Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[selek]

These people were from the "burned over district". Visionary claims were not rare during this time period. It would not have been that difficult to find people who believed they could have visionary experiences.

That does not, however, mandate that such claims were automagically false.

And, deliberately, you miss the point- namely that such a conspiracy requires preparation, planning, and organization- for which you can produce not a single scrap of evidence.

[maupayman]

CFR Maupayman.

Please provide any evidence you have that ANY of the thirteen people involved with coming forth of the Book of Mormon were "delusional" or otherwise mentally unstable.

mentally unstable no and I should have used better words. For that I apologise, however, their is evidence that they were delusional or rather unreliable as witnesses. For instance, Brigham Young wrote:

"Some of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, page 164, 1859, Brigham Young.)

Martin Harris also later testified that the Sacred Roll and Book of Shakerism was delivered by an angel. Do you believe his testimony regarding Shakerism? So, either he was delusional, having conflicting visionary experiences, or he was unreliable.

David Whitmer wrote:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'" (Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887)

Whitmer also later declared himself to be the prophet, do you believe him in regards to these claims?

Anti-religious bigotry aside, you are disparaging these people as dupes, charlatans, and mentally unstable- without providing ANY evidence to back up your guesswork.

You're right and I apologise for my word choice. There is evidence of them being delusional or unreliable.

[maupayman]

That does not, however, mandate that such claims were automagically false.

And, deliberately, you miss the point- namely that such a conspiracy requires preparation, planning, and organization- for which you can produce not a single scrap of evidence.

I don't think that it would have required the amount of preperation and planning that maybe you do. I think there were many people around Joseph that were eager to believe the types of things Joseph was claiming.

[selek]

mentally unstable no and I should have used better words. For that I apologise, however, their is evidence that they were delusional or rather unreliable as witnesses. For instance, Brigham Young wrote:

"Delusional" and "unreliable" are two different things, Maupayman- as you well know.

For all your "apology", you are still deriding and besmirching these witnesses without evidence.

"Some of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, Vol 7, page 164, 1859, Brigham Young.)

In the first instance, I'd like to see some provenance that Young actually said this and that it is not someone else's recollection of his words.

The JoD can be quite troublesome in that regard.

Further, it states that they were "afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve"- it does not say that they ever repudiated their testimony.

In the second, this is third-hand testimony, someone speaking about someone else's experiences.

Martin Harris also later testified that the Sacred Roll and Book of Shakerism was delivered by an angel. Do you believe his testimony regarding Shakerism? So, either he was delusional, having conflicting visionary experiences, or he was unreliable.

If this is true (and I don't know that it is), it demonstrates that he had conflicting spiritual experiences. It does not speak at all to either "delusional" or "unreliable".

David Whitmer wrote:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'" (Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887)

Again, this does not speak at all to either "delusional" or "unreliable".

Whitmer also later declared himself to be the prophet, do you believe him in regards to these claims?

I do not- but even assuming all of these things are true, that still doesn't speak to "delusional" or "unreliable".

You're right and I apologise for my word choice. There is evidence of them being delusional or unreliable.

There is evidence that they later espoused contradictory claims.

None of what you presented demonstrates that they were "delusional" or "unreliable".

Words have specific meaning- and your attempt to label these people as "delusional" and "unreliable" is predicated upon your own prejudicial assumption that there are no such things as spiritual witnesses.

As such, it is an attempt to dismiss them out of hand rather than to address the testimony they presented.

[ttribe]

Faith promoting nonsense.

It is never beneficial to one reputation to come out and admit to having participated in a conspiracy to defraud others. Such confessions occur only after they have been caught, and then only in an attempt to get back into the good graces of the public (or the judge).

If you think I am wrong, name one religious figure or politician (both of which are reputation driven professions) who admitted to have (1) committed adultry; or (2) defrauded his/her flock prior to having been exposed publicly.

The behavioral profile of a single fraudster compared to a fraud perpetrated with the collusion of multiple suspects counselor. Please don't CFR me, you know I speak from expertise on this.

You must be able to cite an abundance of examples, because every apologist on this board seems to believe that were it a conspiracy, one of the co conspirators would have come forward prior with a full confession. Surely then, such confessions are the norm, not the exception.

Surely, you will be able to do likewise with respect to frauds perpetrated with collusion.

[Daniel Peterson]

Haven't seen this one yet, do you have a reference for this one Daniel?

I seem to be obliged to post the following, from a manuscript on which I occasionally work, every six months or so:

Forgery is the virtually certain explanation for the two sets of inscribed metal plates that James Jesse Strang said he had found in Wisconsin and Michigan (between 1845 and 1849) and translated. Strang, who claimed to have a letter of appointment from Joseph Smith, announced himself as Joseph Smith's successor and was clearly seeking to imitate the Prophet. That his plates really existed is beyond serious dispute. The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had brought to the appropriate site. Inscribed on both sides with illustrations and "writing," the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size -- small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket. Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One not altogether reliable source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies. The eighteen "Plates of Laban," likewise of brass and each about 7 3/8 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and, in 1851, were seen by seven witnesses. Their testimony appeared at the front of The Book of the Law of the Lord, which Strang said he translated from the "Plates of Laban." (Work on the translation seems to have begun at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) The statement of Strang's witnesses speaks of seeing the plates, but mentions nothing of any miraculous character. Nor did Strang supply any second set of corroborating testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. One of the witnesses to the "Plates of Laban," Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere "human invention." Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had assisted Strang in the fabrication of the "Plates of Laban." The well-read Strang had been an editor and lawyer before his brief affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and his subsequent career as a schismatic leader. Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those associated with Joseph Smith, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural, his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months, and, unlike the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Strang's witnesses did not remain faithful to their testimonies. Milo Quaife, in his early, standard biography of Strang, reflected that "It is quite conceivable that Strang's angelic visitations may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them. But the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality." If we are unwilling to accept The Book of the Law of the Lord as authentically divine, he says, "we can hardly escape the conclusion . . . that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers" and, accordingly, that "Strang's prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture." Roger Van Noord, Strang's most recent biographer, concludes that, "Based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang -- or someone under his direction -- manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang's advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion."

There is considerable evidence that the witnesses visions occured?

You're attempting to change the subject -- albeit, I grant you, rather subtly. I said that there was no evidence that the witnesses were engaged in fraudulent deception, and considerable evidence to suggest that they were not.

But, now that you ask, yes, I think that the testimony of eleven sane, reputable, intelligent, and honest witnesses is good evidence that what they report occurred.

As for the other issues you raise, have you ever read Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses? It deals with most if not all of them. Quite adequately, in my judgment. And then there are his other relevant writings. Good reading, if you haven't yet made their acquaintance.

.

[AddamS]

I don't know if you can make the blanket statement that anybody is/was a totally honest and honorable individual.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't know if you can make the blanket statement that anybody is/was a totally honest and honorable individual.

Nobody has made such a statement here, to the best of my knowledge.

[maupayman]

"Delusional" and "unreliable" are two different things, Maupayman- as you well know.

You must be so proud of yourself Selek. You're just sooooo witty.

For all your "apology", you are still deriding and besmirching these witnesses without evidence.

I just provided evidence for why I view them as either delusional or unreliable. Not necessarily both.

In the first instance, I'd like to see some provenance that Young actually said this and that it is not someone else's recollection of his words.

The JoD can be quite troublesome in that regard.

Further, it states that they were "afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve"- it does not say that they ever repudiated their testimony.

In the second, this is third-hand testimony, someone speaking about someone else's experiences.

Fair enough, its not overwhelming evidence. I don't see why Young would bring it up if it wasn't at least commonly believed, or known by members.

If this is true (and I don't know that it is), it demonstrates that he had conflicting spiritual experiences. It does not speak at all to either "delusional" or "unreliable".

de

[selek]

You must be so proud of yourself Selek. You're just sooooo witty.

What "wit"? There is a clear and precise definition to each word- and they do not mean the same thing.

There is a difference between "delusional" and "unreliable", which you yourself demonstrate below.

I just provided evidence for why I view them as either delusional or unreliable. Not necessarily both.

And I have provided evidence that you are misusing those words for polemical purposes.

Fair enough, its not overwhelming evidence. I don't see why Young would bring it up if it wasn't at least commonly believed, or known by members.

If it WERE commonly believed or known, then why would he NEED to bring it up?

de

[maupayman]

I seem to be obliged to post the following, from a manuscript on which I occasionally work, every six months or so:

Thanks Dan, what is the source of these quotes?

You're attempting to change the subject -- albeit, I grant you, rather subtly. I said that there was no evidence that the witnesses were engaged in fraudulent deception, and considerable evidence to suggest that they were not.

Ok, there is evidence that Cowdery was not engaged in fraudulent deception?

But, now that you ask, yes, I think that the testimony of eleven sane, reputable, intelligent, and honest witnesses is good evidence that what they report occurred.

As for the other issues you raise, have you ever read Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses? It deals with most if not all of them. Quite adequately, in my judgment. And then there are his other relevant writings. Good reading, if you haven't yet made their acquaintance.

I've read portions of the book, though that was some time ago. What is his defence of the witnesses, in regards to their testimony of Whitmer being a prophet and Harris' testimony of Shakerism?

.

[ttribe]

Ok, there is evidence that Cowdery was not engaged in fraudulent deception?

There is evidence that he was?

[maupayman]

And yet you've failed to demonstrate that thier claims ARE unreliable.

So, you think that Harris' testimony of the Scroll and Book being delivered by an angel and Whitmer's claim that he was a prophet to be reliable?

Essentially, the position which you have argued is that:

"The witnesses are delusional because their recollection of events is unreliable and we know their recollection of events is unreliable because they are delusional."

That has not been my argument at all.

In your post above, you claim that David Whitmer wrote:"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'"

These appear, at first blush, to be contradictory- but they need not be.

It is very possible that both statements are true- that the Lord witnessed to Whitmer regarding the plates and then later told him to separate himself from the Mormon people.

Ok.... well I doubt his claim to be a prophet is seen as being reliable by mormons.

No. It does not. You forget the possibility that he might simply be wrong.

As I already noted, if he was simply wrong (your words) than by definition:

2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

unreliable - liable to be erroneous or misleading;

Both definitions can fit for someone who is claiming something wrong.

"Delusional" implies a belief stubbornly and irrationally held despite all evidence to the contrary. It describes an extreme and dogmatic belief that is demonstrably false.

I missed that one in the possible definitions, surely you can point it out. Or is that just your idea of what delusional and unreliable mean? Anyhow, I think I have shown my point. Obviously, you don't agree with my, or the dictionary's definitions for these words. You know better than we do...i guess.

[maupayman]

There is evidence that he was?

I never made that claim

[selek]

So, you think that Harris' testimony of the Scroll and Book being delivered by an angel and Whitmer's claim that he was a prophet to be reliable?

I disagree with them.

My disagreement, however, does not demonstrate that his statements are factually inaccurate, OR that Whitmer was PRONE to making false statements.

Until you satisfy those definitions and that basic standard of evidence, your charge of "unreliable" is mere subjective posturing.

That has not been my argument at all.

Your last dozen or so posts suggest otherwise.

Ok.... well I doubt his claim to be a prophet is seen as being reliable by mormons.

And yet that judgement is NOT made in a vacuum, but is based upon other evidence- evidence which you reject out of hand.

I missed that one in the possible definitions, surely you can point it out. Or is that just your idea of what delusional and unreliable mean?

Asked and answered, but just to satisfy myself that I've given you every chance to abandon your false belief based upon evidence:

de

[Jaybear]

At least one of James Jesse Strang's witnesses later admitted to being in on the con, and at least one other decided the whole thing was bunk.

Perhaps you are right, but per WIKI.

The witnesses' names were: Samuel Graham, Samuel P. Bacon, Warren Post, Phineas Wright, Albert N. Hosmer, Ebenezer Page and Jehiel Savage.[7] Wright[8] and Post[9] served as Apostles under Strang. Warren Post wrote in his journal that the plates weighed approximately six pounds.[10] Although some of these witnesses later left Strang's church, none of them is known to have ever denied their testimony as given in the Book of the Law.[11]

So I have to issue a CFR.

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon, though, remained true to their testimonies until their deaths.

I don't know what you mean by "true to their testimony." As, I don't recall seeing the words "spiritual eyes" in the signed statements.

What's more, they did so even when their lives were threatened (e.g., David Whitmer testifying in Missouri when a gun was being held to his chest with a demand that he repudiate his testimony), and several bore testimony -- joyously, by all accounts -- on their deathbeds.

And you believe this story? BTW, is is this the same David Whitmer that claimed that an Angel told him that Smith was a fallen prophet?

Sure, it's theoretically possible that some or all of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were engaged in fraud. But there is no evidence to demonstrate such a fraud, nor, really, even to suggest it.

I disagree. There is compelling evidence that the Book is not what it purports to be.

Those promoting the Book, including the present LDS Church claim, without equivocation, without reservation that the Book of Mormon is an original(19th century) translation of an ancient text found in America.

As you well know, when that this broad claim was put to the test by comparing BOM Isiah purportedly translated by Smith from ancient American plates, with the original mideast documents which gave rise to KJV translation Isiah, the claim failed the test. Simply put, unless and until the LDS Church openly acknowledges that Smith borrowed from KJV bible, the book is not what it purports to be. Its something less.

[ttribe]

I never made that claim

Then why this? Link

[hagoth7]

...Also, regarding going to prison, what was his alternative? To become a fugitive?...

Lessee...

1. The church was moved west to Kirtland.

2. Then its center shifted to Missouri.

3. And then it shifted to Nauvoo.

So...he could have gone west, where he had told scores of others the church was eventually headed.

Which means he certainly had an alternative (or three).

Instead, he knowingly went to his death.

[maupayman]

I disagree with them.

My disagreement, however, does not demonstrate that his statements are factually inaccurate, OR that Whitmer was PRONE to making false statements.

Well, its safe to assume that he was wrong about one of his claims, is it not? I cannot prove that he didn't witness the scroll and book being delivered by an angel, but its safe to assume that at least one of his visionary claims regarding the plates, or the book and scroll are not true. Would you agree with me on that point Selek?

Until you satisfy those definitions and that basic standard of evidence, your charge of "unreliable" is mere subjective posturing.

You want me to produce evidence that one of these experiences didn't happen?

Your last dozen or so posts suggest otherwise.

No they don't, I think I know what I am arguing.

And yet that judgement is NOT made in a vacuum, but is based upon other evidence- evidence which you reject out of hand.

What evidence is that? Please illustrate it for me so i can better understand your expectation of evidence.

Asked and answered, but just to satisfy myself that I've given you every chance to abandon your false belief based upon evidence:

Please show me a definition that agrees with the one you presented. I found one for my definition of the word. Can you?

[maupayman]

Then why this? Link

Daniel claimed there was evidence they were not involved in a fraud. I was wondering what that evidence was.

[maupayman]

Lessee...

1. The church was moved west to Kirtland.

2. Then its center shifted to Missouri.

3. And then it shifted to Nauvoo.

So...he could have gone west, where he had told scores of others the church was eventually headed.

Which means he certainly had an alternative (or three).

Instead, he knowingly went to his death.

Did he leave those other place as a fugitive? It wasn't the same situation. His options were much more limited in Nauvoo

[USU78]

Did he leave those other place as a fugitive? It wasn't the same situation. His options were much more limited in Nauvoo

He left Missouri as a fugitive.

Didn't you know? Liberty jail: he was "released" while being transfered from Liberty elsewhere on a venue transfer. Missouri's later, delayed attempts to reacquire him from Illinois to be tried for very strange charges were the impetus for the habeas corpus fights in Nauvoo, leading ultimately to the disincorporation of Nauvoo, his arrest and assassination in Carthage.

The Rocky Mountains represented freedom from US oppression in 1844.

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps you are right, but per WIKI.

So I have to issue a CFR.

That passage was written several years ago on the basis of the three standard treatments of Strang, all written by non-Mormons: Roger Van Noord, King of Beaver Island: The Life and Assassination of James Jesse Strang (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988); Doyle C. Fitzpatrick, The King Strang Story: A Vindication of James J. Strang, the Beaver Island Mormon [sic] King (Lansing, MI: National Heritage, 1970); Milo M. Quaife, The Kingdom of Saint James: A Narrative of the Mormons [sic] (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930). Those are essentially the only things I've ever read on Strang.

I don't know what you mean by "true to their testimony."

It's pretty simple, really: They never denied their testimonies. As a matter of fact, they continued to affirm them long after their separation from the Church, in the face of derision and, sometimes, despite serious physical danger, until their deaths. And several of them joyfully declared their testimonies on their deathbeds. (David Whitmer had his testimony inscribed upon the monument that stands over his tomb.)

These men don't sound like conspirators to me. Moreover, their lives, before and after their experiences with the plates, testify eloquently to their integrity and their sanity.

As, I don't recall seeing the words "spiritual eyes" in the signed statements.

LOL. The incantation Spiritual eyes! has absolutely no power over me.

I think it's amusing to watch critics ignore the scores of accounts where Harris stresses the physical reality of his experience and fixate on the one or two accounts where he is said to have ascribed a spiritual nature to his "vision." Personally, I don't see how a vision of an angel could ever be anything other than "spiritual."

Here's some relevant reading:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584 (see toward the end, under the heading of "Book of Mormon Witnesses and the 'Eye of Faith'")

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=1&id=357

And you believe this story?

I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve it. Further, I've never heard of any historian who doubts it.

BTW, is is this the same David Whitmer that claimed that an Angel told him that Smith was a fallen prophet?

Well, what do you think? Do you disagree with Professor Anderson's take on this claim?

I disagree. There is compelling evidence that the Book is not what it purports to be.

We disagree on that, but, in any event, it's a logically distinct issue than the one I raised. I said that there is no evidence that the witnesses were engaged in fraud.

Those promoting the Book, including the present LDS Church claim, without equivocation, without reservation that the Book of Mormon is an original(19th century) translation of an ancient text found in America.

I'm familiar with the claim.

As you well know, when that this broad claim was put to the test by comparing BOM Isiah purportedly translated by Smith from ancient American plates, with the original mideast documents which gave rise to KJV translation Isiah, the claim failed the test.

That's debatable.

Simply put,

An implicit rhetorical attempt to block debate.

unless and until the LDS Church openly acknowledges that Smith borrowed from KJV bible, the book is not what it purports to be. Its something less.

You won't be too upset, I hope, to learn that I disagree with you.

Thanks Dan, what is the source of these quotes?

See above.

Ok, there is evidence that Cowdery was not engaged in fraudulent deception?

Yes. See above. And there is no direct evidence that he was.

I've read portions of the book, though that was some time ago. What is his defence of the witnesses, in regards to their testimony of Whitmer being a prophet and Harris' testimony of Shakerism?

You should read the rest of the book, and also Professor Anderson's other writing on the topic.

For what it's worth, incidentally, an article by Robin Scott Jensen that appeared in BYU Studies 44/3 (2005), entitled "A Witness in England: Martin Harris and the Strangite Mission," argued that Martin Harris's Strangite missionary service in England focused on the Book of Mormon, and not much (if at all) on uniquely Strangite texts or claims. So it may be a bit misleading to suggest that Harris has been discredited as a witness to Joseph Smith's claims because he was equally or similarly dedicated to those of James Strang. He may well not have been very devoted to them. He was, as ever, dedicated to the Book of Mormon.

[why me]

LOL. The incantation Spiritual eyes! has absolutely no power over me.

I would imagine that after being asked countless times about the experience people need to come up with new ways of explanation as time moves forward. The use of spiritual eyes does make sense to me as a way to describe a supernatural experience. It may be a rather dramatic way but still a way to describe an event that had a tremendous impact in someone's life that would include a supernatural experience of immense proportion.

[maupayman]

Yes. See above. And there is no direct evidence that he was.

I don't see anything above about Oliver Cowdery. What are you referring to?

For what it's worth, incidentally, an article by Robin Scott Jensen that appeared in BYU Studies 44/3 (2005), entitled "A Witness in England: Martin Harris and the Strangite Mission," argued that Martin Harris's Strangite missionary service in England focused on the Book of Mormon, and not much (if at all) on uniquely Strangite texts or claims. So it may be a bit misleading to suggest that Harris has been discredited as a witness to Joseph Smith's claims because he was equally or similarly dedicated to those of James Strang. He may well not have been very devoted to them. He was, as ever, dedicated to the Book of Mormon.

I referred to his claims about the Shaker movement. I don't know how discussing his Strangite mission is relevant. Again, you just kind of brush me off and tell me to read a book. I asked for how Anderson and others deal with Harris' conflicting visionary experiences? You could just tell me, instead of just listing a bunch of books I should read.