LDS believers and ex-mos

[stemelbow]

In another thread Gray had said:

Quote

More insults. Like I said, there's not a great deal of difference between the most antagonistic exmos and their counterparts among believers.  Thankfully I think this behavior is not the rule, but the exception.

I'd agree.  I dont' know how many discussions I've had with some exmos who only want to argue against their old selves rather than discuss with someone else.  Their old selves seem to often be those believers that I can't quite understand myself. 

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

[Duncan]

So, I think when it says the Book of Mormon is true, I take that to be a true witness for Christ. I look at it like i'm the jury and we have the scriptures, apostles, prophets, others trying to convince us that they have had a witness that Jesus is the Christ, this is their experience and we hear all what they have to say and come to some conclusion on the matter. For some people the evidence is all in and say yes, these are real witnesses and I got my witness and for others the witnesses aren't real or not all of it is in for them to come to a conclusion. At some some like.........the scripture says, how long halt ye between two opinions? we'll have to decide at some point in our journey if the gospel is real based on the witnesses. I think the question about did it happen or didn't is slightly missing the point of what the end result is, as Pres. Nelson said in 1999, 

"I would like to add my testimony of the divinity of this book. I have read it many times. I have also read much that has been written about it. Some authors have focused upon its stories, its people, or its vignettes of history. Others have been intrigued by its language structure or its records of weapons, geography, animal life, techniques of building, or systems of weights and measures.

Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental."

[Jeanne]

I appreciate your testimony Duncan.  You speak from your heart and I am happy that you are happy and know what it is to strive for in this life.  God Bless You!

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So, I think when it says the Book of Mormon is true, I take that to be a true witness for Christ. I look at it like i'm the jury and we have the scriptures, apostles, prophets, others trying to convince us that they have had a witness that Jesus is the Christ, this is their experience and we hear all what they have to say and come to some conclusion on the matter. For some people the evidence is all in and say yes, these are real witnesses and I got my witness and for others the witnesses aren't real or not all of it is in for them to come to a conclusion. At some some like.........the scripture says, how long halt ye between two opinions? we'll have to decide at some point in our journey if the gospel is real based on the witnesses. I think the question about did it happen or didn't is slightly missing the point of what the end result is, as Pres. Nelson said in 1999, 

"I would like to add my testimony of the divinity of this book. I have read it many times. I have also read much that has been written about it. Some authors have focused upon its stories, its people, or its vignettes of history. Others have been intrigued by its language structure or its records of weapons, geography, animal life, techniques of building, or systems of weights and measures.

Interesting as these matters may be, study of the Book of Mormon is most rewarding when one focuses on its primary purpose—to testify of Jesus Christ. By comparison, all other issues are incidental."

Good response, Duncan, I enjoyed it.  What do you think Pres Nelson means by "divinity of this book"?  What's divine about a book?  Does calling it divine mean it's scripture?  I ask because this was brought up yesterday too, but I did not respond.  It feels like calling book divine is akin to treating it like it's God, itself.  Some yelp out bibliolotry at such things, thinking such a view misses the point. 

Also, how can a book, which we can't verify to be ancient, testify of Christ, considering the story of Christ is He appeared to some people anciently?

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical. 

So was it the myth or the metaphor that appeared to Joseph Smith and told him where to find the plates?

[Jeanne]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In another thread Gray had said:

I'd agree.  I dont' know how many discussions I've had with some exmos who only want to argue against their old selves rather than discuss with someone else.  Their old selves seem to often be those believers that I can't quite understand myself. 

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

For me, truth has everything to do with trust.  Words in scriptures are beautiful and often teachable...but my expectations of what is truth is based on the difference between my former faith and others.  I believed for many years that the Prophet could receive divine direction and perhaps my expectations and experience in the church took away some trust.  Are there wonderful things in the church and in the Book of Mormon??? Yes..and yes to many things..but a lot of those truths are found everywhere.  Gosh..we need this bridge where all of us are really the same..just growing and listening and being open to our differences and revel in our commonality.  None of us are loved less by God.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Good response, Duncan, I enjoyed it.  What do you think Pres Nelson means by "divinity of this book"?  What's divine about a book?  Does calling it divine mean it's scripture?  I ask because this was brought up yesterday too, but I did not respond.  It feels like calling book divine is akin to treating it like it's God, itself.  Some yelp out bibliolotry at such things, thinking such a view misses the point. 

Also, how can a book, which we can't verify to be ancient, testify of Christ, considering the story of Christ is He appeared to some people anciently?

divinity to me I suppose is the inspiration to write what they wrote and what to include, leave out etc. The BOM writers wanted to show something, for example Nephi writing But "behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance." 1 Nephi 1:20. he will go onto to show how that came to pass in his life and by extension if we trust in God how it can happen in our own lives.

How can something be real but not verified is a great question, one which I hope to answer after this aft. sometime

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So was it the myth or the metaphor that appeared to Joseph Smith and told him where to find the plates?

Doesn't matter, since he didn't use the plates to translate anyway.  We wouldn't know if the plates contained a story of ancient people and their dealings with God or not. 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

For me, truth has everything to do with trust.  Words in scriptures are beautiful and often teachable...but my expectations of what is truth is based on the difference between my former faith and others.  I believed for many years that the Prophet could receive divine direction and perhaps my expectations and experience in the church took away some trust.  Are there wonderful things in the church and in the Book of Mormon??? Yes..and yes to many things..but a lot of those truths are found everywhere.  Gosh..we need this bridge where all of us are really the same..just growing and listening and being open to our differences and revel in our commonality.  None of us are loved less by God.

Thanks, Jeanne, I agree. 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Doesn't matter, since he didn't use the plates to translate anyway.  We wouldn't know if the plates contained a story of ancient people and their dealings with God or not. 

According to Moroni they did.  For your account to be correct either Moroni misinformed Joseph Smith or Joseph Smith made up the story about about Moroni.  I know this is a easier answer for many to believe than to believe that God called Joseph Smith to translate, through the gift and power of the Spirit, the records of the ancient Nephite prophets. 

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Doesn't matter, since he didn't use the plates to translate anyway.  We wouldn't know if the plates contained a story of ancient people and their dealings with God or not. 

Why go to all the trouble to invent nonexistent plates?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

According to Moroni they did.  For your account to be correct either Moroni misinformed Joseph Smith or Joseph Smith made up the story about about Moroni.  I know this is a easier answer for many to believe than to believe that God called Joseph Smith to translate, through the gift and power of the Spirit, the records of the ancient Nephite prophets. 

I'd say there's more than the two possibilities you offer.  Its possible Moroni did not live the life the story in the book of Mormon tells and yet he was someone who lived.  Meanign he lived, he too believed in God and Christ, and yet the story told in the BoM does not represent who he was.  The story in the Book of Mormon was more allegorical. 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Why go to all the trouble to invent nonexistent plates?

Beats me.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

In another thread Gray had said:

I'd agree.  I dont' know how many discussions I've had with some exmos who only want to argue against their old selves rather than discuss with someone else.  Their old selves seem to often be those believers that I can't quite understand myself. 

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

What is the difference between "room to believe" and "believe"? What is the difference between convincing a believer that there is room to believe, and a non-believer that you believe?

As for how things will play out, I find that expanding my interaction with others beyond just doctrinal discussion, allowing a higher proportion of service and socializing to serve as both glue and lubricant, offers a more promising future.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Book of Mormon and the Bible are on the same footing, and for very similar reasons.  Does that mean we should read them without nuanced understanding?  As Brother Brigham said of the Bible:

Quote

I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them, "You have never read the Bible, have you?" "O, yes, and I believe every word in it is the word of God." Well, I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the *** when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are; but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are true, and that their observance will elevate any people, nation or family that dwells on the face of the earth. The doctrines contained in the Bible will lift to a superior condition all who observe them; they will impart to them knowledge, wisdom, charity, fill them with compassion and cause them to feel after the wants of those who are in distress, or in painful or degraded circumstances.
 
-Brigham Young, JD, 18:175 (May 29, 1870).

 

[Gray]

I do find that the core assumptions of both groups tends to be similar. For example, the idea that the Book of Mormon must be historical or the church is a fraud. This is an article of faith among many believing members and exmormons alike. Exmormons tend to have the same world view of Mormons, just in mirror image. There is quite a lot of literalism on both sides. Exmormons don't seem to understand just how "Mormon" they still are. One finds the same dynamic among many vocal atheists, who are often stuck reacting to fundamentalist Christianity over and over again, as if fundamentlism represents the whole of Christianity. Many atheists come from fundamentalist traditions.

That is not to say that there isn't some divergence from that on both sides, Mormon and exmormon. There is, and you see examples of that every day on this board.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Gray

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Good response, Duncan, I enjoyed it.  What do you think Pres Nelson means by "divinity of this book"?  What's divine about a book?  Does calling it divine mean it's scripture?  I ask because this was brought up yesterday too, but I did not respond.  It feels like calling book divine is akin to treating it like it's God, itself.  Some yelp out bibliolotry at such things, thinking such a view misses the point. 

Also, how can a book, which we can't verify to be ancient, testify of Christ, considering the story of Christ is He appeared to some people anciently?

I guess to me it comes down to trust and simple faith that he did live and he did appear to the ancients, obviously none of us were there and so we take the records of those who were and see what they experienced. I know the BOM is a compilation of the Nephites and Lamanites' greatest hits but I like the snippet, which to me is a quotation from somebody found in 3 Nephi 17: 16-17, it's like first person experience.Trust and faith, it's like that with any venture we take in life, marriage, school, job, trip. I remember in 1983 my Mom taking my brother to see Return of the Jedi and my mom being grossed out by Jabba the Hutt, she wasn't expecting that situation! -we know the beginning to all these things but we just don't know how it will end or what bumps along the way we'll encounter. I think it was in Alma 32 we read about the "desire to believe" like is finding out is Jesus the Christ, what that even means, is this knowledge something you want in life? 

This reponse is kind of higgledy piggledy!

[california boy]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Doesn't matter, since he didn't use the plates to translate anyway.  We wouldn't know if the plates contained a story of ancient people and their dealings with God or not. 

I have been thinking about this lately.  From what I understand, pretty much all of the Book of Mormon appeared on a stone in a hat to block the light.  There really was no translation going on.  So what was the whole thing with Charles Anton?  Why give him a couple of lines that were suppose to be copied from the Book of Mormon for him to translate?  It appears the the Church of Christ still has the script, though there seems to be some question of it's authenticity.  Does it really make any difference if that script was authentic?  Did Joseph Smith go through the whole exercise just to make the claim that it fulfilled prophecy?  I think this is part of the question you are asking.  

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

Stem, you are going to have to accept the fact that a lot of LDS people believe that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. You will find few who are interested in speculating on what if's and maybe it could be such and such. Most people in the Melchizedek Priesthood classes are not looking for intellectual stimulation or inquiry. They are seeking spiritual stimulation and edification. As you noted, most are not pleased with your efforts, and I have noted that this seems to be a common occurrence when one or two people try to introduce non faith inducing ideas and themes into Sunday School, Relief Society, or Priesthood lessons. For a person who has received a testimony of the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired and produced scripture and of the restoration of the Gospel, and of Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, introducing ideas that the Book of Mormon may be fiction albeit with a moral is no better than speculative fiction itself.

I think you were wise to retreat from the discussion as further input just may well have caused contention withing the group.

I am one that believes that Sunday lessons should be faith promoting, spiritually, edifying, and furthering one's knowledge of the Kingdom of God as it has been revealed and will be revealed.

I, myself, would not be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints if I thought it was going to play out any other way than has been revealed in the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, and by latter day revelation. But that is how I believe that it will play out.

Meanwhile there are a lot of people here on this board and others that will be more than willing to engage you in speculative discussions about the Book of Mormon, etc.

All the same I am not going to waste my time trying to convince an ex member of the LDS Church that the Book of Mormon is true, i.e. that it is a translation of words written (mostly) by prophets called of God and that the stories in it are true. I don't even try to convince anyone of that, but rather tell them what I believe and why and leave the rest to them and the Holy Ghost.

I hope I have not come across as sounding critical. That is not my intention. I am trying to respond to your question as honestly and clearly as I can.

 

Glenn

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Stem, you are going to have to accept the fact that a lot of LDS people believe that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. You will find few who are interested in speculating on what if's and maybe it could be such and such. Most people in the Melchizedek Priesthood classes are not looking for intellectual stimulation or inquiry. They are seeking spiritual stimulation and edification. As you noted, most are not pleased with your efforts, and I have noted that this seems to be a common occurrence when one or two people try to introduce non faith inducing ideas and themes into Sunday School, Relief Society, or Priesthood lessons. For a person who has received a testimony of the Book of Mormon as divinely inspired and produced scripture and of the restoration of the Gospel, and of Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, introducing ideas that the Book of Mormon may be fiction albeit with a moral is no better than speculative fiction itself.

 

 

What makes you think "divinely inspired and produced scripture" has anything to do with "historically accurate"?

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have been thinking about this lately.  From what I understand, pretty much all of the Book of Mormon appeared on a stone in a hat to block the light.  There really was no translation going on.  So what was the whole thing with Charles Anton?  Why give him a couple of lines that were suppose to be copied from the Book of Mormon for him to translate?  It appears the the Church of Christ still has the script, though there seems to be some question of it's authenticity.  Does it really make any difference if that script was authentic?  Did Joseph Smith go through the whole exercise just to make the claim that it fulfilled prophecy?  I think this is part of the question you are asking.  

I believe that at the time that Martin Harris took the characters to Charles Anton that Joseph Smith was still getting used to the idea that he could translate.  He had begun to do a little with his wife Emma as scribe, but was perhaps looking to an outside source for reassurance.  As he grew and matured in understanding his gift as a translator he came to realize that he could trust in the Spirit completely.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

In another thread Gray had said:

I'd agree.  I dont' know how many discussions I've had with some exmos who only want to argue against their old selves rather than discuss with someone else.  Their old selves seem to often be those believers that I can't quite understand myself. 

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

Thanks for the topic, very interesting, we're a few weeks behind on our lessons, but I'm already thinking how I too might address this in my HP group.  

First, I think I might approach this from a - personal perspective - saying what my experience is with respect to my personal beliefs about the BoM.  I'm not criticizing your approach at all, but I'm wondering if by asking others whether they feel there is room for people to relate differently to the BoM as metaphor, you got a more defensive perspective that is protecting something they find personally under attack (backfire effect).  I think by pivoting to an approach where you share how you personally relate to the BoM, how you consider it scripture, even in a very different way, that you'd have less defensiveness.  

I'm going to claim my experience as authentic and I feel I'm entitled to my space as a Mormon that doesn't believe in the historicity of the BoM.  I will never require others to share this belief, as I view the principle of freedom of belief to be fundamental.  At the same time, I have a space and a viewpoint, and that view is that there are some things I really feel are inspirational about the BoM, and others that I don't find inspirational. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Why go to all the trouble to invent nonexistent plates?

I think Joseph created plates because of all his failures to find treasure when money digging.  I think he realized that having something tangible will create a more believable impact on his followers.  I also tend to think that Joseph was doing this for largely sincere purposes, that he believed the plates were real, and created a physical artifact to symbolize the visionary plates that he saw.

For more on this idea, you can check out Ann Taves recent book - Revelatory Events, I find her theory about this very persuasive and intellectually palatable for me.  

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Book of Mormon and the Bible are on the same footing, and for very similar reasons.  Does that mean we should read them without nuanced understanding?  As Brother Brigham said of the Bible:

 

Theologically, I completely agree with this, but I think the primary difference is that I view the BoM as complete Midrash with no actual historicity at the foundation, but that the Bible has some historical narratives(very limited) underneath all the myth and the BoM is purely a literary work. 

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have been thinking about this lately.  From what I understand, pretty much all of the Book of Mormon appeared on a stone in a hat to block the light.  There really was no translation going on.  So what was the whole thing with Charles Anton?  Why give him a couple of lines that were suppose to be copied from the Book of Mormon for him to translate?  It appears the the Church of Christ still has the script, though there seems to be some question of it's authenticity.  Does it really make any difference if that script was authentic?  Did Joseph Smith go through the whole exercise just to make the claim that it fulfilled prophecy?  I think this is part of the question you are asking.  

I would recommend reading Richard Van Wagoner's Natural Born Seer, an excellent book on these early years of the Smith family.  

I think Martin Harris was the primary driver behind the Anton story, as he was seeking to authenticate and legitimize the work, and I think its important to remember that Joseph was in his early 20s, he wasn't approaching this endeavor in a very organized and methodical way, he was experimenting in fits and starts, and the origin story was crafted post hoc in a way to emphasize the miraculous nature of the earlier events.