Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[why me]

You already admitted there is indirect evidence to support my position. Again, do you think the translational errors were written on the plates or were they inspired during the dictation to make the verses sound more familiar?

Who knows and who cares. One thing that I have noticed when I look at the old testament is just how terribly written it is. In fact, it is very much like the book of mormon in its grammar and word structure which is probably one reason we have so many different versions of it in plain english. Who is responsible for the errors in sentence structure? God? See my point.

Here we have a bunch of hillbillies trying to make sense of gold plates with one's head in a hat. Not easy to be sure. I tend to give them some slack.

[Gervin]

One thing that I have noticed when I look at the old testament is just how terribly written it is.

You might try reading the Old Testament and, perhaps, studying the Old Testament, rather than merely looking at it. Your sentence structure, by the way, is terrible. I think it provides a clue as to why you are so unimpressed by a challenging text. Here are some folks who might disagree with your Old Testament erudition: http://www.logos.com/products/details/3806

In fact, it is very much like the book of mormon in its grammar and word structure which is probably one reason we have so many different versions of it in plain english. Who is responsible for the errors in sentence structure? God?

No, it's nothing like the Book of Mormon. Nothing.

Here we have a bunch of hillbillies trying to make sense of gold plates with one's head in a hat. Not easy to be sure.

So, now it's Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Hillbilly.

[Kevin Christensen]

Ok, so for clarification, do you guys think the errors were included on the gold plates, or were simply inspired by God during the translation?

Notice how your question restricts the possibilities. I particularly like the "simply inspired buy God" bit. Cute. The possibilities I see are errors on the Brass plates, errors in transcription to the gold plates, error on the part of Joseph dictating, error on the part of Oliver transcribing, error in making the printers manuscript, and error by the printer, followed by possible errors in subsequent editions. If there are mistakes, the Book of Mormon says, they are the errors of men. The implication for me, is "expect them, and get over it. No big deal." In D&C 128, Joseph describes his rendition of a Bible passage by saying he could have provided a plainer translation but this is "sufficient" for his needs as it stands. I think what we have is sufficient to do the job. And we have no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that God has gone about insuring that scriptures that pass through the hands of men will be perfect, because those touching scripture in anyway become divine sock puppets. The state of the NT and OT manuscripts nowhere supports the notion, nor do the OT quotes in the New Testament.

For those who do not expect or demand perfection, "sufficient for our needs as it stands" is sufficient.

As always, the effect of expecting and/or demanding perfection is, inevitably, a critical situation in which imperfection, or the appearance of such, becomes the focus because any imperfection is decisive. And the critics tend to be so focused on the appearance of imperfection, that their ability to judge imperfection is not to be questioned.

One of the things I noticed in Professor Wright's learned exposition on Isaiah imperfections in American Apocrypha is that he saw nothing whatsoever regarding the larger picture. For instance, Isaiah 51:2 is part of the Isaiah quotation in 2 Nephi 8, which has an interesting context. In Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, John Thompson has an article called "Isaiah 50

[Jaybear]

The implication for me, is "expect them, and get over it. No big deal."

Do you also expect us to believe that you expected to find in the BOM the very same translation errors that occurred during the translation process for the KVJ Bible published in 1611.

You do realize that the significance of the inclusive of the KJV errors is not that that errors were made during the translation process, but that (to any rational person) it proves that contrary to representation made, the KJV bible was used during the translation process.

Look at Joseph being tarred and feathered, and Sidney having his head bounced on the icy cold ground by a mob. Imagine our conspirators at the end of the day. "Tell me again how much money we will make?"

Why was Smith tarred and feathered? Was it because he was considered a heretic for having claimed to have seen Christ and God, or did it have something to with a teenage girl?

At the time he died, wasn't Smith living in a mansion.

I think he had much more success as a prophet, than as a treasure seeker.

[Kevin Christensen]

Do you also expect us to believe that you expected to find in the BOM the very same translation errors that occurred during the translation process for the KVJ Bible published in 1611.

You do realize that the significance of the inclusive of the KJV errors is not that that errors were made during the translation process, but that (to any rational person) it proves that contrary to representation made, the KJV bible was used during the translation process.

Well duh. I'd have thought that the King James language made that obvious to any rational person. No need to harp on esoteric errors. The use of that familiar language makes those passages more recognizable and useful. Whether he had the text at hand (which I doubt, but don't think matters) he had been exposed to the language, and an altered state of consciousness and/or the Holy Spirit could easily bring that to his rememberence. I've been saying this for decades.

What the presence of King James errors does not demonstrate is that Joseph Smith simply extracted from a nearby Bible all of the descriptions of an authentic Near Death Experience, and the elaborate after-effects into his account of Alma the Younger. Nor did he simply extract from a nearby Bible geographic details that let him describe the Old World route to Bountiful, or the details that go along with a major volcanic event, woven together with Year Rite patterns in 3 Nephi 8-10. He didn't borrow from an available Bible, not the unavailable writings of Clauswitz on the war passages, nor from Mao Tse Tung or Che Guevara. There happen to be many elaborate concepts, details, patterns, consistencies that are not explained in any way by Joseph Smith cribbing from a Bible. It seems to me that any skeptical explanation of the Book of Mormon that expects to be persuasive to a rational person ought to be willing to fully define the problem that the whole text presents. There is way too much in the Book of Mormon that cannot be explained as Joseph Smith simply passing along King James language, including errors for simple, naive plagiarism to stand as a rational, comprehensive, and persuasive explanation. Rather, it is simply an irrational dodge, a cut rate excuse to evade more imposing questions. Straining at gnats while failing to notice the lovely parade of camels. If you want to explain the gnats AND the parade of camels, fine. But I think the camels are far more significant.

Why was Smith tarred and feathered? Was it because he was considered a heretic for having claimed to have seen Christ and God, or did it have something to with a teenage girl?

I've read the historical accounts. I'm assuming people know the story. The issue is, why didn't the violence, threats, personal conflicts, excommunications, and physical and social separations to which our alleged conspirators were subjected to over several years induce anyone of them to spill the beans?

At the time he died, wasn't Smith living in a mansion.

Actually, he was Carthage jail. I've been there. It is not a mansion. I've also been to Nauvoo. And the Mansion house, despite the name, was not Tara, let alone Hurst Castle. I think my modest suburban house is bigger than the Nauvoo Mansion house.

I think he had much more success as a prophet, than as a treasure seeker.

He's does pass the 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets, which is something none of his rivals can say. And as far as treasure seeking goes, he that hath eternal life is rich.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

Why was Smith tarred and feathered? Was it because he was considered a heretic for having claimed to have seen Christ and God, or did it have something to with a teenage girl?

There is a good FAIR Article on this topic, for those rational skeptics not willing to settle for gossip and insinuation.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Early_womanizer

Marinda Nancy Johnson

Van Wagoner describes another charge against Joseph:

One account related that on 24 March [1832] a mob of men pulled Smith from his bed, beat him, and then covered him with a coat of tar and feathers. Eli Johnson, who allegedly participated in the attack "because he suspected Joseph of being intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda Johnson,

[ttribe]

By reading them.

From the inside of a hat? In the dark? Maybe he had natural night vision?

[ttribe]

I think Rigdon, Smith, and Cowdery were likely in on it. If Criddle's wordprint has any merit, Pratt may have been in on it too.

I'm curious - how much do you know about the typical patterns exhibited in frauds built on collusion?

[Jaybear]

Well duh. I'd have thought that the King James language made that obvious to any rational person. No need to harp on esoteric errors. The use of that familiar language makes those passages more recognizable and useful.

Oh, I understand that this is the explanation as to why God chose to translate the golden plates from reformed Egyptian to KJ English.

I don't see how that explains how errors made in the translation of the KJV published in 1611 were duplicated other than the obvious explanation that the KJV was used during the translation process.

What the presence of King James errors does not demonstrate is that Joseph Smith simply extracted from a nearby Bible all of the descriptions of an authentic Near Death Experience, and the elaborate after-effects into his account of Alma the Younger.

No one has claimed that it does. Not me, at least. I am simply claiming that the KJV errors conclusively prove that the BOM is not entirely an original 19th century translation of an ancient manuscript found in America.

If you want to believe that the BOM is divinely inspired, nothwithstand the disovery of the KJV translation errors, that is your choice.

I've read the historical accounts. I'm assuming people know the story. The issue is, why didn't the violence, threats, personal conflicts, excommunications, and physical and social separations to which our alleged conspirators were subjected to over several years induce anyone of them to spill the beans?

You need to be specific, which incident or threat of violence should have led which potential coconspirator to spill the beans. Who, for example, besides the Mormons at Far West threatened the lives of BOM witnesses Cowdery and the Whitmer?

I've also been to Nauvoo. And the Mansion house, despite the name, was not Tara, let alone Hurst Castle. I think my modest suburban house is bigger than the Nauvoo Mansion house.

How does the Mansion house compare to the house that Smith was raised? Do you think he would have been able to stay there if he told his followers that they had been conned?

And as far as treasure seeking goes, he that hath eternal life is rich.

Smith learned quickly that it was more profitable to promise "eternal life" than to promise earthly riches.

[ttribe]

Do you think he would have been able to stay there if he told his followers that they had been conned?

That doesn't explain, at all, the behavior of his alleged co-conspirators.

[maupayman]

From the inside of a hat? In the dark? Maybe he had natural night vision?

Good grief, use your imagination. He waits til other witnesses leave the home and then pulls out a Bible. Not that hard to consider this as a possibility. Its not like the Bible would have been needed for the entire translation/dictation process.

[maupayman]

I'm curious - how much do you know about the typical patterns exhibited in frauds built on collusion?

Not sure what to base this on, relative to what?

[ttribe]

Good grief, use your imagination. He waits til other witnesses leave the home and then pulls out a Bible. Not that hard to consider this as a possibility. Its not like the Bible would have been needed for the entire translation/dictation process.

Good grief, stop making stuff up. We have the testimony of witnesses who were in the actual room with him. Several witnesses. You're engaging in wild speculation to support your position. Not a good position to be in.

[ttribe]

Not sure what to base this on, relative to what?

You said there we co-conspirators to create the fraud of the BoM and the church. If you are going to evaluate that evidence empirically and dispassionately, I'd like to know how familiar you are with the typical behavioral patterns in a collusive fraud.

[maupayman]

Good grief, stop making stuff up. We have the testimony of witnesses who were in the actual room with him. Several witnesses. You're engaging in wild speculation to support your position. Not a good position to be in.

Its not wild speculation at all, there is evidence that a Bible was being used in the process. Its easy to imagine how that could have been accomplished. I'm sure there were times when Smith and Cowdery were alone during the process.

[ttribe]

Its not wild speculation at all, there is evidence that a Bible was being used in the process. Its easy to imagine how that could have been accomplished. I'm sure there were times when Smith and Cowdery were alone during the process.

Dr. Peterson has provided substantial evidence in direct contradiction to this line of evidence. Are you just brushing it off because you don't like the source?

[maupayman]

Dr. Peterson has provided substantial evidence in direct contradiction to this line of evidence. Are you just brushing it off because you don't like the source?

Dr. Peterson admitted that there was indirect evidence. I have asked him for clarification of his points, he has not responded yet. I'll wait til then to make up my mind.

[maupayman]

You said there we co-conspirators to create the fraud of the BoM and the church. If you are going to evaluate that evidence empirically and dispassionately, I'd like to know how familiar you are with the typical behavioral patterns in a collusive fraud.

I would say i'm not that familiar with these patterns.

[Jaybear]

Good grief, stop making stuff up. We have the testimony of witnesses who were in the actual room with him. Several witnesses. You're engaging in wild speculation to support your position. Not a good position to be in.

That funny. Witnesses claim that Smith read to Cowdery the glowing words that appeared on a rock at the bottom of Smith's hat.

And you think one has to engage in wild speculation to assume that the rock and hat methodology was just a show that was put on to impress the visitors to explain how KJV errors found there way into the text.

I don't think you have any idea how absurd the rock in hat method of translation comes across to most people.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll wait til then to make up my mind.

LOL. I doubt that.

Dr. Peterson admitted that there was indirect evidence. I have asked him for clarification of his points, he has not responded yet.

I have said that there is evidence -- the text of Book of Mormon Isaiah, which is obviously very close to that of KJV Isaiah -- that can easily be interpreted as suggesting that Joseph Smith used a Bible during the translation process. But it doesn't mandate that conclusion, since at least one other explanation is possible (and is, in fact, in closer accord with the testimony of eyewitnesses and with what we know about the translation process).

I personally don't care whether a Bible was physically present. It makes little or no difference to my view of the Book of Mormon. I just don't think that one was.

[AtticusFinch]

I keep reading about witnesses.

How, exactly, do you determine which witness you like and accept?

Joseph's witnesses, or most of them, were people he later called liars and not to be trusted.

There are sworn affidavits from people who knew Joseph in Palmyra who swear to some pretty incriminating things.

There are affidavits from people who knew Spaulding and saw his book that say much of the Book of Mormon resembles his book, down to all the "and it came to pass".

So, how do you choose which witnesses you will accept, and which you will reject?

In court, there are often competing witnesses. There are also often competing expert witnesses. Juries have to determine who they will believe.

Usually, things such as a witnesses past, their credibility prior to this, motivation, relationship to the party, how they know about the topic to which they are testifying, etc.

Did you use these to determine who to believe? Or because you are LDS, you simply automatically believed the ones that supported your belief. Do anti-LDS believe the witnesses against Joseph simply because they are against Joseph, or do they really look?

Just wondering.

[why me]

I keep reading about witnesses.

How, exactly, do you determine which witness you like and accept?

Joseph's witnesses, or most of them, were people he later called liars and not to be trusted.

As you may know from its very beginnings mormonism was polarizing. People were either for it or against it. Those against it wanted to destroy it. Not so different from today really with all the innuendos being thrown around about mormonism.

The witnesses to the book of mormon took their testimonies to their deathbeds. Regardless of the harsh words that might have been exchanged between some of the witnesses and JS, no witness recanted or denied what they saw or felt with their hands. No wife of the witnesses ever came forward and said: Yes, my husband told me it was all a fraud.

Let me give you one clue about Joseph Smith. He did not like being betrayed. And yes, he had a temper. And yes, he was a human being.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I keep reading about witnesses.

How, exactly, do you determine which witness you like and accept?

Well if they are grounded in good historical evidence like a first hand account and not something written 50 years after the fact. That is a good place to start.

Joseph's witnesses, or most of them, were people he later called liars and not to be trusted.

CFR please.

There are sworn affidavits from people who knew Joseph in Palmyra who swear to some pretty incriminating things.

So what. If you have first hand accounts I am willing to look at them. But if all you have is stuff from 1883 from a 3rd hand report, that doesn't count worth beans.

There are affidavits from people who knew Spaulding and saw his book that say much of the Book of Mormon resembles his book, down to all the "and it came to pass".

Oh now, not the spaulding missing manuscript again. Why don't you open up yet another thread so we can discuss how this theory has no merrit to it.

[why me]

I don't think you have any idea how absurd the rock in hat method of translation comes across to most people.

No less absurd than the red sea opening up and swallowing countless men or god speaking through a bush. Or lots wife being turned to salt. Or the great flood. God is strange that is for sure.

The hat trick is actually quite faith promoting. For example: if sidney wrote the book and spent weeks working on it, why would he ask JS to stick his head in a hat to rewrite his book?

[Daniel Peterson]

I keep reading about witnesses.

How, exactly, do you determine which witness you like and accept?

Joseph's witnesses, or most of them, were people he later called liars and not to be trusted.

There are sworn affidavits from people who knew Joseph in Palmyra who swear to some pretty incriminating things.

There are affidavits from people who knew Spaulding and saw his book that say much of the Book of Mormon resembles his book, down to all the "and it came to pass".

So, how do you choose which witnesses you will accept, and which you will reject?

In court, there are often competing witnesses. There are also often competing expert witnesses. Juries have to determine who they will believe.

Usually, things such as a witnesses past, their credibility prior to this, motivation, relationship to the party, how they know about the topic to which they are testifying, etc.

Did you use these to determine who to believe? Or because you are LDS, you simply automatically believed the ones that supported your belief. Do anti-LDS believe the witnesses against Joseph simply because they are against Joseph, or do they really look?

Just wondering.

I examine them, using the best historical and logical tools that I can.

And, on that basis, I'm convinced that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were as reliable as human witnesses can be.