Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[Jaybear]

So you want us to acknowledge that Joseph used a KJV Bible during the translation process even though there is no direct evidence for that proposition and at least some witness testimony to the contrary?

No. Not unless you are personally persuaded by the evidence that Smith used a KJV bible during the process.

I would note that evidence that exists(translation errors) is sufficiently compelling that Cdowis and others here have candidly acknowledged that fact. While you have competently regurgitated the apologetics on this point, what you haven't done is tell us what you personally believe occurred.

Do you believe that the BOM contains translation errors found if the KJV bible?

If so, what do you think is the best explanation of how they get there?

[Jaybear]

I've noticed that often there is something that, if known, would make the motivation more obvious.

I don't see how such a discussion is relevant to the issue at hand. But if you must know, Satan has me on his payroll. The pay and fringe benefits are great. The retirement plan, not so good.

[Scott Lloyd]

No. Not unless you are personally persuaded by the evidence that Smith used a KJV bible during the process.

I would note that evidence that exists(translation errors) is sufficiently compelling that Cdowis and others here have candidly acknowledged that fact. While you have competently regurgitated the apologetics on this point, what you haven't done is tell us what you personally believe occurred.

Do you believe that the BOM contains translation errors found if the KJV bible?

If so, what do you think is the best explanation of how they get there?

This question is discussed in this FAIR Wiki article.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see how such a discussion is relevant to the issue at hand. But if you must know, Satan has me on his payroll. The pay and fringe benefits are great. The retirement plan, not so good.

Deborah posed what I think is a fair question. I merely suggested a possible explanation. As I made clear in my post, it doesn't necessarily applies to you. No reason to be snarky.

[maupayman]

We do. I don't, for example, find their opinions, even if persisted in to the end of their days, as significant for the truth-claims of Mormonism as I find their claims as purported eyewitnesses.

You don't find these claims present any problem for their reliability as witnesses? Fair enough, I would say that David Whitmer's claims of revelation would constitute an eyewitness report. Also, there is evidence that Harris felt his experiences in Shakerism were as convincing, if not more so than his LDS experiences:

"Phineas H. Young [brigham Young's brother] and other leaders of the Kirtland organization" wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which they stated: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon" ("Martin Harris

[Daniel Peterson]

No. Not unless you are personally persuaded by the evidence that Smith used a KJV bible during the process.

Thanks for the concession.

While you have competently regurgitated the apologetics on this point,

I love the verb. So respectful!

Counselor, I've published some of the apologetics on this issue. So, while I appreciate your very civil insinuation that I'm simply a brain-dead regurgitator of what I've been told, it isn't precisely accurate.

what you haven't done is tell us what you personally believe occurred.

That's because I don't know precisely what occurred, and don't claim to know. I do know that the evidence seems to indicate that no Bible was present or used, and I do believe it unlikely that Joseph memorized multiple chapters of Isaiah every evening for "regurgitation" the following day.

Do you believe that the BOM contains translation errors found if the KJV bible?

Yes, but I don't believe that they're substantial. And some of the claimed errors may not be errors at all.

I've actually published on this. Dishonestly and without candor, of course.

If so, what do you think is the best explanation of how they get there?

I think Joseph was inspired to use the received English text of Isaiah, with certain changes. Just as the New Testament sometimes uses the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, even when the LXX offers an arguably inferior reading. For the audience of the New Testament, it was a more accessible and common version. Most diaspora Jews couldn't read Hebrew, and virtually no Gentiles could.

[cdowis]

"Phineas H. Young [brigham Young's brother] and other leaders of the Kirtland organization" wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which they stated: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon" ("Martin Harris

[cdowis]

Do you believe that the BOM contains translation errors found if the KJV bible?

In order to make your point, perhaps you can point us to specific translation errors and let's see if these have any effect on bringing us to Christ and His gospel. Or are these something that only a scribe and Pharasee would appreciate.

If there are errors, they are the errors of man.

[Deborah]

But if you must know, Satan has me on his payroll. The pay and fringe benefits are great. The retirement plan, not so good.

A confession?!

[cdowis]

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.

But eight of them did not have a "visionary experience", they had an ordinary experience of handling some plates with the "appearance of gold", and they hefted them and looked at the different pages.

There is no angel, no bright lights, no voice from heaven. Just something from the real world of hefting metal plates and viewing them.

[maupayman]

I personally am able to separate what Harris believed as a separate issue from what he saw and heard as an eyewitness. And that eyewitness testimony was confirmed by others.

Fair enough, however, his claims, later in life, that he saw it with his spiritual eyes and like looking through a mountain etc. certainly don't make this experience sound like your typical eyewitness testimony.

[maupayman]

But eight of them did not have a "visionary experience", they had an ordinary experience of handling some plates with the "appearance of gold", and they hefted them and looked at the different pages.

There is no angel, no bright lights, no voice from heaven. Just something from the real world of hefting metal plates and viewing them.

Which makes their testimony even easier to account for. The kinderhook plates and Jesse Strange's plates should demonstrate how easily people were convinced by ancient looking plates.

[Pahoran]

Maupayman,

this one jumped out and bit me:

I don't see the use in comparing a religious enthusiast [David Whitmer] to a man like Mao, who you mention wasn't really a believer in anything at all.

While I thought the point was approximately as plain as the nose on your face.

Yes, David Whitmer was a "religious enthusiast."

Now think carefully about this for a moment.

Question: Why was David Whitmer a "religious enthusiast?"

Answer: Because of his experiences relating to the Book of Mormon.

Q: Why was Mao not any kind of enthusiast?

A: Because he didn't actually believe in anything.

Q: Looking at these two men, which of them behave as if they are "part of a fraud?"

A: What do you think?

Your stubborn insistence that the witnesses simply "must" have been "part of a fraud" is a meaningless just-so story. In your hands it becomes nothing more than a worthless tautology. Convinced as you are that angels don't bring books written on golden plates, you have decided that all evidence that an angel did such a thing must be sacrificed somehow.

And for what?

For the most ridiculous theory of all, the Spaulding theory.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

But if you must know, Satan has me on his payroll. The pay and fringe benefits are great. The retirement plan, not so good.

For once, I must hand it to Jaybear. That was funny.

[cdowis]

Which makes their testimony even easier to account for. The kinderhook plates and Jesse Strange's plates should demonstrate how easily people were convinced by ancient looking plates.

You do understand the difference between the physical dimensions and composition between the BOM plates and the kinderhook plates, right?

Where did JS get a large set of gold appearing plates, weighing about 50 pounds?

[cdowis]

Fair enough, however, his claims, later in life, that he saw it with his spiritual eyes and like looking through a mountain etc.

CFR, and be prepared to defend the credibility of your source.

[maupayman]

Maupayman,

this one jumped out and bit me:

While I thought the point was approximately as plain as the nose on your face.

Yes, David Whitmer was a "religious enthusiast."

Now think carefully about this for a moment.

Question: Why was David Whitmer a "religious enthusiast?"

Answer: Because of his experiences relating to the Book of Mormon.

I think he could have been considered a religious enthusiast before his experiences relating to the BoM too. Not sure what you are basing this on.

Q: Why was Mao not any kind of enthusiast?

A: Because he didn't actually believe in anything.

Quite a claim to make. Mao was not an enthusiast of anything. Ok...I guess I have to take you at your word. This Q&A of yours strikes me as a bit of an oversimplification of the matter.

Q: Looking at these two men, which of them behave as if they are "part of a fraud?"

A: What do you think?

I actually don't think Whitmer was in on a fraud. I think he was a religious enthusiast that made numerous claims I don't believe. His testimony of the plates is just one of those claims.

Your stubborn insistence that the witnesses simply "must" have been "part of a fraud" is a meaningless just-so story. In your hands it becomes nothing more than a worthless tautology. Convinced as you are that angels don't bring books written on golden plates, you have decided that all evidence that an angel did such a thing must be sacrificed somehow.

I actually haven't insisted this at all. I think Cowdery was likely in on it, the others were more likely mistaken or delusional. I can't prove it, it just seems more likely than the alternative.

And for what?

For the most ridiculous theory of all, the Spaulding theory.

Agree to disagree, I guess. I think it is much more likely than an angel bringing a book of gold plates from ancient native americans, or where ever they were from.

[maupayman]

You do understand the difference between the physical dimensions and composition between the BOM plates and the kinderhook plates, right?

Where did JS get a large set of gold appearing plates, weighing about 50 pounds?

Funny you mention the kinderhook plates and not Strange's plates. Just sayin.... And where do you get the 50 pounds from?

[maupayman]

CFR, and be prepared to defend the credibility of your source.

I think Vogel dealt with this issue in Early Mormon Documents. You really haven't encountered these quotes before?

[Daniel Peterson]

Fair enough, however, his claims, later in life, that he saw it with his spiritual eyes and like looking through a mountain etc. certainly don't make this experience sound like your typical eyewitness testimony.

Those accounts are outliers. Overwhelmingly, the accounts of his testimony stress the literal physical reality of what he saw.

Which makes their testimony even easier to account for. The kinderhook plates and Jesse Strange's plates should demonstrate how easily people were convinced by ancient looking plates.

Sigh. So Joseph Smith and/or his accomplices created a fifty to sixty pound set of gold plates -- which, if they were made of pure gold (which they probably weren't, but it will give a ballpark figure) would be worth between $991,200.00 and $1,189,440.00 in today's dollars, at today's price of gold -- in order to fool one set of yokels, and then . . . lost the plates or something. Whatever. And then they found between one and three hallucinatory yokels who could be made to "see" angels and swords and the Liahona and the breastplate and all that sort of stuff. And then they found several other yokels who claimed to see separate items from that list of stage props.

Good grief. Why don't you simply say that you refuse to believe, and that nothing will convince you. That way, we can all move on to other things.

Strang's small handful of tiny plates were of brass, by the way. Quite a different order of magnitude.

I think Cowdery was likely in on it, the others were more likely mistaken or delusional. I can't prove it, it just seems more likely than the alternative.

Yeah. That's a problem. The utter and complete lack of any actual evidence for Cowdery as a dishonest conspirator, coupled with the strong circumstantial evidence that he was not, is sort of a bummer. But hey! the alternative is simply unthinkable!

I'd suggest that you ought to read the Welch and Morris book on Oliver Cowdery that I mentioned above, but I know that it would just make you angry.

.

[cdowis]

deleted

[cdowis]

Funny you mention the kinderhook plates and not Strange's plates. Just sayin.... And where do you get the 50 pounds from?

For the physical description of the plates, see the references here Now compare those plates to the kinderhook AND Strang's plates.

[maupayman]

Those accounts are outliers. Overwhelmingly, the accounts of his testimony stress the literal physical reality of what he saw.

Agreed, though this brings Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan to mind; you can't just discount the outliers.

Sigh. So Joseph Smith and/or his accomplices created a fifty to sixty pound set of gold plates -- which, if they were made of pure gold (which they probably weren't, but it will give a ballpark figure) would be worth between $991,200.00 and $1,189,440.00 in today's dollars, at today's price of gold -- in order to fool one set of yokels, and then . . . lost the plates or something. Whatever. And then they found between one and three hallucinatory yokels who could be made to "see" angels and swords and the Liahona and the breastplate and all that sort of stuff. And then they found several other yokels who claimed to see separate items from that list of stage props.

All they had to do was have plates that looked like gold. I doubt the witnesses would have known the difference. Then, yes, find a couple of people who were prone to outrageous and often conflicting visionary and spiritual claims. Your reference to swords intrigues me, isn't that now considered to be purely a visionary experience by most apologists, given it occured at the hill Cumorah.

Good grief. Why don't you simply say that you refuse to believe, and that nothing will convince you. That way, we can all move on to other things.

Because that's not my position.

[cdowis]

Agreed, though this brings Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan to mind; you can't just discount the outliers.

The problem with outliers is whether the source itself is reliable or credible. For example, if someone is remembering a conversation from several decades ago, how reliable is the recollection when it conflicts with multiple other accounts, and whether these memories are affected by the various rumors and stories rather than the actual conversation itself. Finally, the entire conversation may not be remembered, the context of "spiritual eyes", for example. What else did he say.

The Black Swan event has no relationship to this particular issue at all.

All they had to do was have plates that looked like gold. I doubt the witnesses would have known the difference.

It is a testament to their objectivity that they said the plates had the appearance of gold. They knew it was not pure gold because of the weight. They were very careful in what they said they witnessed, without elaboration.

[danieljbelk]

The options seem to me, broadly, that he was either mad, or a liar, or a prophet. I'm convinced that he wasn't a liar, and I see no signs of insanity (and wouldn't regard madness as an adequate explanation anyway, if the Witnesses and his other associates are taken into account).

Why are these the only options? Can't there be nuanced versions of Joseph?

He could have been self-deluded, but believed everything that he did. He could have been very spiritual, but the visions really weren't as directly from God as we believe. You could think exactly the opposite: How do you know that the first vision wasn't really a vision given by the devil, or some mental malfunction? The work that he did could have been good, but perhaps it was all symbolic and not really historically accurate.

Knowing someone's character is not a complete measure of truth. There's authorities who may be well-intended but not have enough information. There's authorities that seem good for many years, but then there's a revelation that they've been a pedophile or something.

How do you know which nuanced version to believe in? What if you feel good feelings only because it's "good", but it isn't "true"?