Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[Daniel Peterson]

Why are these the only options?

Because, broadly speaking, they're the logical alternatives.

Can't there be nuanced versions of Joseph?

Sure!

He could have been self-deluded, but believed everything that he did.

Which I would count under the broader category of madness.

But then, that either means that he recruited a number of other madmen (in that sense) as his co-founders of Mormonism, men who could "see" plates and angels and swords and armor and dead apostles and Old Testament prophets and multiple heavens that didn't really exist before them, or that he created fake artifacts and stage props and recruited actors to dupe a bunch of yokels. In the latter case, he may have been crazy in some sense, but he was also a con-artist. (Or, of course, his co-founders could have been a mixed group, including both madmen and criminal frauds. But that doesn't change the con-artist/loon issue in any fundamental way.)

He could have been very spiritual, but the visions really weren't as directly from God as we believe.

That would be subsumed under the "madman" category.

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 latter option, clearly, falls again under the broader "madman" category.

Now, it's true that the demonic option could also be entertained. Not many entertain it any more though. For the overwhelming majority of critics, in my experience, it's not what William James would have called a "live option." And Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen and the small handful of other anti-Mormons out there who are its most vocal contemporary advocates haven't done a great deal to advance it among skeptics.

The work that he did could have been good, but perhaps it was all symbolic and not really historically accurate.

That, to my mind, is a separate and distinct question. It goes beyond the reach of the madman/liar/truthteller trichotomy.

Knowing someone's character is not a complete measure of truth.

I absolutely agree.

There's authorities who may be well-intended but not have enough information.

That's true, but of dubious relevance, I think, to the case of Joseph Smith.

There's authorities that seem good for many years, but then there's a revelation that they've been a pedophile or something.

Back to the issue of character, in that case.

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"?

I would have hoped that it was evident that I favor reading and thinking and reflecting about religious issues.

[cdowis]

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.

And how does this view fit with the witnesses, not only of the plates but other events such as the restoration of the priesthood. Not one event, but multiple events in different locations.

This theory may explain a Mohammed who was alone when he claimed to see visions, but it does not work here.

Those pesty witnesses have ruined many an elegant theory.

[Jaybear]

Thanks for the concession.

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.

I don't understand your objection. You acknowledge that these are not brand new argument, but arguments which have previously been outlined and presented and chewed over based on your previous studies.

No offense was intended.

That's because I don't know precisely what occurred, and don't claim to know.

Which is why I would never ask what you what you "know" but only what you believe.

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.

That "evidence" being the "claim" that no bible was present or used, which very claim is challenged by the discovery of the KJV translation errors.

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

Please elaborate. How many KJV translation errors do you accept were found in the BOM. How many more would it have take for you to believe there existence in the BOM to be

"substantial." Some would say that the inclusion of any translation errors is substantial given the extraordinary claim made by Smith.

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

I have never accused you of being dishonest.

I think Joseph was inspired to use the received English text of Isaiah, with certain changes.

How about that, after all this, you do in fact believe that the KJV Isiah was used during the translation process. That would seem to me, to mean that there errors were in fact substantial.

This gets back full circle to my point, that its not entirely accurate to say that the BOM is an original 19th century translation of an ancient plates.

While you may take it on faith that Smith was inspired to use the KJV Isiah, others may take it as evidence that Smith was perpetuating a fraud. Either way, people have the right to decide for themselves what it means.

[Daniel Peterson]

That "evidence" being the "claim" that no bible was present or used, which very claim is challenged by the discovery of the KJV translation errors.

The explicit testimony of the witnesses, that Joseph had no book or manuscript with him and that he could not have hidden it if he had, which is supported by the head-in-the-hat translation method (which would have rendered any book or manuscript unreadable), conflicts with a possible inference from the presence of KJV language in the Book of Mormon text.

This leaves the overall conclusion underdetermined, but I'm inclined to go with the testimony of those who were there.

Please elaborate. How many KJV translation errors do you accept were found in the BOM. How many more would it have take for you to believe there existence in the BOM to be "substantial." Some would say that the inclusion of any translation errors is substantial given the extraordinary claim made by Smith.

Here's something from a review that I wrote many years ago:

Are the Latter-day Saints Would-Be Fundamentalists?

Ankerberg and Weldon constantly demand that Latter-day Saints be accountable to standards derived from fundamentalist traditions, rather than to standards growing out of Mormons' own beliefs. They repeatedly censure Mormons and Mormonism for failure to attain a goal to which no Latter-day Saint ever aspired.

* Ankerberg and Weldon announce a very tough test that the Book of Mormon must pass: If there are any errors at all in it, it cannot be depended upon in even the slightest degree (p. 305). But this principle has been rejected by all but the most hard-core fundamentalist Christians with regard to the Bible. Why should anyone accept it with regard to the Book of Mormon? Who gave Ankerberg and Weldon the right to impose their requirements on the Latter-day Saints? Condemning the Mormons because they are not inerrantist fundamentalists is rather like denouncing an oval because it is not perfectly round. The Book of Mormon has never claimed to be infallible or inerrant. Instead, it has admitted that it may well contain errors, but has warned those who would condemn it out of a passion for fault-finding and a rejoicing in iniquity. "And now," says the very title page of the Book of Mormon, "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Consider, too, the comments of Moroni as found in Ether 12:23, 25, 26, 36-37:

And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing. . . . When we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words. And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying, Fools mock, but they shall mourn. . . . And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity. And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful.

* In 2 Nephi 14:5, the Book of Mormon follows KJV Isaiah 4:5 in rendering the Hebrew chuppah as "defence": "For upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence." But the proper reading, say Ankerberg and Weldon, should have been not "defence," but "canopy" (p. 322). Therefore, they contend, the Book of Mormon is fraudulent.

Their reading of chuppah is, it must be admitted, correct. It has the support of the majority of modern translations. But does the Book of Mormon's "defence" represent so serious a distortion of Isaiah's meaning, so serious an error, as to call into question its own antiquity? I think not. The ancient Latin translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate seems to have interpreted Isaiah 4:5 in the same way as did the King James translators, rendering the last phrase of the verse as Super omnem enim gloriam protectio. The ancient Greek Septuagint, on the other hand, has pase te doxe skepasthesetai, in which the final verb is clearly related to the nouns skepas and skepe, both of which mean "covering" or "shelter." The Jewish Publication Society's translation, Tanakh, says that the "canopy . . . shall serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection against drenching rain." The New Jerusalem Bible says that it will give "refuge and shelter from the storm and the rain," using much the same language as does the New English Bible. The Evangelical Protestant New International Version says that the "canopy . . . will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain." Is "defence" really so very out of place in such a context?

* In 2 Nephi 15:25, say Ankerberg and Weldon, the Book of Mormon follows KJV Isaiah 5:25 into error when it reads the Hebrew suchah as "torn," rather than as "refuse" (p. 322). The full text of Isaiah 5:25 reads as follows in the King James Version:

Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

This is identical to 2 Nephi 15:25, as anti-Mormons like to point out. What of it? Let me clearly say, first, what no thinking Latter-day Saint has ever dreamed of denying: There is some sort of close relationship between the King James translation of Isaiah and the version that appears in the English translation of the Book of Mormon. The precise nature of this relationship is not altogether clear, despite what critics of Joseph Smith are wont to allege. (Eyewitnesses to the translation process, for example, insist that Joseph had no books or written materials with him when translating, other than the plates themselves.)100 Secondly, it is true that "refuse" is a better translation of suchah than is "torn." However, one must ask whether the difference is really so great as to justify total rejection of the Book of Mormon. I have already quoted KJV Isaiah 5:25. Now, let us compare the rendering of that verse in the New International Version of the Bible, so popular among conservative modern Protestants:

Therefore the Lord's anger burns against his people; his hand is raised and he strikes them down. The mountains shake, and the dead bodies are like refuse in the streets. Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised.

Obviously, the meaning and significance of the verse are essentially unaffected by taking suchah as "refuse" rather than as "torn." The point is still the same. We can only speculate as to why the Lord inspired Joseph Smith to render these passages in the idiom of the King James Version. Perhaps early nineteenth-century Bible believers would have been offended by seeing Isaiah in "unbiblical language." Perhaps, for the same reason, there would have been more loss than gain in making alterations, even improvements, to unimportant elements of the text. (The English translation of the Book of Mormon is unafraid to make changes in quoted biblical texts, as the work of such scholars as John Tvedtnes and John Welch, characteristically unnoticed by Ankerberg and Weldon, makes abundantly clear.)101

Is the fact that the translation of the Book of Mormon follows the King James Version any more remarkable than the fact that the New Testament almost invariably follows the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, even when the Septuagint disagrees with the Masoretic text? If we are to denounce the Book of Mormon as an uninspired fraud because it generally (but not slavishly) follows the standard translation of its day, must we not also jettison the New Testament?

I have never accused you of being dishonest.

Ah, but I think you have. Perhaps unconsciously or unwittingly, I grant.

This gets back full circle to my point, that its not entirely accurate to say that the BOM is an original 19th century translation of an ancient plates.

I believe that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth-century translation (or, at least, a relatively modern translation; see Royal Skousen's work on the language of the book) from ancient plates. I've never insisted that it be viewed as an original translation in any and all senses, and I don't think that the Church has emphasized the "originality" of its translation. After all, as I've pointed out, the fact that there is a close relationship between Book of Mormon Isaiah and KJV Isaiah (and, for that matter, between the Book of Mormon Sermon at the Temple and the KJV Sermon on the Mount) is absolutely obvious, has never been denied, and is, in fact, implicitly announced in the relevant chapter headers, which invite readers to compare the Book of Mormon text to the biblical text.

Nor, as I've pointed out, was "originality" so highly prized among the ancients as it is among moderns. Which is putting it very mildly: In classical Arabic, bid

[cdowis]

The explicit testimony of the witnesses, that Joseph had no book or manuscript with him

In this instance, I question the literal interpretation of this statement. I can see the possibility that if I were to ask him, "what about the translation of Isaiah", he would hesitate and admit that it was used in that particular case.

We talk about the missing details in JS rendition of the First Vision, but insist in a literal acceptance of a simple declaration regarding the translation process.

and that he could not have hidden it if he had, which is supported by the head-in-the-hat translation method (which would have rendered any book or manuscript unreadable), conflicts with a possible inference from the presence of KJV language in the Book of Mormon text.

JS used more than one technique and Isaiah is early in the translation process. When did JS start using the hat and seer stone -- Are you certain that he was in 2 Nephi by that time?

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't really much care whether Joseph had a KJV in the room with him during the translation process, nor even whether he used one in rendering Book of Mormon Isaiah, but the simple fact is that the witnesses deny that he had any books or manuscripts with him. And we know that, at a certain distance into the translation, Joseph sent Oliver to buy a Bible, which suggests that they didn't have one prior to that time.

[why me]

but the simple fact is that the witnesses deny that he had any books or manuscripts with him. And we know that, at a certain distance into the translation, Joseph sent Oliver to buy a Bible, which suggests that they didn't have one prior to that time.

This little tidbit is never mentioned by the critics who attempt to make hay about the book being a fraud. They seem either to not know or choose to overlook it. My guess is: they don't know just how complicated it all was. One of the amazing things about early mormonism is just how it all came together with several people if it were a fraud. And how this fraud stood the test of time as none of the originators ever denied their testimony of what they signed on to. Now that is quite amazing for fraudsters. And to my knowledge, a profit was not made by them which could have been an incentive to clam up.

[Daniel Peterson]

With regard to the question of whether or not Joseph had a copy of the King James Version of the Bible with him when he was translating the Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon, I wrote the following to Professor Royal Skousen, who is, by light years and quite beyond dispute, the foremost expert on the textual history of the Book of Mormon:

You've argued (persuasively) that the Original Manuscript shows all the signs of being a dictated document, while the Printer's Manuscript seems to be a copied document.

Is there any difference, in this regard, when you come to the Isaiah portions of the Original Manuscript? (Are they even extant? I can't check right at the moment.) Or in, say, the portions of 3 Nephi that correspond to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount?

That is, is there any manuscript reason to suggest that, at those points, Joseph no longer dictated but had his scribe copy?

Here is his reply:

To do this, Dan, we have to consider the mistakes in O [that is, the Original Manuscript] for the Isaiah portions in 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 6-8, and 2 Nephi 23-24 (the only Isaiah parts that are extant). We have none of Matthew. Basically, Oliver Cowdery's misspellings in all these cases are his typical ones, such as "Lord of hoasts", "heardened", "thurst", "shaddow", "chose" (for "choose"), "streached". There is no sudden improvement, nor are there any specific King James spellings. But I do not have any of the mishearings, like & for "an". You could read through those parts of volume 1 of the critical text and you will see the typical misspellings. He also has errors like "the bosom of destruction", but that could have happened with a visual copying as well. In the FARMS book Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, I argue that there is no evidence in the chapter breaks in the earliest text for the King James breaks, instead the breaks are narratively based. Everything is consistent with the hypothesis that the biblical passages were all dictated by Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery.

[Pahoran]

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

You're right, to a point. A detailed analysis of their statements would need to deal with the outliers. But for the purposes of this kind of terse discussion, the fact that they are outliers is pretty much sufficient, IMHO.

I believe that a detailed analysis would would show that they stressed the physical reality of the experience on some occasions, and the spiritual reality of it on others, but without denying the physical reality. That is, when Martin said things like "eye of faith" or "spiritual eye" etc. he was not saying "They weren't really there," he was saying "It really was from God."

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

Of course. We moderns, who pay for everything with plastic, would be much better able to tell the difference than people who paid for everything in coins struck from precious metals.

(Where's the "Tui Billboard" emoticon when you need one?)

Then, yes, find a couple of people who were prone to outrageous and often conflicting visionary and spiritual claims.

You seem to be rather vaguely collapsing distinct categories into one so that you can equivocate between them. Yes, Martin Harris seems to have been (for a short time) a fervent believer in Shakerism, and testified of their "Roll and Book." Did he ever actually claim to have received a heavenly visitation confirming it?

And remind us, please: when he left the Shakers, to what did he return? Which "spiritual conviction" proved to be the most lasting with him?

Regards,

Pahoran

[maupayman]

With regard to the question of whether or not Joseph had a copy of the King James Version of the Bible with him when he was translating the Isaiah portions of the Book of Mormon, I wrote the following to Professor Royal Skousen, who is, by light years and quite beyond dispute, the foremost expert on the textual history of the Book of Mormon:

Here is his reply:

Couldn't Joseph have been the one dictating the KJV verses to his scribes?

[maupayman]

You're right, to a point. A detailed analysis of their statements would need to deal with the outliers. But for the purposes of this kind of terse discussion, the fact that they are outliers is pretty much sufficient, IMHO.

If we are trying to determine a witnesses reliability, I wouldn't disregard occassions where he changed the story. Those would be the key outliers I would want to analyse for clarity.

I believe that a detailed analysis would would show that they stressed the physical reality of the experience on some occasions, and the spiritual reality of it on others, but without denying the physical reality. That is, when Martin said things like "eye of faith" or "spiritual eye" etc. he was not saying "They weren't really there," he was saying "It really was from God."

Well, that's one way it could be read. It could mean many other things too.

Of course. We moderns, who pay for everything with plastic, would be much better able to tell the difference than people who paid for everything in coins struck from precious metals.

Its not like they had extensive time with the plates to examine them for authenticity.

You seem to be rather vaguely collapsing distinct categories into one so that you can equivocate between them. Yes, Martin Harris seems to have been (for a short time) a fervent believer in Shakerism, and testified of their "Roll and Book." Did he ever actually claim to have received a heavenly visitation confirming it?

Not that I am aware of.

And remind us, please: when he left the Shakers, to what did he return? Which "spiritual conviction" proved to be the most lasting with him?

Mormonism. The fact that he went looking for other spiritual convictions seems odd, if the heavenly visitation was as remarkable an experience as you seem to think it was. Furthermore, he could have returned to Mormonism for any number of reasons. Spiritual confirmations are not the onlly motivating factor for people to join religious movements. In fact, the vast majority of reasons seem to be social.

[Daniel Peterson]

Couldn't Joseph have been the one dictating the KJV verses to his scribes?

Yes.

It simply renders the notion that he was using a book during the translation process yet a bit more unlikely:

a) The translation process seems to make such use difficult, if not impossible.

b) The eyewitnesses expressly deny such use.

c) The manuscript shows no discernible traces of such use.

There is, in other words, no direct evidence that Joseph used a copy of the KJV Bible during the translation process, and there are strong reasons to believe that he did not.

But, obviously, people can still believe that he did, just as people are free to believe, without supporting evidence (and, in fact, against some quite significant evidence), that some or all of the Book of Mormon witnesses were participants in a con.

If a person is strongly inclined to disbelieve something, that will affect his or her stance toward the evidence no less than the will to believe affects the judgment of the faithful. In fact, as we've seen, it may well determine whether a person will even look at the evidence.

[danieljbelk]

Yes.

It simply renders the notion that he was using a book during the translation process yet a bit more unlikely:

a) The translation process seems to make such use difficult, if not impossible.

b) The eyewitnesses expressly deny such use.

c) The manuscript shows no discernible traces of such use.

There is, in other words, no direct evidence that Joseph used a copy of the KJV Bible during the translation process, and there are strong reasons to believe that he did not.

But, obviously, people can still believe that he did, just as people are free to believe, without supporting evidence (and, in fact, against some quite significant evidence), that some or all of the Book of Mormon witnesses were participants in a con.

If a person is strongly inclined to disbelieve something, that will affect his or her stance toward the evidence no less than the will to believe affects the judgment of the faithful. In fact, as we've seen, it may well determine whether a person will even look at the evidence.

He could have copied very simply. Joseph translated looking into his hat at times, and used a screen at other times. The BoM is laid out like that - large chunks are almost verbatim of the Bible, other large chunks of stories. Anachronisms that should have been corrected aren't - which suggests copying.

Didn't John Whitmer say that he only saw the BoM ever in his mind's eye (Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He could have copied very simply. Joseph translated looking into his hat at times, and used a screen at other times. The BoM is laid out like that - large chunks are almost verbatim of the Bible, other large chunks of stories. Anachronisms that should have been corrected aren't - which suggests copying.

Didn't John Whitmer say that he only saw the BoM ever in his mind's eye (Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831).

As DCP notes

a) The translation process seems to make such use difficult, if not impossible.

b) The eyewitnesses expressly deny such use.

c) The manuscript shows no discernible traces of such use.

There is, in other words, no direct evidence that Joseph used a copy of the KJV Bible during the translation process, and there are strong reasons to believe that he did not.

It would seem there is no direct evidence that suggest used a copy of the KJV.

[ttribe]

Couldn't Joseph have been the one dictating the KJV verses to his scribes?

From memory? Wow, now we're ascribing all manner of talents to the man.

[Daniel Peterson]

He could have copied very simply.

Who? Oliver Cowdery?

Yes. Of course. He could, for example, have made sure that he committed all of the same spelling errors while copying that he made while taking dictation. There's just no evidence for such a thing. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada. And it seems highly unlikely on its face.

Joseph translated looking into his hat at times, and used a screen at other times.

May I have a reference for the screen? I would like to examine precisely what it says.

There was a screen, of course. It's just that the sources don't seem to say that it was used in the way that you (and, in fairness to you, most members of the Church) apparently assume.

And if it was used the way I believe it was used, it wouldn't have provided any cover for Joseph to have surreptitiously used a book or a manuscript. Which, as I've pointed out, the witnesses claim he could not have concealed from them.

The BoM is laid out like that - large chunks are almost verbatim of the Bible, other large chunks of stories.

I'm aware that the Book of Mormon has relatively lengthy quotations from Isaiah and Matthew. That's what we've been discussing.

Anachronisms that should have been corrected aren't - which suggests copying.

I don't know whether anachronisms is really the word you wanted, but, in any event, this is essentially the argument that Jaybear has been making for several days.

Copying would certainly be one explanation for the similarities, and, on its face, is the most obvious one. It's just that there's no direct evidence to support it, and some evidence directly opposes it.

Didn't John Whitmer say that he only saw the BoM ever in his mind's eye (Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831).

Sigh.

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Testimony_of_Eight_Witnesses.html

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

[Thinking]

And we know that, at a certain distance into the translation, Joseph sent Oliver to buy a Bible, which suggests that they didn't have one prior to that time.

I guess that means that they lost this one.

[Daniel Peterson]

That Bible belonged to the family of Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith, which resided in Palmyra, New York.

The painting imagines a scene in the spring of 1820.

Joseph, you may recall, married Emma Hale on 18 January 1827. In December of 1827, the couple moved to Harmony, Pennsylvania, which is quite some distance from Palmyra, New York -- particularly if one thinks in terms of foot, horse, or carriage travel on the roads of the early-nineteenth-century American frontier. It was there that the translation of the Book of Mormon got underway.

With such facts in view, I think what you intended to say was "I guess that means that Joseph didn't steal this one."

[Bernard Gui]

I believe Joseph had a miniature King James Bible, something like the ones we have

for members in the military. He could easily conceal it in the hat. So, you ask,

how could he read in the dark? Easy....think.......the brother of Jared.......

Bernard

[Thinking]

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).

Here's the way I look at it:

Joseph Smith either was a prophet or he wasn't a prophet. If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, then he wasn't telling the truth. If he wasn't telling the truth, then he either knew he wasn't telling the truth (he lied) or he didn't know that he wasn't telling the truth (he was mistaken).

So now I've reduced it to three options as well:

1. Joseph Smith was a prophet.

2. Joseph Smith lied.

3. Joseph Smith was mistaken.

Two of our options match perfectly (JS was a prophet & JS lied), but the third has problems. Your third option is that JS was mad. Mine is that he was mistaken. Is being mad the only way to be mistaken? No. Your options are not comprehensive enough to dismiss two and therefore accept the third as necessarily true.

[why me]

Couldn't Joseph have been the one dictating the KJV verses to his scribes?

Lets put it this way: if all were involved in a fraud, all would lie to safeguard that fraud. And so your question is mute. However, the problem comes up as such: if all were involved in a fraud, they must have hadsevere narcissitic, pyschopathic, sociopathic tendencies because they all stuck to their story come high or low tide. And that is amazing when one considers the suffering that was involved with the faith. Members were driven out of their homes, members were murdered and persecuted and these guys just went about their normal lives even when they left the church. And so the question is: could JS have been so lucky as to find 12 sociopaths in such a small population of people? Now mind you...it wasn't ask and hope for a yes answer. He just picked them straightaway. Now that is amazing.

[Daniel Peterson]

Excellent point, why me.

Here's the way I look at it:

Joseph Smith either was a prophet or he wasn't a prophet. If Joseph Smith was not a prophet, then he wasn't telling the truth. If he wasn't telling the truth, then he either knew he wasn't telling the truth (he lied) or he didn't know that he wasn't telling the truth (he was mistaken).

So now I've reduced it to three options as well:

1. Joseph Smith was a prophet.

2. Joseph Smith lied.

3. Joseph Smith was mistaken.

Two of our options match perfectly (JS was a prophet & JS lied), but the third has problems. Your third option is that JS was mad. Mine is that he was mistaken. Is being mad the only way to be mistaken? No. Your options are not comprehensive enough to dismiss two and therefore accept the third as necessarily true.

I think our three options track pretty well.

If Joseph Smith thought that the Father and the Son appeared to him, but they didn't; that Moroni appeared to him, but he didn't; that he obtained a sixty-pound set of engraved golden plates from the side of a glacial drumlin near his home, but actually didn't; that Moroni showed the plates and the Urim and Thummim and the breastplate and the Liahona and the sword of Laban to him and three others, but none of this really happened; that John the Baptist ordained him and Oliver Cowdery to the Aaronic priesthood, but this didn't actually occur; that Peter and James and John ordained him and Oliver Cowdery to the priesthood of Melchizedek, but this didn't really happen; that he and Sidney Rigdon saw the three degrees of glory, but they didn't; that Moses and Elias and Elijah restored the keys of the priesthood to him and to Sidney Rigdon, but they didn't really; and etc.; and etc.; and etc. . . . that would prove Joseph mistaken, yes. But it would prove him so extremely and weirdly mistaken that he would have to be mad to believe in such things.

[why me]

that would prove Joseph mistaken, yes. But it would prove him so extremely and weirdly mistaken that he would have to be mad to believe in such things.

And lest we forget the poor sucker carrying around a box of rocks trying to hide them from speculators as he attempted to pass off the box of rocks as the metal plates. He must have been cursing his head off that he agreed to such a fraud.

[Thinking]

But it would prove him so extremely and weirdly mistaken that he would have to be mad to believe in such things.

So Joseph could not have been deceived?

Accepting that Joseph really did think that he saw visions etc, there are four possibilities.

1. The visions were from God.

2. Joseph was mad.

3. The visions were from the devil.

4. The visions were part of an elaborate hoax by a human to trick Joseph.

I think you should elaborate on #3 because there is scriptural support for such a scenario.

[Jaybear]

Lets put it this way: if all were involved in a fraud, all would lie to safeguard that fraud. And so your question is mute. However, the problem comes up as such: if all were involved in a fraud, they must have hadsevere narcissitic, pyschopathic, sociopathic tendencies because they all stuck to their story come high or low tide. And that is amazing when one considers the suffering that was involved with the faith. Members were driven out of their homes, members were murdered and persecuted and these guys just went about their normal lives even when they left the church. And so the question is: could JS have been so lucky as to find 12 sociopaths in such a small population of people? Now mind you...it wasn't ask and hope for a yes answer. He just picked them straightaway. Now that is amazing.

Why must we assume that all the witnesses were lying. Would it really be that difficult in the1800s to fake plates. Especially considering that the witnesses already believed the plates existed that smith was a prophet of god and that they were chosen because of their righteousness. Throw in a shill, and you have witnesses for life.

Let's assume that the plates were a crude forgery, what portion of the statement where the plates are described is false?

You really aren't the least bit suspicious that the plates "were taken back to heaven". It doesn't trouble you that the other artifacts were also gone. You don't wonder why smith didn't include someone skeptical of his claim or an expert. Your faith is to be commended.