Paul H. Dunn, President Monson, and us

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's a bit misleading. In the missing manuscript theory the roll with the sn sn text on it has a second text on it. Joseph translates it but is getting at the original text that is copied after the sn-sn. That is we likely have a somewhat corrupt and incomplete text about Abraham on the papyri but we get a deconstructive translation that gets at the original sources for this text. It's that original that Joseph ascribes to Abraham having written himself.

I'm certainly not saying the missing manuscript theory doesn't have problems. But I think assuming Joseph had full knowledge of what's going on seems dubious. (That's true of the Book of Mormon as well)

Careful with the accusations there, Clark   I'm not attempting to "mislead" anyone.

What is misleading about saying it is difficult to know? Not even the church claims to know how the translation works, which is why they suggest multiple possibilities for "translation". So I don't find it misleading at all. Actually, it seems quite accurate and fair.

[HappyJackWagon]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I actually remember my dreams very well and tell my husband about them almost every morning (because they are so weird usually).   I think that would be especially true if I were to have the exact same dream three times in a row (and then again the next day in a field). 

But I also don’t think a dream and a vision sent from God would have similar impacts on my mind, understanding, and memory either.  Do you? 

It seems like your way of looking at JS’s encounter with Moroni causes way more problems than it solves. It essentially calls into question all doctrinal and truth claims of the LDS church.  

That's true. It is much messier but also seems much more plausible to me.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I actually remember my dreams very well and tell my husband about them almost every morning (because they are so weird usually).   I think that would be especially true if I were to have the exact same dream three times in a row (and then again the next day in a field). 

I'm quite the opposite.  Particularly when I tell stories of my dreams years later.  Even knowing if the dream was the exact same from year to year would be near impossible for me to determine.  Dreams are really funny for me, though.  I'm dreaming along, things happening, and out of nowhere everything flips.  The characters, the story, my size, hairiness level, setting, whether I'm using feet or floating around in a robe cut just above my ankles.  Sometimes in mid-sentence the whole of everything that I was dreaming along about get's turned upside down. 

Quote

But I also don’t think a dream and a vision sent from God would have similar impacts on my mind, understanding, and memory either.  Do you? 

How would we know? These are Lehi's words:

Quote

Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision

I have dreamed a dream too, in many ways many times over.  I suppose that means I have seen a vision too?  I just can't quite get the meaning out of the vision that Lehi had, perhaps. 

Quote

It seems like your way of looking at JS’s encounter with Moroni causes way more problems than it solves. It essentially calls into question all doctrinal and truth claims of the LDS church.  

Not to me.  Joseph recorded Moroni's visit years later.  That indicates to me, perhaps as much an influence on the whole recording is JS' understanding of how it all works, what teachings are important, and how life will proceed.  If I dreamed of Moroni, a number of times, I doubt there'd be any possible way for me to come away with anything consistent.  I doubt I'd know with any real degree of precision, what he said.  I certainly wouldn't be able to quote him.  The whole thing feels far more about, much like all of our other scripture, trying to define teachings, above effort to speak about any experiences with accuracy.  His "many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time" is intriguing to me on this front.  Thus, it's quite possible that the Moroni visits came to Joseph in a dream or vision.  His recordings of it are attempted summaries, using in some cases language to describe the whole affair as consistent, beautiful and miraculous. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's true. It is much messier but also seems much more plausible to me.

Can you explain why you think it seems more plausible?  Is it because it doesn't rely on miraculous means or some other reason?  (I'm just curious).

[Calm]

"It's been documented that Joseph would tell stories about the ancient native Americans around the family hearth. It was something that was on his mind and something he'd given a lot of thought to. He developed stories about the native americans long before the Book of Mormon."

But there is no indication this took place before the visits of Moroni or others.  There is no reason not to interpret this as Joseph sharing what he had learned through his visions.

[Button Gwinnett]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

But I think it's important to point out that the portions that didn't hold up were things that President Monson could have had no personal knowledge of, like where and when Arthur died. That was the only part of the story that was "debunked."

I'm not trying to suggest anything nefarious on the part of President Monson nor do I expect him to be a walking encyclopedia but is it wrong for someone to warm him ( and other GAs for that matter) that times have changed and that everything they speak over a lecturn, pulpit or podium will be put under a microscope and scrutinized for accuracy.  

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"It's been documented that Joseph would tell stories about the ancient native Americans around the family hearth. It was something that was on his mind and something he'd given a lot of thought to. He developed stories about the native americans long before the Book of Mormon."

But there is no indication this took place before the visits of Moroni or others.  There is no reason not to interpret this as Joseph sharing what he had learned through his visions.

It's been years since I read Lucy's biography of Joseph (the one Brigham tried to collect all in print and destroy) but I could swear Lucy said Joseph's stories of Native American life occurred long before Moroni entered the scene. But like I said it's been years since I read it so my memory could be off.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sure. Joseph was mistaken. He didn't understand the experiences of translation just like he didn't understand the experience of translating the BoA.

When you get into the "true V. false" dichotomy you suddenly have to accept everything as true or everything is false when in fact it could be much more complicated than that. Maybe there are true principles based on a false history. Is God a liar? I think it's unfair to throw God under the bus simply because humans (including Joseph Smith) misunderstand or make mistakes.

I confess I *personally* just don't see the appeal of a pseudopigraphal Book of Mormon. If there aren't Nephites, then what's the value of following Joseph over being an Unitarian? Priesthood largely becomes meaningless if there weren't really angels physically laying hands on Joseph's head. And more fundamentally why should we trust his revelations?

I recognize many here disagree with that take, but I bet more people think like me than think a middle ground really makes sense. At best membership becomes aesthetically enjoyable but not really trustworthy.

Note that this is different from simply recognizing common human frailties such as Joseph making guesses about what is going on behind the process just like the rest of us. It's not at all clear God explained details to him beyond what he translated. So I fully agree that people take true vs. false misleadingly as inerrant versus completely false. That's a false dichotomy. Yet I think some degree of accuracy has to be there for it to be useful otherwise it's like trying to talk to someone who's redefined 70% of his vocabulary but you're not sure which words can be trusted. It makes diciphering speech difficult.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

It's been years since I read Lucy's biography of Joseph (the one Brigham tried to collect all in print and destroy) but I could swear Lucy said Joseph's stories of Native American life occurred long before Moroni entered the scene. But like I said it's been years since I read it so my memory could be off.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/"Amusing_recitals"_of_ancient_American_inhabitants

"Lucy's 1853 autobiography, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for many Generations was considered inaccurate by Brigham Young and was ordered to be rewritten. The reasons for this had nothing to do with Lucy's account of her son Joseph's "amusing recitals." The 1853 autobiography and the 1845 manuscript upon which it was based still exist, and both confirm that the "amusing recitals" mentioned by Lucy were done during the period during which Joseph was being instructed by the angel as he waited to retrieve the gold plates. Lucy Mack Smith said the following in her 1853 autobiography:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.[1]

The quote from Lucy Mack Smith is used by critics of the Church to show how Joseph Smith told "yarns" about Native Americans "long before any golden plates had been found." The chronology found in Lucy Mack Smith's history, however, tells just the opposite story, and puts this quotation in its proper context. Lucy says that the angel Moroni told her son (during his first appearance) about the existence of the plates and informed him where they were buried (see Lavina F. Anderson, ed., Lucy's Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001], 335-36). Lucy then states that Joseph (the evening after he had seen the Nephite record in their place of deposit) told his family all about "the plates" (ibid., 343)....

From Lucy's 1845 manuscript, we read:

Now said he[,] Father and Mother the angel of the Lord says that we must be careful not to proclaim these things or to mention them abroad For we do not any of us know the wickedness of the world which is so sinful that when we get the plates they will want to kill us for the sake of the gold if they know we had <have> them...by sunset [we] were ready to be seated and give our atten undivided attention to Josephs recitals...From this time forth Joseph continued to receive instructions from time to time and every evening we gathered our children togather [together]...In the course of our evening conversations Joseph would give us some of the most ammusing [amusing] recitals which could be immagined [imagined]. he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent their dress their man[n]er of traveling the animals which they rode The cities that were built by them the structure of their buildings with every particular of their mode of warfare their religious worship as particularly as though he had spent his life with them...The angel informed him at one time that he might make an effort to obtain the plates <on> the <22nd of the> ensueing september....[2]

Clearly, Joseph Smith told his stories after he learned about, and saw, the golden plates. Indeed, it is known that Moroni showed Joseph visions and gave him information regarding the people whose stories were found on the Nephite record (see Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 9, 1 March 1842, 707-708), so the young man undoubtedly had quite a few stories to tell. Lucy Mack Smith simply said in her autobiography that her son told the family about information connected with the angel and the Book of Mormon plates.[3] Lucy told the same information to Wandle Mace about seven years prior to producing her 1845 autobiography and clarified that this information was connected with the Book of Mormon "Nephites" and was shown to her son by vision."

Edited September 30, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

It's been years since I read Lucy's biography of Joseph (the one Brigham tried to collect all in print and destroy) but I could swear Lucy said Joseph's stories of Native American life occurred long before Moroni entered the scene. But like I said it's been years since I read it so my memory could be off.

I think Lucy's book puts the descriptions and stories to the family were during the period where Joseph Smith had annual meetings with Moroni (i.e., 1823-1827). Journal of Discourses also notes appearances from Alma and Nephi, as well (I think Mormon, too). I know that critics like to paint the stories and descriptions of this period as proof that Joseph Smith was a yarn-spinner who could have dictated the Book of Mormon off the top of his head as he made it up, but to me, all of these indicate that he spoke with angels who had lived then and there --- and that he got his details from them. 

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think Lucy's book puts the descriptions and stories to the family were during the period where Joseph Smith had annual meetings with Moroni (i.e., 1823-1827). Journal of Discourses also notes appearances from Alma and Nephi, as well (I think Mormon, too). I know that critics like to paint the stories and descriptions of this period as proof that Joseph Smith was a yarn-spinner who could have dictated the Book of Mormon off the top of his head as he made it up, but to me, all of these indicate that he spoke with angels who had lived then and there --- and that he got his details from them. 

I just went back and reread the part in Lucy's book, and that particular portion did take place after Moroni 's visit

[2BizE]

I think if you take conference talks and run them through a plagiarism checker you would be surprised to find many are Hodge podged together from other talks and other authors.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I think if you take conference talks and run them through a plagiarism checker you would be surprised to find many are Hodge podged together from other talks and other authors.

I think you're spot on. I think throughout time, the members, myself included, try to find any stories they can find that will help their message come across better and that is why we get the talks regurgitated or even plagiarized (I wouldn't want to say a story is about me when it isn't though), but do like to get stories from say the Ensign, New Era or somewhere that is in keeping with the spirit. 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I think if you take conference talks and run them through a plagiarism checker you would be surprised to find many are Hodge podged together from other talks and other authors.

I don't know that it would be much of a surprise, considering how often they quote themselves and other people.  But it would be interesting to see.  Which online plagiarism checkers did you use?

[clarkgoble]

On 9/29/2017 at 11:52 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Careful with the accusations there, Clark   I'm not attempting to "mislead" anyone.

Something can be misleading without being produced with the intent of misleading someone. But I was primarily referring to "Was the papyrus written by Abraham's own hand like Joseph claimed?" whereas my point was just that's a more ambiguous statement than it appears. Abraham could easily have written upon papyri an autobiographical text which was then copied over and over (possibly introducing errors). Clearly our papyrus is from around the 1st century BCE. So most, like I took you to be saying, imply that this was Abraham's hand writing. More or less the issue is whether the focus and antecedent of Joseph's statement is the record or not.

I recognize a common apologetic here is to just note Joseph might be surmising Abraham wrote on this papyri. My point is just that the statement is even more ambiguous. I don't think it changes the debate much either way. Just that I think we have to be careful assuming nuances of Joseph's views. Joseph by all accounts assumes the text is on the roll with the sn-sn on it. I'm not sure we know as much about his beliefs beyond that as some assume.

I raise this just because, since we've been discussing Vogel and Taves it's worth noting the important context of D&C 7, Moses 1, and many other texts. That is first off the evidence is pretty strong that Joseph didn't think he needed the text present to translate it with a seer stone / U&T and that with the JST (apparently not even using a seer stone) he could restore missing parts of texts (or for those who adopt a more deconstructive take, interrogate marginal elements to restore information about these elements in a text).

On 9/29/2017 at 11:52 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

What is misleading about saying it is difficult to know? Not even the church claims to know how the translation works, which is why they suggest multiple possibilities for "translation". So I don't find it misleading at all. Actually, it seems quite accurate and fair.

It's not that I think the translation is difficult to know. I completely agree there. It's more that we don't know much about Joseph's own views and more importantly the reason for those views as sometimes gets represented. (Again not necessarily meaning you in saying that)

 

On 9/29/2017 at 12:18 PM, stemelbow said:

Thus, it's quite possible that the Moroni visits came to Joseph in a dream or vision.  His recordings of it are attempted summaries, using in some cases language to describe the whole affair as consistent, beautiful and miraculous. 

As a possibility from the public evidence we have to acknowledge that. Although there are reasons to doubt it was just a dream given his later emphasis on materiality and angels. I recognize someone like Taves will try to blur what material means. It's also possible that Joseph was delusional, fraudulent or just had his earlier memories modified via false memory syndrome. Yet certainly within a few years of the Church's organization Joseph is strongly emphasizing laying on of hands by angles and other such elements. To the point that he urges followers to test angelic visitors (somewhat analogous to how in pop culture one tests if one is dreaming by pinching oneself).

[ALarson]

On 9/29/2017 at 10:37 AM, bluebell said:

I quoted JS, so i'm not sure what you mean.  Can you clarify?

I was just stating that it still came from man (Joseph Smith as he understood it or believed) and it's up to each one of us to study and pray about that to get our own confirmation of whether or not it came from God.  Hope that clarifies better 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I was just stating that it still came from man (Joseph Smith as he understood it or believed) and it's up to each one of us to study and pray about that to get our own confirmation of whether or not it came from God.  Hope that clarifies better 

Thanks.  I'm sorry if i was confusing too.  I have repeatedly qualified my remarks by stating that they were for those who believed that JS was a prophet of God and that BOM was scripture.  For those who weren't sure, or didn't believe he was a prophet, there are a lot more options.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:30 PM, bluebell said:

Can you explain why you think it seems more plausible?  Is it because it doesn't rely on miraculous means or some other reason?  (I'm just curious).

It would be messy because Joseph's description of the events may not be accurate. If that is the case it would create problems wherein individuals need to discern what was factually accurate versus what may have been an interpretation of a dream or other non-miraculous event. I find it plausible that Joseph didn't understand his experiences but ascribed meaning to them as time went on. I think this is common for how many people apply meaning to events in their lives. I don't see miracles like this happening in today's world so I am skeptical about them happening so often to others in the past. I think they are myths that have developed over time and there may be some truth. But I don't find them to be historically plausible for a multitude of reasons

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 6:45 PM, clarkgoble said:

I confess I *personally* just don't see the appeal of a pseudopigraphal Book of Mormon. If there aren't Nephites, then what's the value of following Joseph over being an Unitarian? Priesthood largely becomes meaningless if there weren't really angels physically laying hands on Joseph's head. And more fundamentally why should we trust his revelations?

I recognize many here disagree with that take, but I bet more people think like me than think a middle ground really makes sense. At best membership becomes aesthetically enjoyable but not really trustworthy.

Note that this is different from simply recognizing common human frailties such as Joseph making guesses about what is going on behind the process just like the rest of us. It's not at all clear God explained details to him beyond what he translated. So I fully agree that people take true vs. false misleadingly as inerrant versus completely false. That's a false dichotomy. Yet I think some degree of accuracy has to be there for it to be useful otherwise it's like trying to talk to someone who's redefined 70% of his vocabulary but you're not sure which words can be trusted. It makes diciphering speech difficult.

I don't find it appealing either, except that it provides a third option for people to hold onto. I'm not a fan of the all true/all false dichotomy that is common to Mormon parlance but I think many people are reaching for anything that can help them maintain some faith in the church. If they are given the 2 options of true or false many would have to choose false. But by providing the 3rd option, it allows them to maintain some kind of hope in the truth claims of the church. That is the value of a middle way.