How Could Joseph Be So Wrong...and Yet Right?

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Except that after reading through this thread and Glenn's post, he doesn't address what you were claiming (but nice try piggybacking onto his post):

You posted:

"And you have evidence that he wrote exactly what was said without anything added and that it underwent no changes over 40 years and was published exactly like it happened?"

Also, Glenn does not address all the points that are actually the same in all the accounts.  Each may have remembered different information or been given different information.  

One thing they all state (iirc) is that they were told the scroll contained the writings of Abraham.

Nope....My questions were direct and dodged.  Glenn just showed why it is not to be considered.  I was on point...y'all keep trying though....it makes me smile

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Nope....My questions were direct and dodged.  Glenn just showed why it is not to be considered.  I was on point...y'all keep trying though....it makes me smile

Why don't you answer Calm's post below....

 

[UtahTexan]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why don't you answer Calm's post below....

Because I never bid against myself.

I never answer questions when mine go unanswered.

Besides, I am gruntled with how this turned out.  

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

The the report that Joseph claimed that one of the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham is hardly a point of dispute. My only point was that there are known problems with some of the details with Josiah Quincy's account that can be verified from other sources. That could have been that Josiah was fed the incorrect information, or he embellished his account somewhat. 

I agree (mainly on what the cost of the scrolls were). But no one has provided a source with evidence that Quincy's diaries were tampered with or added to.  

It seems to me that Quincy (and the others being discussed here too) just wrote what they remembered or were told.  

I see nothing to point to someone changing their original writings.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Glenn, you can see above that Josiah published his own journals.  So, I'm not sure you are accurate with what you remember about them not being recovered. 

Do you have more information on that?

I agree with much of the rest of your post though. 

Julie,

   I have not found where he published his journals. He authored a book (Figures From the Past From Leaves of Old Journals) in 1882 which was published posthumously in 1883 using his journals as a reference. Those journals may be in the custody of the Massachusetts Historical Society among the Quincy Family Papers.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I see nothing to point to someone changing their original writings.

I do not see any evidence for that either.

Glenn

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Julie,

   I have not found where he published his journals. He authored a book (Figures From the Past From Leaves of Old Journals) in 1882 which was published posthumously in 1883 using his journals as a reference. Those journals may be in the custody of the Massachusetts Historical Society among the Quincy Family Papers.

Glenn

I'll have to look it up again when I'm back on my computer, but I think Quincy wrote the introduction for his book that he published.  So, he was still alive at least when the project began and is listed as the author.

Edited July 12, 2016 by JulieM

[JulieM]

Here is a link to Quincy's chapter on Joseph Smith for anyone who would like to read it:  

https://books.google.com/books?id=t3MFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA376&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thank you for all the information on this, Glenn!

Edited July 12, 2016 by JulieM

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Here is a link to Quincy's chapter on Joseph Smith for anyone who would like to read it:  

https://books.google.com/books?id=t3MFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA376&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thank you for all the information on this, Glenn!

What is interesting about Josiah's perspective is that his opinion of Joseph seems to have improved over the years. His "ten closely written pages" from his journal was expanded considerably.

Glenn

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

What is interesting about Josiah's perspective is that his opinion of Joseph seems to have improved over the years. His "ten closely written pages" from his journal was expanded considerably.

Glenn

I find it interesting that Quincy's mentions the "Münster Rebellion" in his chapter on Smith.  For those unfamiliar with this very interesting piece of seldom mentioned European history, it was a small rebellion in the 16th century in the German City of Münster.  A charismatic religious leader introduced selective polygamy for himself and some top inner circle leaders, declared Münster the New Jerusalem and attracted the consternation of the local population which led to a stand off and the siege, starvation and eventual slaughter of many of the village inhabitants by the ruling Prince of that part of Germany...including the charismatic leader of this religious sect of Anabaptists. Funny how history keeps repeating itself.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

Threads on this board sometimes seem to fall apart into a back and forth territorial defense of ones worldview rather than actually addressing the questions made in the OP.  Could someone please address the question I asked in my OP? 

Quote

“In fact not a single claim made [in the Quincy’s Statement] by Smith is true.  Knowing this, how exactly am I to believe his other claim regarding the Book of Abraham? He made 6 claims and didn't make a single true claim, why should I believe his 7th claim regarding the words he dictated?”

This question goes to the very credibility of Smith's other claims.  He seems to make things up, put a biblical spin on them and then passes them off as truth.  There is a pattern of him doing this in his life.  Does it not put a question mark on any of his other truth claims to anyone or am I the only one?

Am I just supposed to ignore this?  How does a believer discount this event?  I’m seriously interested in understanding.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Threads on this board sometimes seem to fall apart into a back and forth territorial defense of ones worldview rather than actually addressing the questions made in the OP.  Could someone please address the question I asked ion my OP? 

This question goes to the very credibility of Smith other claims.  He seems to make things up, put a biblical spin on them and then passes them off as truth.  There is a pattern of him doing this in his life.  Does it not put a question mark on any of his other truth claims to anyone or am I the only one?

Am I just supposed to ignore this?  How does a believer discount this event?  I’m seriously interested in understanding.

I don't know what the 7th claim you speak of is.  He made far more than 7 claims, and everyone who ever lived has claimed more than 7 things that are lies as well.  I mean, ultimately, I don't know that it matters much whether you believe the BoA is scripture.  No one really treats it as such beyond a small passage found in the work--and far more people regard far different things as more important. 

If one concludes the BoA can't be scripture and therefore suggests on such grounds that there's a pattern here and it's also likely Joseph never produced scripture, then there's not much more to say.  Our biases tend to drive our conclusions.  And that's not a bad thing.  It is what it is.  It's possible God is guiding you to a place outside the Church>  or it's possible none of it matters and there is no God.  All each of us do is let our personal biases take us where we go.  Enjoy the ride, don't get huffy about it.  The truth is, some people will never ever deny things like the BoA is scripture even if they never read it, or rarely allude to it here or there.  You can call them blind as a bat, or credulous people willing to sop up anything if you want.  It doesn't matter because it's possible the BoA is scripture and it could be you who is credulous.  Or it could be you have a great point even though the BoA is scripture.  maybe scripture is not what you expect it to be.  And when all is exhausted ont his topic, we have to ask, who cares?  Not one person out there does much more than allude to a  passage or two out of the whole BoA, or skim it's verses in a shallow way.  I mean someone might chime in and say they love it...but come on.  We know no one really holds it that high. 

[Thinking]

On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 7:28 PM, CountryBoy said:

Joseph Smith had warts.

I don't care.  Every prophet and apostle has had them.

How many warts does a professed prophet get to have before you begin to wonder if he is really a prophet?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

How many warts does a professed prophet get to have before you begin to wonder if he is really a prophet?

Maybe the first prophet gets a pass. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Threads on this board sometimes seem to fall apart into a back and forth territorial defense of ones worldview rather than actually addressing the questions made in the OP.  Could someone please address the question I asked in my OP? 

This question goes to the very credibility of Smith's other claims.  He seems to make things up, put a biblical spin on them and then passes them off as truth.  There is a pattern of him doing this in his life.  Does it not put a question mark on any of his other truth claims to anyone or am I the only one?

Am I just supposed to ignore this?  How does a believer discount this event?  I’m seriously interested in understanding.

What if Joseph Smith sincerely but mistakenly believed he had the ability to restore lost histories by revelation. How would that change your response to him?

[Johnnie Cake]

An interesting observation from Quincy's account:

Quote

"For many years I held a trusteeship which required me to be a frequent visitor at the McLean Asylum for the insane. I had talked with some of its unhappy inmates, victims of the sad but uncommon delusion that each had received the appointment of vicegerent of the Deity upon earth.  It is well known that such unfortunates, if asked to explain their confinement, have a ready reply: “I am sane. The rest of the world is mad, and the majority is against me.”   It was like a dream to find one’s self moving through a prosperous community, where the repulsive claim or one of these pretenders was respectfully acknowledged…If the blasphemous assumptions of Smith seemed like ravings of a lunatic, he had at least, brought them to a market where “all the people were as mad as he”

 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

What if Joseph Smith sincerely but mistakenly believed he had the ability to restore lost histories by revelation. How would that change your response to him?

I believe you're on to something. I believe that Joseph Smith believed that, and thought the other faiths were too strict and non forgiving. I believe he picked and chose the beliefs he liked or felt inspired to keep and discard those he felt were wrong. He may have believed God had His hand in it the entire time. He could have misunderstood some of those, such as polygamy, when going to the Lord to see if it should be restored, IMO. 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

What if Joseph Smith sincerely but mistakenly believed he had the ability to restore lost histories by revelation. How would that change your response to him?

How does one "mistakenly" believe they have the ability to restore lost histories?  One would have to be delusional to "mistakenly" have said abilities...Smith either did have said abilities or he did not...but with respect to the Quincy claims...he did not.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

How does one "mistakenly" believe they have the ability to restore lost histories?  One would have to be delusional to "mistakenly" have said abilities...Smith either did have said abilities or he didn't...but with respect to the Quincy claims...he did not.

I would guess it started with his treasure digging. Joseph would picture the treasure in his mind's eye, believing that what he was seeing represented something that was really there, under the earth. He grew up in a superstitious family, in a backwoods area of the country. It's not so different from dowsing, which still goes on today in some areas. 

What Joseph did wasn't so different from other writers of scripture in the past. No, Joseph couldn't restore lost history by revelation. No one can do that. But what he did do was bring forth a lot of new scripture (not the same thing as history). 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Gray

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

I would guess it started with his treasure digging. Joseph would picture the treasure in his mind's eye, believing that what he was seeing represented something that was really there, under the earth. He grew up in a superstitious family, after all. 

What Joseph did wasn't so different from other writers of scripture in the past. No, Joseph couldn't restore lost history by revelation. No one can do that. But what he did do was bring forth a lot of new scripture (not the same thing as history). 

Well he certainly did bring forth new writings that millions consider scripture, I'll give him that

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe you're on to something. I believe that Joseph Smith believed that, and thought the other faiths were too strict and non forgiving. I believe he picked and chose the beliefs he liked or felt inspired to keep and discard those he felt were wrong. He may have believed God had His hand in it the entire time. He could have misunderstood some of those, such as polygamy, when going to the Lord to see if it should be restored, IMO. 

 

Yes, I think that's right. I don't think God literally broadcasts revelations into anyone's heads. So any revelation is subject to error. Nevertheless there are deep truths out there that can be had by revelation. I don't use the term revelation to mean someone literally getting a message from God. I think it's identical to inspiration, in the way that a musician is inspired to write a new song. 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

How many warts does a professed prophet get to have before you begin to wonder if he is really a prophet?

Find me the prophet with no warts.
Assuming there are prophets I have yet to hear of a perfect one.

[UtahTexan]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

How many warts does a professed prophet get to have before you begin to wonder if he is really a prophet?

As many as Heavenly Father allows.

 

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

nope...but since you are the one trying to make a point, the burden is on you to show they were never altered.  You shifting the burden says it all

Just so we're all clear, CB, what kind of theoretical evidence could there be that something wasn't altered? 

Are you seriously demanding that a participant on a message board must journey to the original source materials, engage an expert in documents, and test the original journals and publications to assess their integrity before you will believe that someone didn't surreptitiously alter them to add a bunch of claims attributed to Joseph Smith that coincidentally blend with other claims made by Joseph?

Keep in mind that it is only recently that some LDS would find the claims attributed in the OP to be objectionable, and there are probably a good many LDS who would read them to this day and find them to be wholly believable having come from Joseph Smith. 

But if you read those claims and they strike you as being some sort of ruse or con, then I suspect there are many who would agree with you.  You would only be disagreeing about the ultimate source of the claims.

[UtahTexan]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just so we're all clear, CB, what kind of theoretical evidence could there be that something wasn't altered? 

Are you seriously demanding that a participant on a message board must journey to the original source materials, engage an expert in documents, and test the original journals and publications to assess their integrity before you will believe that someone didn't surreptitiously alter them to add a bunch of claims attributed to Joseph Smith that coincidentally blend with other claims made by Joseph?

Keep in mind that it is only recently that some LDS would find the claims attributed in the OP to be objectionable, and there are probably a good many LDS who would read them to this day and find them to be wholly believable having come from Joseph Smith. 

But if you read those claims and they strike you as being some sort of ruse or con, then I suspect there are many who would agree with you.  You would only be disagreeing about the ultimate source of the claims.

I am saying that if someone wishes to post something in their attempts to discredit, they should be prepared to show it has not been altered.

For example, if I were to want to show that Popes and Bishops knew children were being abused and that their conduct in allowing it shows the Catholic Church is not being led by God, I should be prepared to show my sources and show that my sources are accurate.  Agreed?