging activities, but rather that Joseph could find things and that is why he hired him to find treasure he already thought might be on his property (due to a woman claiming to have seen treasure nearby according to ME on William Hale's property) it would seem, not because Joseph had informed him of such.

So it would appear that this might have been Joseph's first moneydigging attempt and ME has Joseph promising Isaac Hale after J married his daughter that the "money digging was over". Considering the failure and the soon to follow promise, I would like to see some decent evidence that he continued in this vein.

Were there other episodes documented?

[ttribe]

Your question assumes a fraud,...

I "assumed it" because you were the one I was responding to. Haven't you stated, unequivocally that you don't believe in the supernatural? If that is the case, fraud is the only option.

...as if there is something inherently wrong with profiting from the circumstances presented to him by God.

There is...especially since he was told specifically not to make the attempt.

As to your question, as long as Smith had a core group of followers that believed that he was God's chosen prophet, I fail to see how his financial prospects would have improved by disavowing that belief. The world can be very lonely for those who confess to have defrauded others. Hence I suspect most people only confess to such a crime after having been caught, and most often in a bid for leniency.

Uh...yeah...tell me Jaybear - how many accused fraudsters are you aware of who were willing to subject both themselves, and their family members, to physical harm and threat of death for YEARS?