Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[danieljbelk]

Did you laugh equally hard at the proper use of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?

Chiasmus would only be a significant proof if it wasn't already natural when orating.

I am Sam.

Sam I am.

I do not like green eggs and ham.

I would not eat them here or there.

I would not eat them anywhere.

I would not eat green eggs and ham.

I do not like them, Sam-I-am

[LeSellers]

I am Sam.

Sam I am.

I do not like green eggs and ham.

I would not eat them here or there.

I would not eat them anywhere.

I would not eat green eggs and ham.

I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

What a trivial example.

The chiasmus found in the Book of Mormon is extensive, many are very, very long, and there are compound, complex chiasmi (chiasmi within chiasmus, chiasmus following chiasmus which are, themselves chiasmi).

Chiasmus is far more complex than the simplistic examples we see here, and among the highest examples of it are found in the Book of Mormon. Trivializing it, as you do, does nothing to advance your argument.

Lehi

[Daniel Peterson]

The list of Koresh, Jones and Mohammed were examples of frauds, or con-men, who knowingly and willingly endagered the lives of those close to them without admitting it was all a fraud.

I can't think of a reputable academic Islamicist in the past several generations who has believed Muhammad to have been a knowing fraud.

http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet-God-Daniel-Peterson/dp/0802807542

I'm also unsure whether David Koresh and Jim Jones were conscious frauds. I haven't studied them much, but I would not be surprised to find that they were quite sincere.

Did you laugh equally hard at the proper use of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?

No, I did not laugh at the proper use of lengthy, complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6872

[JackNimble]

Chiasmus would only be a significant proof if it wasn't already natural when orating.

I am Sam.

Sam I am.

I do not like green eggs and ham.

I would not eat them here or there.

I would not eat them anywhere.

I would not eat green eggs and ham.

I do not like them, Sam-I-am

But was it natural for Joseph Smith in 19th century New England, considering his educational background? That only adds to the probability that it was not faked.

[JackNimble]

No, I did not laugh at the proper use of lengthy, complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6872

My comment was directed to maupayman, but I agree. I believe it would only add to the validity of the Book of Mormon if you were looking for mere physical proofs or evidence. This lends credibility to the claim that Brother Joseph did honestly translate an ancient record, wouldn't you agree?

[Attempting to Fly]

Daniel,

First,

"based upon my own readings in published anthologies of his "personal writings."'

I would like to know what these personal writings are called so that I can read them. I will simply say that most of what I have read about Joseph Smith gives me a different idea of what he was like. SInce I am trying to understand both sides of the coin, if you will, I would like to be able to read these writings.

Second,

"...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)."

You say that you are convinced he wasn't a liar. Why not? Convince me. As far as insanity goes, I will say that what you said seems to go along with most of what I've read as well, so I won't question you on that.

[Deborah]

You say that you are convinced he wasn't a liar. Why not? Convince me.

Not answering for Dan, but myself, it's not anyone's job to convince you. That is the job of the Holy Spirit when one is seeking truth with an open mind and heart and with humility.

I haven't read all the things Dan has but I've read enough to know with no doubt Joseph was not a liar but was a regular human being, with faults and weaknesses, who was also a prophet of God and it was God who smoothed out the rough edges and made him greater than he could have been on his own.

[flameburns623]

I agree Pahoran,

There is absolutely no possible way Joseph Smith could have been a con man. Con men do not withstand the persecution, frequent tarring and feathering, slander, and libel that Joseph Smith endured, nor to they willingly go "like a lamb to the slaughter" to be assassinated. Any conman who is not completely insane would much sooner admit his con then die for it.

So far no one seems to be taking into consideration the ideas tossed out by Robert Hullinger and by Dan Vogel suggesting that Joseph Smith had motives for attempting to pass himself off as a prophet other than purely for personal gain or self-promotion.

[Kevin Christensen]

So far no one seems to be taking into consideration the ideas tossed out by Robert Hullinger and by Dan Vogel suggesting that Joseph Smith had motives for attempting to pass himself off as a prophet other than purely for personal gain or self-promotion.

I've considered the the ideas of Hullinger and Vogel. I just don't believe they explain Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon very well. They of necessity require us to reject out of hand everything Joseph Smith said about himself in favor of an imagined inner life. And the same goes for the formal and informal witnesses. And neither of them fully defines the problem that the Book of Mormon represents. It is one thing to offer a paradigm of Joseph Smith. Quite another to offer one that is testable, provides accurate predictions, is comprehensive and coherent, fruitful in expected, often starting ways, and has an appealing future promise.

Take something like "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon" or the Arabian corelations in the Book of Mormon. Hullinger and Vogel don't even acknowledge the issues, let alone explain them.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[why me]

Daniel,

First,

"based upon my own readings in published anthologies of his "personal writings."'

I would like to know what these personal writings are called so that I can read them. I will simply say that most of what I have read about Joseph Smith gives me a different idea of what he was like. SInce I am trying to understand both sides of the coin, if you will, I would like to be able to read these writings.

Second,

"...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)."

You say that you are convinced he wasn't a liar. Why not? Convince me. As far as insanity goes, I will say that what you said seems to go along with most of what I've read as well, so I won't question you on that.

Much of what we have of JS comes from second hand sources when these individuals were taking notes about what JS said. However, if you read the letters to his wife when he languished in prison a couple of times, you will see someone who seems far from a conartist.

Here is an example one is up against with original writings of JS.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/joseph_smith/writings.html

And here are some letters to his wife:

http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6c8fd2efbece4010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&exhibit=841808961ece401008961ece401059340c0a____

And this might be alittle easier to understand:

http://www.prophetjosephsmith.org/teachings/chapter-11-20/love-and-faith

They just don't seem like letters of a conman. Nor of a man out ot dupe his wife.

[Daniel Peterson]

1.

"based upon my own readings in published anthologies of his "personal writings."'

I would like to know what these personal writings are called so that I can read them. I will simply say that most of what I have read about Joseph Smith gives me a different idea of what he was like. SInce I am trying to understand both sides of the coin, if you will, I would like to be able to read these writings.

I have in mind Dean Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, his two volumes of The Papers of Joseph Smith, and the materials published more recently in the Joseph Smith Papers project.

Daniel,You say that you are convinced he wasn't a liar. Why not? Convince me.

Although you quote from my opening post, you appear to have overlooked this, which also appeared in that post:

It's nothing that I can neatly prove, in the same way that I can construct a demonstrative syllogism, and others will, no doubt, dismiss my understanding of the man. But it's my very, very strong sense, after years of reading things that Joseph didn't write for publication: If I have any sense at all for genuineness in a fellow human being, any capacity to discern character in people, Joseph Smith was a sincere man.

2.

As far as the Hullinger and Vogel "pious fraud" models go, to the extent that they cover known evidence I don't see them as easily-testable hypotheses but, rather, as ad hoc theories. (Think Karl Popper.) Moreover, they don't appear to account for all of the data; they simply ignore large tracts of data that seem uncongenial. So I have a hard time taking them seriously. Anyway, they're merely nuanced versions of the "liar" option.

[noel00]

Dan, have you read Ronald Number's bio of SDA Prophetess, Ellen G White. He went from believer to skeptic. White said God told her that the world was created in literal 24 hour days. Her writings were plagiarisms of other people's work (shades of Spalding/Rigdon). And yet the religion she started has grown, has a large school and medical system and produces my favourite breakfast cereal, Weet-Bix. When The White Lie was produced by Walter Rea it caused a great commotion among SDAs. So some good can come from religions that have dubious beginnings even Mormonism.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, have you read Ronald Number's bio of SDA Prophetess, Ellen G White.

I'm aware of it, but haven't read it.

Her writings were plagiarisms of other people's work (shades of Spalding/Rigdon).

You seem to imagine that the Spalding/Rigdon theory has been demonstrated to be true.

I, on the other hand, don't see it as possessing any merit whatever.

In fact, there are persuasive arguments against it:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=2&id=778

With more to come.

It's not mere happenstance that, so far as I can tell, not a single reputable historian -- of any ideological stripe -- endorses the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

[ttribe]

I'm also unsure whether David Koresh and Jim Jones were conscious frauds. I haven't studied them much, but I would not be surprised to find that they were quite sincere.

It seems Dr. Peterson has hit upon the flaw in these counterarguments - were these men sincere or deliberate frauds? Hmmmm?

[Attempting to Fly]

I have in mind Dean Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, his two volumes of The Papers of Joseph Smith, and the materials published more recently in the Joseph Smith Papers project.

Thanks for the information!

[noel00]

I think either theory, Dan Vogel or the S/R theory is a better option than accepting someone translated some goldplates, at times hidden under a cloth (poor emma, she could not be trusted) through looking at a stone in a hat. In the PBS series you talk about Smith having an epiphany. Tell me why in his first account did he just mention, Jesus and the offer of foregivenes, then it gets more elaborate in the official account? So called religious people do lie. Kenneth Hagin wrote that Jesus took him done to hell. Others have claimed similiar stories. Personally I think they are not telling the truth and yet thousends believe them. Look at the number of socalled Religious Right figures caught out being inconsistant in their behaviour (e.g. Newt Ginrich - according to wife no 2). I envy you Dan, you all secure in your world and it gives you purpose in life, but I can't for the life of me see how someone with your training.

You run Mormonscholarstestfy, showing many member of your church involved in various fields of academic activities. I was reading recently the program for the March, 2010 meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. There were some really cool papers presented there (Pentecostal Scholars Testify?) Do you believe the same Holy Spirit you believe in was involved in the Azusa Street Revival?

[Daniel Peterson]

I think either theory, Dan Vogel or the S/R theory is a better option than accepting someone translated some goldplates, at times hidden under a cloth (poor emma, she could not be trusted) through looking at a stone in a hat.

It's all a matter of what William James distinguished as "live options" and "dead options."

For you, for whatever reasons, Mormonism is currently a dead option.

I briefly treat the willingness of some critics to accept any alternative theory of Mormon origins in my little ""Editor's Introduction: Where Ideas Won't Face Serious Challenge."

Many people think that any alternative theory -- e.g., Jesus as a code word for a hallucinogenic mushroom, or disciples stealing Jesus' body from the sepulcher, or a swoon followed by crippled survival for at least a few days after the descent from the cross -- is a better option than accepting that somebody died and then physically rose from the tomb.

I simply don't believe that either Dan Vogel's theory or the Spalding/Rigdon theory accounts for all of the relevant data. And, in fact, the latter, in particular, rests on very little actual fact and collides with the known evidence at multiple significant points. (Have you read the two articles to which I supplied links?)

In the PBS series you talk about Smith having an epiphany. Tell me why in his first account did he just mention, Jesus and the offer of foregivenes, then it gets more elaborate in the official account?

I see no contradictions.

Have you read Jack Welch's excellent study of the First Vision in the book Opening the Heavens?

So called religious people do lie.

Yup.

It happens. But that's not enough reason, in and of itself, for me to reject the testimonies of the early Christian apostles or of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

I envy you Dan, you all secure in your world and it gives you purpose in life, but I can't for the life of me see how someone with your training.

Solving that mystery, if you choose to pursue it, could do you some substantial good. I'll try to provide you with as much material and as many clues as I can over the next couple of decades or so -- on top of what I've already furnished.

You run Mormonscholarstestfy, showing many member of your church involved in various fields of academic activities.

I do. And I encourage everybody out there to keep up in what is posted there.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I was reading recently the program for the March, 2010 meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. There were some really cool papers presented there (Pentecostal Scholars Testify?) Do you believe the same Holy Spirit you believe in was involved in the Azusa Street Revival

I have no idea. Maybe. Maybe not.

[danieljbelk]

a I've considered the the ideas of Hullinger and Vogel.

b I just don't believe they explain Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon very well.

c They of necessity require us to reject out of hand everything Joseph Smith said about himself in favor of an imagined inner life.

d And the same goes for the formal and informal witnesses. And neither of them fully defines the problem that the Book of Mormon represents.

c' It is one thing to offer a paradigm of Joseph Smith.

d' Quite another to offer one that is testable, provides accurate predictions, is comprehensive and coherent, fruitful in expected, often starting ways, and has an appealing future promise.

b' Take something like "Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon" or the Arabian corelations in the Book of Mormon.

a' Hullinger and Vogel don't even acknowledge the issues, let alone explain them.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Pretty sure I can find complex chiasmus in anything. It's proof to me like a psychic's cold reading is proof to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pretty sure I can find complex chiasmus in anything. It's proof to me like a psychic's cold reading is proof to me.

I thought chiasmus was abcddcba, not abcdcdba.

[Daniel Peterson]

Pretty sure I can find complex chiasmus in anything. It's proof to me like a psychic's cold reading is proof to me.

You may be right. But "I'm pretty sure" doesn't quite equal "I have demonstrated."

And, anyway, https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=6872 .

[Kevin Christensen]

Pretty sure I can find complex chiasmus in anything. It's proof to me like a psychic's cold reading is proof to me.

Cute. But it all depends on how you define "complex" and what your standards of evaluation are. Not, apparently, these:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=4&num=2&id=101

Criteria

Several factors need to be addressed before one can establish the presence of chiasmus in a given text. The more of these criteria that are significantly present in a particular case, the higher will be its degree of chiasticity. For an illustration of the application of these criteria to a specific text, readers may wish to consult the paper entitled "Chiasmus in Alma 36" and a shortened version of that paper in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon.5

1. Objectivity. To what degree is the proposed pattern clearly evident in the text? If the process of identifying chiasmus is to produce verifiable results, the inverted parallel orders must be objectively evident. If a proposed chiasm consists of elements that are objectively observable in the text, rather than depending on distant parallels or clever linkages that require imaginative commentary to explain, it is more likely that the chiastic character of the text is strong and less likely that the reader has imposed an arrangement upon the text which he or she alone has brought to it. The more evident an arrangement, the greater the degree of chiasticity. Alma 36 manifests a very high degree of objectivity, for it features 26 key words or phrases that are identical or nearly identical in both the first and second halves. At one point in Alma 36:20 the comparison between two elements is explicitly drawn.

2. Purpose. Is there an identifiable literary reason why the author might have employed chiasmus in this text? Chiasmus is useful for several purposes, such as concentrating attention on the main point of a passage by placing it at the central turning point, drawing meaningful contrasts, aiding in memorization, or emphasizing the feeling of closure upon the conclusion of a lengthy repetition. Chiastic structures can enhance the sense of a passage in ways that extend beyond the molecular meaning of individual words and phrases. It is more plausible to assert that chiasmus exists in a passage when an author appears to have intentionally put it there for a stylistic purpose. The likelihood of such intent on the part of the author should be assessed as it relates to the ideas and characteristics of the text itself. Thus, in Leviticus 24:13

[danieljbelk]

Sorry to derail the thread.

I thought chiasmus was abcddcba, not abcdcdba.

Actually, there's plenty of examples in the Book of Mormon where it's abcdcdba. (I'm too lazy to look it up, but King Benjamin's speech comes to mind.)

You may be right. But "I'm pretty sure" doesn't quite equal "I have demonstrated."

And, anyway, https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=6872 .

Already the first examples show chiasmus that aren't Hebraic in nature - the computer manual and Doctrine and Covenants. Why would Doctrine and Covenants use chiasmus? Perhaps God used the poetry form that was already unintentionally in Joseph's mind, just like he used "thee's" and "thou's" as Joseph would have thought of them?

[Daniel Peterson]

Already the first examples show chiasmus that aren't Hebraic in nature - the computer manual and Doctrine and Covenants. Why would Doctrine and Covenants use chiasmus? Perhaps God used the poetry form that was already unintentionally in Joseph's mind, just like he used "thee's" and "thou's" as Joseph would have thought of them?

I suggest that you read a bit further.

[danieljbelk]

I suggest that you read a bit further.

Naw. I disagreed with his conclusions and the statistics he used. So, instead, I propose that I make a computer program that will analyze chiasmus too. I'll make it available to everyone who wants it. If you put in a text file, it will find chiasmic patterns in it. Then, we can analyze different books, texts, and the Book of Mormon, religious texts, and therefore actually figure out where it statistically falls with regards to that. I'll create a new thread when I'm ready to do so, because it sounds like a pretty hefty project, and that way I can post all my other programs that I created that already analyze Book of Mormon structure, etc. Mind you, I probably won't start that project for a couple months, unless someone knows of a program already available. In fact, does anyone know of analysis programs freely distributed? So, I'll drop this subject for now.

[Daniel Peterson]

Naw.

Meaning that you didn't read any further? Or that you completed the article and weren't convinced?

I disagreed with his conclusions and the statistics he used.

Well, I'm sure that he (meaning the author of the article, Farrell Edwards and Boyd Edwards) will appreciate your critique. I hope, when you've got it ready, that you'll share it directly with both of him. I'm guessing that neither of him knows that this message board exists.