Jump to content

Navigating Faith After Concluding Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham Are 19th Century Works by Joseph Smith


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I sustained church leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators for 10 years without believing the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were literally translations of ancient records. I never had an issue getting a recommend. I couldn't do it forever, though. No regrets for finally letting go and getting out.

Good to see you. Loved your book. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
On 10/8/2020 at 1:33 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

Like I said in my OP I'm not here to debate or seek recruit's.  I've merely shared some of the conclusions I've reached.  I'd be happy to share how I got to where I am but I don't think that is a perpose of this board.  I'm trying to be respectful and yet still have a conversation. so I won't go into how I decided that Adam and Eve were myths, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be any different than anyone else who has studied evolution, age of the earth, geography and genetics.

As for your other questions:

Do you believe there is a God?  I don't know whether there is a God or isn't a God.  I hope one exists but I also understand that there is no way to demonstrate the existence of a god.

Do you believe there is a Savior?  I consider myself one who adheres to Christian values.  Was there a person name Jesus Christ who died for my sins?  I have no idea, but the stories in the new testament are not credible as proof texts as far as I'm concerned.  That doesn't mean that they don't have great value as something on which glean life lessons from.

Do you believe that God speaks to prophets? This one is easier.  No I no longer believe that a god speaks to anyone on earth.  What I do believe is that men believe that he does and I'm ok with that.

 

That provides a starting point. thanks for sharing. Regarding Adam and Eve, if you are questioning the existence of an Adam and Eve based on your standards, you may be judging them from a flawed premise. For example, you would not reject that Joseph Smith is considered a prophet based on those same standards. As the renown Jewish agnostic scholar Christine Hayes explains "many of our cherished presuppositions about the Bible are based on astonishing clams that others have made on behalf of the Bible, claims that the bible has not made on behalf of itself" 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/8/2020 at 9:48 PM, Bede said:

I can. Every prophet ever, including Joseph Smith, has taught that it’s a real historical record.

I said:

"I can't figure out the arguments of those who demand them to be historical"

What you said in the quote box above has nothing to do with what I said.

1- What they taught is not what they "demanded"

2- What they taught was was not an "argument" except for the implication that it was an "argument from authority"

3- What they taught may or may not be what they really believed.   One speaks differently to primary children than one speaks to adults and unfortunately- but inevitably- what is taught is often geared toward primary children, since what is taught is available to all members at all levels of education etc.- including children of course.   Until 1990 the preface of the endowment had a statement that the Adam and Eve story was "strictly figurative as far as the man and woman are concerned" or words to that effect.  That is one of the few channels where information for adults could be taught only to faithful adults

Believing the events was historical is no different logically than believing in ex nihilo creation or a 6 day creation of disbelieving in evolution because it is what at one time or another was "taught".

God encourages us to get our own testimonies on every principle- blindly accepting what has been "taught" is quite different from getting your own testimony.

But this is a busy time for me- I will respond as time permits if you care.

 

Link to post
On 10/9/2020 at 11:01 AM, jkwilliams said:

I sustained church leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators for 10 years without believing the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham were literally translations of ancient records. I never had an issue getting a recommend. I couldn't do it forever, though. No regrets for finally letting go and getting out.

 

On 10/8/2020 at 9:53 PM, Nemesis said:

If this delves deeper into a de-conversion story I will close the thread.  We don’t allow them as we don’t allow testimony barring.  

 

Link to post
50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I said:

"I can't figure out the arguments of those who demand them to be historical"

What you said in the quote box above has nothing to do with what I said.

1- What they taught is not what they "demanded"

2- What they taught was was not an "argument" except for the implication that it was an "argument from authority"

3- What they taught may or may not be what they really believed.   One speaks differently to primary children than one speaks to adults and unfortunately- but inevitably- what is taught is often geared toward primary children, since what is taught is available to all members at all levels of education etc.- including children of course.   Until 1990 the preface of the endowment had a statement that the Adam and Eve story was "strictly figurative as far as the man and woman are concerned" or words to that effect.  That is one of the few channels where information for adults could be taught only to faithful adults

Believing an event was historical is no different logically than believing in ex nihilo creation or a 6 day creation of disbelieving in evolution because it is what at one time or another was "taught".

God encourages us to get our own testimonies on every principle- blindly accepting what has been "taught" is quite different from getting your own testimony.

But this is a busy time for me- I will respond as time permits if you care.

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Not exactly sure in what sense the wholesale rejection of foundational scripture and its subsequent repurposing as a pseudonymous product of the fertile mind of Joseph Smith can be understood as "nuanced," but whatever.

It seems to me that all you have accomplished here is the exchanging of one set of problems for another equally perplexing set. I don't doubt your portrayal of yourself as having been very conscientious in coming to the conclusion that the Joseph Smith is the author of the BOM. I'd now be happy for your newfound explanation of how Joseph in 1832 wrote a faltering, highly edited and reworked account of the First Vision, not particularly beautiful from a literary standpoint, and yet more than two years earlier also produced the awesome Psalm of Nephi in a once-through, uncorrected version.

Or how with his head in a hat, Joseph was able to write Alma's recounting of his conversion that included a perfect word-for-word quote of Lehi's own visionary experience that would subsequently be dictated by Joseph about 232 of our printed pages later with his head still in the hat (see Alma 36:22 and I Nephi 1:8). Haven't quite been able to figure that one out. "Nice memory, Joseph" somehow isn't very satisfying to me.

Or similarly under the same dictation conditions, Joseph rattles off the Jaredite Kings then recounts some details of their reigns, only in reverse order.

Or ...
Or ...
Or ...

I do sincerely wish you the best in your new view of our foundational scriptures and look forward to hearing how your continued seeking is able to resolve the many new problems you now face.

Well, there is the possibility that his family were in on it. Wasn't the only one of the witnesses to seeing the gold plates and handling them Martin Harris, the only non family member? And he only saw the plates by visionary eyes? It could be that the family all thought it a good thing to do. And Joseph's family were hurting, and some say that's a way to make money is start a religion. I'm not saying I believe this, but think it's plausible. Or they could have done this without trying to make money, just believing it's for the good of the world.

Link to post
On 10/7/2020 at 12:51 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

ok...I agree with all of these points

Ok I may be guilty of making another category error...but doesn't your preposition presuppose the reality of a God?... I say this knowing that no one can prove nor disprove the existence of God, just as no one can prove or disprove the existence of that tea pot orbiting Jupiter...at least not yet despite the odds being very minuscule to none. 

As stated, I know that this is not possible. I presented my case in the manner that I did because I felt your argument presupposed the existence of a god and that too is a logical error.

 

I understand this, but then why not Buddha, Vishnu or Allah?  They too add value to life, but I'm guessing that you aren't worshiping them.  Why then do you choose to worship our version of God?  I know I'm having a difficult time communicating my point but why, may I ask, do you worship the Mormon God instead of one of those others?  Each adds "value to life" on some level and yet you've rejected them and chosen the God we worship in the COJCOLDS. I'm guessing that you have done so not only because it has made your life better, but on some level you actually believe that your chosen God is real and is in fact the one and only True God of the Universe.  Am I right?  Would you still worship Him if you came to the conclusion that He didn't exist or that he was made up even if maintaining belief bettered your life?

No please don't hold back on my account I am enjoying this exchange, so please throw all you wish, I'm loving this...and I do agree with you on many levels.

I understand the difference...and I apologize if I'm being too pedantic, I do understand that Alma's word's hold value whether he existed or not, it is wise council, but if God does not exist or if we've chosen to worship the wrong God, yes the church can still better our life, but it can't and won't be able to fulfill its promises of families being together forever. So rather then spend ones life following a promise that won't be fulfilled, isn't it better to travel a path, even one that may not be as life fulfilling, that is based on reality?  I know the impossible dream.

Assuming He exists

PS I love philosophy and yes I'm only beginning to explore it.  Again thank you for taking to time to educate me.

 

EDIT to Add: I don't eat Babies 🙂

Glad you don't eat babies ;)   But the whole point of that is WHY don't you eat them? Who told you not to eat them?   Why do you believe them?  Is it scientifically possible to prove that eating babies is "wrong"?   Why would you refrain from eating babies without scientific evidence that it is wrong?

Seriously.

Think about that.   I believe in God for the same reasons I do not eat babies- because I feel in my heart that eating babies is wrong, and I feel in my heart that there actually exists a Being with whom I can interact.   I can ask questions and I receive answers.  

First of all some history.

I WAS an atheist.  So all the questions involving "what if's" become irrelevant.  I KNEW that there was NO god during that period of my life- so assuming that I have always been a believer is incorrect.

So now I will take your comments one by one.- AND repeat them down here so you know that I am not leaving anything out- you can simply look at the version at the top of the post and follow as I move down through your comments.

Quote

Ok I may be guilty of making another category error...but doesn't your preposition presuppose the reality of a God?... I say this knowing that no one can prove nor disprove the existence of God, just as no one can prove or disprove the existence of that tea pot orbiting Jupiter...at least not yet despite the odds being very minuscule to none. 

Please point out where my "presupposition" might have sneaked in.  That is possible since I am now a believer, but I know that in my life the fact that I did NOT believe seems to me to cancel out the idea that I came with that presupposition.   I also have a presupposition that you exist- because I am now communicating with you.

Guess what?  I also now communicate with God in much the same way I communicate with you, but it goes a lot faster. ;)

Quote

 

I understand this, but then why not Buddha, Vishnu or Allah?  They too add value to life, but I'm guessing that you aren't worshiping them.  Why then do you choose to worship our version of God?  I know I'm having a difficult time communicating my point but why, may I ask, do you worship the Mormon God instead of one of those others?  Each adds "value to life" on some level and yet you've rejected them and chosen the God we worship in the COJCOLDS. I'm guessing that you have done so not only because it has made your life better, but on some level you actually believe that your chosen God is real and is in fact the one and only True God of the Universe.  Am I right?  Would you still worship Him if you came to the conclusion that He didn't exist or that he was made up even if maintaining belief bettered your life?

 

Well Buddha is not a god- he is a human being who taught that meditation could bring you to peace and allow you to be re-incarnated to a higher level.

Allah is another name for the God we worship but from a different point of view.  Muslims have followed a different interpretation of religious history than the Judeo-Christian tradition.   I have no problem with many of their beliefs, they simply follow a different story than we do about the nature of God.  Of course no one can "prove" which story is "correct"- all we have are the whispering of the spirit to tell us which course is right for us individually.

I accept our story about God because we see him as a glorified human being who is immanent as opposed to transcendent, whom we can see as a Father figure. and his Son, Jesus Christ as God himself come to earth in our own time to this planet to show us His value system- which I consider "perfect"

I see this overall paradigm/story/theory as the best paradigm for humanity because I deeply cherish what are called "family values" and essentially those are the values we worship as LDS people.

I have never said God is not "real"- that is your misunderstanding.   I believe there are many interpretations of what is "real" and some are better than others.  I believe the LDS interpretation of God as our Father is the best to bring mankind to perfection.

To me it is the best paradigm/theory/story which gives us beliefs most likely to perfect humankind.

But what really convinces me that this is what God wants ME to believe (NOT "what is correct for everyone"- necessarily- but possibly- that is not my business- THAT is up to He Who Knows Me Best to tell me where HE wants me now in this phase of my life.

I see picking a religion as similar to getting a calling.  The spirit tells you where you are needed- or what is the best answer for you- to bring you closer to God.

It is not up to me to tell others that their choice of beliefs is "wrong" unless it is something that causes harm to humanity- LIKE eating babies, but I believe it IS the BEST paradigm for humanity, as for example one MIGHT think that their political party is the best political answer for the nation.

Quote

I understand the difference...and I apologize if I'm being too pedantic, I do understand that Alma's word's hold value whether he existed or not, it is wise council, but if God does not exist or if we've chosen to worship the wrong God, yes the church can still better our life, but it can't and won't be able to fulfill its promises of families being together forever. So rather then spend ones life following a promise that won't be fulfilled, isn't it better to travel a path, even one that may not be as life fulfilling, that is based on reality?  I know the impossible dream.

OK let's assume we have chosen the "wrong God"   Suppose we are all supposed to be Muslims- or pick your other religion.

Why pick ANY religion or NONE?  If you don't belief you might have messed up.  If you believe in the wrong one, you might have messed up.  If you don't believe anything you might have messed up

That's why they call it "faith".   ANY and ALL choices COULD BE wrong!!

Are we to NOT pick what we consider the "BEST" because might be mistaken?   That's ridiculous.  Change your political position 180% because YOUR CHOICE might be "wrong"!

Would you do that???   PIck what is obviously worse because it might be the best and you are wrong?

No, of course you will pick what you think is best!!

As far as fulfilling promises- we won't know if we were right until we are DEAD!  No choice left.   It's the same problem as the one we just considered.  Should we pick the less-than -best choice because the right choice may not be right?

THAT makes no sense.  

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Come on, Tacenda, how many times have we given you references for the claim that visionary or spiritual eyes meant they never touched them or saw them only in a vision?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Does_the_belief_by_the_witnesses_that_the_experience_had_visionary_qualities_contradict_the_claim_that_the_Book_of_Mormon_plates_were_real%3F
 

To call a testimony meeting a spiritual experience doesn’t mean you were not there, it means an additional experience to the physical sensations. 

You know that "sometimers" disease I have. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

It seems unlikely– from his physical descriptions as well as his other testimonies and the testimonies of the other two witnesses—that he meant to imply that the entire experience was merely in his mind.

Calm quoted this- someone else said it.  For the source go to the original post.

And where exactly is ANY experience we have except "in our minds"?

My point is that there can be a way of seeing things in which everything is a "vision", or at least that the distinction in meaning is never fully describable 

Some may have not seen this

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

Link to post
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, there is the possibility that his family were in on it. Wasn't the only one of the witnesses to seeing the gold plates and handling them Martin Harris, the only non family member? And he only saw the plates by visionary eyes? It could be that the family all thought it a good thing to do. And Joseph's family were hurting, and some say that's a way to make money is start a religion. I'm not saying I believe this, but think it's plausible. Or they could have done this without trying to make money, just believing it's for the good of the world.

I know I already responded to your post once, but by total coincidence I was listening to articles from the January 2020 Ensign when I went for a walk this evening, and I listened to this article:   "Knowing Is Nice but Not Enough", By Steven C. Harper, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University.   The article has several accounts from people who talked to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

As one example, here's a quote from the journals of William McLellin.  This backs up what I was saying about the lack of plausibility for the conspiracy claim:

Quote

William McLellin: “Bound … to Acknowledge the Truth”

One morning in 1831 a young schoolteacher named William McLellin heard that some men on their way to Missouri would be preaching about a new book that was described as “a Revelation from God.” He hurried to hear them. He listened to David Whitmer testify that he had “seen an Holy Angel who made known the truth of this record to him.” He deeply desired to know whether their testimonies were true. He followed them 400 miles (644 km) to Independence, Missouri, where he met and interviewed other witnesses, including Martin Harris and Hyrum Smith.4

William interviewed Hyrum for hours. “I inquired into the particulars of the coming forth of the record,” William recorded. The next morning, after praying to be directed to the truth, he realized that he was “bound as an honest man to acknowledge the truth and validity of the Book of Mormon.”5

In the following years, William’s faith was tested and strengthened by his choices and by the persecution the Latter-day Saints suffered. When Saints in Jackson County, Missouri, were attacked, William’s friend Hiram Page, one of the Eight Witnesses, was clubbed and whipped by men who said they would let him go if he would deny the Book of Mormon. “How can I deny what I know to be true?” Hiram said, and they beat him again.

William was strengthened by Hiram’s testimony—and understandably terrified of being beaten. When William heard that men in the area were offering a reward for the capture of him and Oliver Cowdery, they left town to hide in the woods with David Whitmer. There William interviewed two of the Three Witnesses. “I have never seen an open vision in my life,” he said, “but you men say you have, and therefore you positively know. Now you know that our lives are in danger every hour, if the mob can only catch us. Tell me in the fear of God, is that Book of Mormon true?”

Brother William,” Oliver said, “God sent his holy angel to declare the truth of the translation of it to us, and therefore we know. And though the mob kill us, yet we must die declaring its truth.”

David added, “Oliver has told you the solemn truth, for we could not be deceived. I most truly declare to you its truth!”6

Why would these men behave this way if the whole thing was a fraud?

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I know I already responded to your post once, but by total coincidence I was listening to articles from the January 2020 Ensign when I went for a walk this evening, and I listened to this article:   "Knowing Is Nice but Not Enough", By Steven C. Harper, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University.   The article has several accounts from people who talked to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

As one example, here's a quote from the journals of William McLellin.  This backs up what I was saying about the lack of plausibility for the conspiracy claim:

Why would these men behave this way if the whole thing was a fraud?

Because of any backlash, or criminal action against them perhaps? How many would welcome their admittance? 

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Because of any backlash, or criminal action against them perhaps? How many would welcome their admittance? 

Yes, when people are confronted by others and called out for questionable beliefs, sometimes the reaction is to double-down instead of admitting that they could be wrong or tricked.  That certainly has to be taken into account when reviewing the witnesses and what they claimed.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Yes, when people are confronted by others and called out for questionable beliefs, sometimes the reaction is to double-down instead of admitting that they could be wrong or tricked.  That certainly has to be taken into account when reviewing the witnesses and what they claimed.

I think I used admittance wrong, too late to edit. Should have said admission. Anyway, I'm not sure if this is sarcastic, your statement.

Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Come on, Tacenda, how many times have we given you references for the claim that visionary or spiritual eyes meant they never touched them or saw them only in a vision?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Does_the_belief_by_the_witnesses_that_the_experience_had_visionary_qualities_contradict_the_claim_that_the_Book_of_Mormon_plates_were_real%3F
 

To call a testimony meeting a spiritual experience doesn’t mean you were not there, it means an additional experience to the physical sensations. 

In this wiki article Martin said he saw them with his spiritual eyes vs. his naked eyes when approached about it, and many witnessed him saying it. Plus, he definitely could have handled them w/o physically seeing them. Just like Emma saw them covered while dusting.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Harris_(Latter_Day_Saints)#:~:text=In 1838%2C Harris is said,eyes%2C only spiritual vision."

"The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye,' and the like."[42] John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" According to Gilbert, Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.'"[43] Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes."[44][45] In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination."[32] A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision."[33]"

 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In this wiki article Martin said he saw them with his spiritual eyes vs. his naked eyes when approached about it, and many witnessed him saying it. Plus, he definitely could have handled them w/o physically seeing them. Just like Emma saw them covered while dusting.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Harris_(Latter_Day_Saints)#:~:text=In 1838%2C Harris is said,eyes%2C only spiritual vision."

"The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye,' and the like."[42] John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" According to Gilbert, Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.'"[43] Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes."[44][45] In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination."[32] A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision."[33]"

 

 

Do you see what is wrong with this analysis?  You're not quoting Martin Harris.

Martin Harris' statement is contained in the Book of Mormon.  He had an entire lifetime to impeach that statement.  He didn't. 

So much is said about Joseph Smith and the witnesses which doesn't come out of their mouths.  Head in a hat while translating?  Joseph Smith never said it and instead said that the Lord didn't want to reveal the translation process.  

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Do you see what is wrong with this analysis?  You're not quoting Martin Harris.

Martin Harris' statement is contained in the Book of Mormon.  He had an entire lifetime to impeach that statement.  He didn't. 

How many say the same thing without seeing the plates with their naked/natural eyes? So I see nothing wrong with that. Who cares if he said he only saw them with his naked eyes. The question is did he see them with naked eyes? And many witnesses say that he said it.

I believe he believed the BoM was true. And IMO, didn't want to admit seeing them with only his naked eyes later on, which could lesson someone believing that they were real. We have many millions of members that haven't seen them either but testify of the truthfulness of the BoM.

I just tried to make a case about how the BoM could have been written by him and others and they could all be in on it because they were all relatives of JS. I was answering a post that stated that it's pretty impossible for Joseph to have written the BoM by himself. 

Link to post

We must always remember that despite all the visions and experiences, many of the early leaders, Harris, Cowdrey, Whitmer, Rigdon etc. left the Church for one reason or another, some returning , some not. Where much is given, much is required and many are tried . 

 

Personally, after reading about the ugliness that Joseph and others went through for their beliefs , I know I would have been unlikely to endure the one- hundredth part of what they did. 

Lehi's vision comes to mind.

Link to post
On 10/11/2020 at 5:49 PM, Tacenda said:

Well, there is the possibility that his family were in on it. Wasn't the only one of the witnesses to seeing the gold plates and handling them Martin Harris, the only non family member? And he only saw the plates by visionary eyes? It could be that the family all thought it a good thing to do. And Joseph's family were hurting, and some say that's a way to make money is start a religion. I'm not saying I believe this, but think it's plausible. Or they could have done this without trying to make money, just believing it's for the good of the world.

Please do explain in what way his family "were in on it." I have no idea what that means. As to the question of Martin Harris being the only non-family member to handle the plates, I'm rather stunned. Oliver Cowdery was Lucy Smith's third cousin, so OK. Can you enlighten us as to the familial relationships between Joseph and David Whitmer? Christian Whitmer? Jacob Whitmer? Peter Whitmer, Jr.? John Whitmer? Hyrum Page? Mary Whitmer? They all saw the plates and to my knowledge were not related to Joseph.

That Joseph did it "for the money" seems absurd if you consider the actual circumstances of his less-than-kind corrections from Moroni in the years prior to receiving the plates when in fact he was thinking about doing it for the money, as well as the incredible lengths Joseph went to in order to keep the plates protected from the very people who would have given him money.

Edited by Derl Sanderson
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Please do explain in what way his family "were in on it." I have no idea what that means. As to the question of Martin Harris being the only non-family member to handle the plates, I'm rather stunned. Oliver Cowdery was Lucy Smith's third cousin, so OK. Can you enlighten us as to the familial relationships between Joseph and David Whitmer? Christian Whitmer? Jacob Whitmer? Peter Whitmer, Jr.? John Whitmer? Hyrum Page? Mary Whitmer? They all saw the plates and to my knowledge were not related to Joseph.

That Joseph did it "for the money" seems absurd if you consider the actual circumstances of his less-than-kind corrections from Moroni in the years prior to receiving the plates when in fact he was thinking about doing it for the money, as well as the incredible lengths Joseph went to in order to keep the plates protected from the very people who would have given him money.

I had thought the Whitmer family were cousins to the Smith family, but you are right, Cowdery is a cousin and related distantly to the Smith's, so I apologize for wrong information.

And Hyrum Page was married to Peter Whitmer's daughter. So that group is pretty tight. But I'm not saying Joseph and the others absolutely did it to get money, I just gave some plausible reasons that Joseph could have come up with the BoM with help from others.

And it could have been their goal to start up a better religion, aren't religions man made for the most part? It was the going thing in that time frame, breaking away from the European church being the only one true church, and religious freedoms to start your own. Just saying this isn't a buttoned up case. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...