Joseph Smith's Schooling/Vocabulary to produce The Book of Mormon

[Frank11]

On 10/15/2024 at 8:35 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

We all have to start somewhere. 

Shouldn't it be easier? For all the red flags, we need fair conferences, essays, reviews, etc., which in turn are critically scrutinised or invalidated by others.
This leads me to your very first sentence ‘We all have to start somewhere’. And I ask myself, do we really have to or for whom is that relevant? Certainly for all those who have found their home in the LDS Church and want to keep it.

But everyone else, probably won't find it necessary unless they have a desire to return to the church. 

But that's actually a topic in itself. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

Shouldn't it be easier?

Why would things of the Spirit and religious history be easier than things of the mind and regular history?  To be educated in either of the latter takes a lot of work. 

[Frank11]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Why would things of the Spirit and religious history be easier than things of the mind and regular history?  To be educated in either of the latter takes a lot of work. 

Actually, the things of the spirit are relatively simple, as I will now show by way of example:
My eldest son and his girlfriend live together as a couple. Although I did not raise or influence my son religiously and his girlfriend is not religious either, they are faithful to each other, like most couples who want to stay together. And although they may not even know the commandment ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife’, this is morally self-evident for them.
In contrast, we all know that Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already in a marriage. There are certainly theories about this from apologetics that aim to whitewash Joseph Smith. But these theories are highly speculative and unsatisfactory and, above all, not easy.
But in this case there is a very easy explanation, for my son who can distinguish good from evil without the influence of a religion anyway, but of course not every LDS member would like it.

[Kevin Christensen]

13 hours ago, Frank11 said:

Actually, the things of the spirit are relatively simple, as I will now show by way of example:
My eldest son and his girlfriend live together as a couple. Although I did not raise or influence my son religiously and his girlfriend is not religious either, they are faithful to each other, like most couples who want to stay together. And although they may not even know the commandment ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife’, this is morally self-evident for them.
In contrast, we all know that Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already in a marriage. There are certainly theories about this from apologetics that aim to whitewash Joseph Smith. But these theories are highly speculative and unsatisfactory and, above all, not easy.
But in this case there is a very easy explanation, for my son who can distinguish good from evil without the influence of a religion anyway, but of course not every LDS member would like it.

What is and is not simple has a lot to do with which questions a person decides are important.  That is one reason that I brought in the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.  Perry studied how incoming students to Yale adapted well or poorly to complexities of the University of environment in relation to their parochial backgrounds.  Position 1 simplifies all issues.

Quote

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION
POSITION 1 - Basic Duality.  (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.) 
The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified.  (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty.  But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems.  It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed.  It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind."  When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced.  When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)
 

Notice the comment that "It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth."

J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels actually treat this problem in a way that is relevant to compare with a common disillusionment narrative around Latter-day Saint faith.  Notice that some of the most significant personal and emotional growth challenges Harry faces come when he discovers that his father and Sirius Black and Dumbledore have character flaws that he did not imagine that they had.  And that Harry learned these things from people he had considered the bad guys, his enemies.  And think about the tension between Harry's very real personal negative experience with Severus Snape and Dumbledore's declaration that "I trust Severus Snape."  Shouldn't Harry's personal experience count more than Dumbledore's simple faith?  Does Dumbledore know something Harry does not?  If so, what possible difference could it make for Harry's understanding of that real life experience?  I think it is particularly brilliant in the way that she introduces Rita Skeeter as an unreliable narrator in Goblet of Fire, and in the final book makes her Dumbledore's biographer.   And despite what Harry learned from Skeeter, and later from Aberforth, Dumbledore's brother, Harry still must weigh his personal experiences.  Though Harry learns much about Dumbledore from Rita's book, there is much that is crucially important that he learns not from Skeeter but via the pensive and in the superbly named chapter "King's Cross".

It is easy to insinuate that Joseph Smith was a morally dubious figure, up to all sorts of hanky panky.  Difficult to find any DNA evidence of descendants outside of the Emma line, despite that.  Difficult to find any first-hand accounts from any of his plural wives who offer complaints.  Todd Compton's book makes that abundantly clear, despite his personal reservations.   If you think that does not matter, consider that we currently have a presidential candidate who does not present the same circumstance, where we have on record complaints from as many women as Joseph has sealed to him.

Easy for Iago to insinuate that Desdemona was up to no good.  Difficult for Othello to say, "I was mistaken.  Can you forgive me?" after he has smothered her.

Paradigm debate always involves the question, "Which problems are more significant to have solved?"  I rather think that the Book of Mormon is the most significant problem that Joseph Smith presents.  Focusing on other issues to me represents a distraction, an attempt to simplify the issue by avoiding the most important thing.

In the course of this thread, I recall the simple solution implied by your comparison of King Benjamin's discourse with an 1826 Palmyra revival discourse.   Some people may find that local comparison simple and persuasive.  I did not, and gave my reasons, which you have not addressed, I think because, to actually address and account for the complexities I offer, unavoidably raises complications that undermine the tidy simplicity of the strictly local comparison.  Which solution is better?  Which problems are more significant to have solved?  Are the criterion we use to make such a decision narrowly self-referential, or do they involve broad comparisons and values that are not completely paradigm dependent?  That is puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthestics, and future promise.   Some people may prefer the simple comparison as an effect way to explain the Book of Mormon, but notice that simplicity is only one of the values Kuhn raises.  And the apparent simplicity, relative to the scope of the problem turns out to be illusory relative to a more comprehensive and careful look at the problem.

There is appealing simplicity, and there is also oversimplification, which can have unexpected negative consequences.

Here is a bit more of the Perry Scheme.

Quote

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME.  (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go.        

Transition 1.  The person can make the transition by modifying dualism  drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them.  Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors.  With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

Transition 2.  The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes.  All is of equal value.  To have an opinion makes it right.

Transition 3.  Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many.

Transition 4.  Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively.

Transition 5.  The person is moving closer to accepting relativity.  He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations.  To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers.  So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want.

Transition 6.  Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people  reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent.  They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground.  But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently.

Transition 7.  This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity.  The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases.

NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.
 

One of the most interesting aspects of the Perry Scheme is what can happen if a person rejects the implications of Position 5 Relativism Discovered.

Quote

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/2/2024 at 10:09 PM, Zosimus said:

...................

It's worth consideration. Did the stories Joseph told his family come from an angel in 1823, or from various discussions circulating in New York about the origins of the Native Americans?

That is a surface question which many people ask.  Scholars take a different approach, preferring to do a detailed, note-taking read. Once the text is actually studied in detail, one may then begin a scholarly analysis.  At the same time, it is helpful to read the analyses of other scholars.

The actual text is primary, not rumors about the text.  And, on balance, the substantive content of the book (in this case the Book of Mormon) can tell us a great deal about its claims to authenticity or lack of it.  The acid test is to examine closely the actual historical claims of the text.

Several features of the Book of Mormon make it highly unlikely that it leapt into being straight out of the imagination of Joseph Smith, or as a result of automatic writing.  For example, the entire book contains a systematic dating sequence which is not only internally consistent, but which even coheres with actual history.  A history which includes (1) the rise and fall of Jaredite and Nephite civilizations lined up with the rise and fall of the Olmec and Chiapas cultures; (2) specific dates in the book line up exactly as they should from (a) the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, (b) the birth 600 years later of Jesus, and (c) the death of Jesus 33 years and 3 days later.  (3) A precise match of the Nephite weights & measures with the heretofore unknown weights & measures system used in Judah & Israel (before each was destroyed in turn); that Egypto-Israelite system which uses hieratic Egyptian is unknown to the Bible, and has only been recovered archeologically in recent decades.  I could go on with a dozen more examples.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/28/2024 at 11:51 PM, Anakin7 said:

       Emma Smith from my memory stated that Joseph smith could not have written The Book of Mormon do to his not being able to write a coherent sentence yet his letters to her from him that I have read seem to be very good polished English for an occasional grammatical error in there time period. Have there been any studies on this ?. Thank you in advance for any answers or insights. thank you. 

The best source for comparison is the Jospeh Smith Papers, particularly his holographs.  They tell us that Emma was correct in her negative evaluation of her husband's skill at writing.  Documents in Joseph Smith’s Handwriting .

At the same time, it seems undeniable that Joseph improved that skill over time.  However, it is very bad form to cite those later writings as though they represent the Joseph Emma married in 1827.  He was clearly a diamond in the rough.

[Anakin7]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:22 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The best source for comparison is the Jospeh Smith Papers, particularly his holographs.  They tell us that Emma was correct in her negative evaluation of her husband's skill at writing.  Documents in Joseph Smith’s Handwriting .

At the same time, it seems undeniable that Joseph improved that skill over time.  However, it is very bad form to cite those later writings as though they represent the Joseph Emma married in 1827.  He was clearly a diamond in the rough.

 Thank you Robert My Brother In Christ Jesus for your thought/post, it is good to hear from you. May True Grace be with you and all you Love.

[Bernard Gui]

How proficient is a student today after a few years of school?
I’ve often wondered what Joseph’s “formal” education looked like. How literate would Joseph be after two or three years (with time out for required daily and seasonal farm duties) of whatever such schooling consisted? Not much rigorous study, one might assume, nor high scholastic expectations. In the early 1800s, the mother was the primary teacher of the children, and while there may have been some sort of community effort to school the children, teachers were not trained nor accredited. Most schools used advanced students to monitor or tutor their peers under the direction of the teacher. Kind of like Hyrum did. 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smiths-education-and-intellect-as-described-in-documentary-sources/

Quote

Abstract: Although Joseph Smith has been credited with “approximately seven full school years” of district schooling, further research supports that his education consisted of basic instruction in “reading, writing and the ground rules of arithmetic” comprising “less than two years of formal schooling.” The actual number of terms he experienced in common schools in upstate New York is probably less critical since the curricula in district schools did not then teach creative writing, composition, or extemporaneous speaking. If Joseph Smith learned how to compose and dictate a book, extracurricular activities would likely have been the training source. Six of those can be identified: (1) private Bible studies, (2) Hyrum Smith’s possible tutoring in 1813, (3) participation in local religious activities, (4) involvement with the local juvenile debate club, (5) occasional family storytelling gatherings, and (6) brief participation as an exhorter at Methodist meetings. Three of his teachers in Kirtland in 1834–1836 recalled his impressive learning ability, but none described him as an accomplished scholar. A review of all available documentation shows that no acquaintance at that time or later called him highly educated or as capable of authoring the Book of Mormon. Despite its current popularity, the theory that Joseph Smith possessed the skills needed to create the Book of Mormon in 1829 is contradicted by dozens of eyewitness accounts and supported only by minimal historical data…

To summarize, besides his time spent in district school classrooms, Joseph Smith’s education was supplemented by at least six extracurricular educational activities:

 

1812–1829:	Learning about and reading the Bible
1813:	Hyrum Smith’s possible tutoring at age seven
1816–1825:	Participation in local religious meetings
1821–1822:	Attends the juvenile debate club
1823:	Occasionally shares imaginative stories with his family
1824–1825:	Passable exhorter at Methodist meetings

While additional opportunities for pre-1829 training, education, or experience as an author or orator may have been available to Joseph Smith, none are detailed in the historical record…

Alternatively, the primary focus of this paper is to demonstrate the problem with secularist theories that portray Joseph Smith as intellectually capable of producing the Book of Mormon using his 1829 cognitive abilities. That he dictated every word to scribes is well documented historically. And based on that evidence, skeptics could then declare that he must have had the natural intelligence and abilities to accomplish the feat. For example, in 2019, Eran Shalev, chair of the history department at Haifa University, wrote: “Historians have long denied Smith the image of an ignorant rural boy who could not have acquired all the material that he would have needed to write The Book of Mormon.” But the case is more complex because little or no manuscript data (beyond the historical artifacts of the Original and Printer’s manuscripts of the Book of Mormon) supports Joseph Smith’s capacity to do so.

Undaunted by this limitation, empiricists often speculate about when and where Joseph Smith supposedly gained the knowledge and training he would have needed to dictate a lengthy, complex, and refined book. However, among scholars, a theory derived almost exclusively from speculations will generally be less persuasive. If it contradicts the vast majority of available documentary evidence, its credibility should diminish further.

Ironically, the popularity of Joseph Smith’s intellect theory continues among many observers today despite the lack of historical data supporting it. Whether evidentiary transparency can expose its weaknesses enough to impact its acceptance by skeptics remains to be seen.

 

Edited November 1, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[2BizE]

On 9/29/2024 at 2:05 AM, Frank11 said:

I think school education is overrated. He has made up his own mind. 
Intelligence, interest and time are the most important factors. 
Perhaps he was also spared a little more work because of the leg injury. 

This page gives you a good overview:

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/joseph-smith-capable-of-authoring-the-book-of-mormon/

This quote from Joseph’s mother pretty much sums up the Book of Mormon. Joseph was intelligent, and lived to create stories.

”In her history, Joseph’s mother Lucy recalled⁵:

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 traveling, 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.”

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

This quote from Joseph’s mother pretty much sums up the Book of Mormon. Joseph was intelligent, and lived to create stories.

”In her history, Joseph’s mother Lucy recalled⁵:

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 traveling, 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.”

Before putting your faith in this particular "quote", you might want to review the information provided by Kevin Christensen earlier in this thread.

[Frank11]

On 10/25/2024 at 5:54 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

1. In the course of this thread, I recall the simple solution implied by your comparison of King Benjamin's discourse with an 1826 Palmyra revival discourse.   Some people may find that local comparison simple and persuasive.  I did not, and gave my reasons, which you have not addressed, I think because, to actually address and account for the complexities I offer, unavoidably raises complications that undermine the tidy simplicity of the strictly local comparison.

2. It is easy to insinuate that Joseph Smith was a morally dubious figure, up to all sorts of hanky panky.  Difficult to find any DNA evidence of descendants outside of the Emma line, despite that.  Difficult to find any first-hand accounts from any of his plural wives who offer complaints.  Todd Compton's book makes that abundantly clear, despite his personal reservations.   If you think that does not matter, consider that we currently have a presidential candidate who does not present the same circumstance, where we have on record complaints from as many women as Joseph has sealed to him.

3. I rather think that the Book of Mormon is the most significant problem that Joseph Smith presents.  Focusing on other issues to me represents a distraction, an attempt to simplify the issue by avoiding the most important thing. ...There is appealing simplicity, and there is also oversimplification, which can have unexpected negative consequences.

1. As I mentioned earlier, I cannot address every point as I lack the scientific basis to adequately review and assess it. It is similar to the ‘slippery treasures’. I'm sure there's an ancient oriental text somewhere that mentions sunken treasure, but it's more likely that the ‘slippery treasures’ in the Book of Mormon came from the 19th century folk-magic scene. I didn't actually notice it in the Book of Mormon at first because I thought it was a metaphorical description, but knowing the stories that were told in the Joseph Smith treasure hunts at the time, I now realise that it was meant much more physically in the Book of Mormon.

2. Apart from a few sectarian groups, you will not find any religion or culture that does not find it reprehensible to interfere with an existing marital relationship. Whether sex or not, even the desire or the attempt to interfere is reprehensible. You don't have to be religious to understand that. Even if it is already explicitly stated in the 10 commandments ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife’, it also makes a lot of sense for a strong community. Because disregarding it inevitably leads to disputes between people, that weakens the community. 

As you have already correctly surmised, I see the women's statements in a completely different light. Firstly, some women also clearly rejected Joseph Smith's offer, and secondly, in many of the statements I see the considerable psychological pressure under which the women agreed to the sealing. Incidentally, we have a very similar situation with the surviving women of Waco, who, no wonder, became David Koresh's wives due to a ‘divine’ instruction to him, although some of them were already married. In the interviews, the women repeatedly mention that they felt chosen by God. Does this mean that Koresh had the right to marry or better take the women?

3. The first major critique published in the Nauvoo Expositor had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. This is hardly surprising, because apart from a few passages that might be considered racist today, there is hardly anything morally wrong with the Book of Mormon. That is why, then as now, it is above all the character of Joseph Smith that is criticised. This criticism is then countered by focussing solely on the alleged evidence, be it the testimonies about the golden plates or that Joseph Smith was too uneducated and the Book of Mormon is too complex, so therefore Joseph Smith must be a divine prophet. This is exactly what I call ‘oversimplification, which can have unexpected negative consequences’. Because this way of thinking is a dream for every cult leader, guru or Muslim preacher of hate, whose first priority is to be blindly trusted. When this blind trust is established, red lines that are set by holy scriptures or common moral concepts can be crossed.

Every time a red line is crossed, one should be very, very sceptical.

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

This criticism is then countered by focussing solely on the alleged evidence,

Speaking of oversimplification…

I have seen plenty of times where attacks on the character of Joseph are responded to by pointing to relevant contrary evidence….such as claims he and his family were lazy and looking for an easy way to make money are challenged by pointing to the massive amounts of improvements they achieved on the farm as well as a list of all their activities to make money.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith's_family_as_trustworthy_and_hard-working

Edited November 1, 2024 by Calm

[Frank11]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Speaking of oversimplification…

I have seen plenty of times where attacks on the character of Joseph are responded to by pointing to relevant contrary evidence….such as claims he and his family were lazy and looking for an easy way to make money are challenged by pointing to the massive amounts of improvements they achieved on the farm as well as a list of all their activities to make money.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Joseph_Smith's_family_as_trustworthy_and_hard-working

I didn't criticise that and even if they had been lazy, it certainly wouldn't have been a crossing of the red line.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Frank11 said:

I didn't criticise that and even if they had been lazy, it certainly wouldn't have been a crossing of the red line.

You made the claim apologists respond “solely” by pointing to irrelevant evidence rather than evidence about his character, did you not?

Quote

That is why, then as now, it is above all the character of Joseph Smith that is criticised. This criticism is then countered by focussing solely on the alleged evidence, be it the testimonies about the golden plates or that Joseph Smith was too uneducated and the Book of Mormon is too complex, so therefore Joseph Smith must be a divine prophet.

 

[Frank11]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

You made the claim apologists respond “solely” by pointing to irrelevant evidence rather than evidence about his character, did you not?

 

Perhaps my train of thought is poorly formulated and I'll try again another way.
When I criticise Joseph Smith for sealing married women to himself, believers justify it by saying that he was a prophet of God. Then they concentrate on proving, through testimonies etc., that he was a prophet and as soon as they believe there is enough evidence for that, the criticised issue is also settled for them. But that is not the case! 

Edited November 1, 2024 by Frank11

[webbles]

51 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

Perhaps my train of thought is poorly formulated and I'll try again another way.
When I criticise Joseph Smith for sealing married women to himself, believers justify it by saying that he was a prophet of God. Then they concentrate on proving, through testimonies etc., that he was a prophet and as soon as they believe there is enough evidence for that, the criticised issue is also settled for them. But that is not the case! 

Isn't this how any religious person deals with conflicts?  For instance, we can criticize Christ for cursing a fig tree for no apparent reason, breaking up legitimate commercial businesses in the temple, breaking the Sabbath, etc.  To get around that, a person who believes in Christ would use testimonies to prove that He is the Christ.  And therefore, those criticized issues are also settled.

Every single person has flaws.  If someone doesn't believe Christ is perfect, then they could point out perceived flaws in Him.  Should we just look at the person's flaws and say, "They must not be a prophet because they have flaws"?  You find Joseph's dealings with married women to be a major issue.  For me, it doesn't bother me.  I'd love to know more about what happened but I just don't see how it proves he is a false prophet.

[Frank11]

52 minutes ago, webbles said:

Isn't this how any religious person deals with conflicts?  For instance, we can criticize Christ for cursing a fig tree for no apparent reason, breaking up legitimate commercial businesses in the temple, breaking the Sabbath, etc.  To get around that, a person who believes in Christ would use testimonies to prove that He is the Christ.  And therefore, those criticized issues are also settled.

Every single person has flaws.  If someone doesn't believe Christ is perfect, then they could point out perceived flaws in Him.  Should we just look at the person's flaws and say, "They must not be a prophet because they have flaws"?  You find Joseph's dealings with married women to be a major issue.  For me, it doesn't bother me.  I'd love to know more about what happened but I just don't see how it proves he is a false prophet.

Joseph Smith is allowed to make mistakes, but in this case he is acting as a prophet on the instructions of God, more precisely an angel with a drawn sword. If this is not true, he would be deliberately prophesying falsely and the question of the false prophet would answer itself. It would be a different matter if he had ‘fun’ with Fanny in the barn and was later sorry. Then that would just be human weakness. 

Edited November 1, 2024 by Frank11

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

...................
I’ve often wondered what Joseph’s “formal” education looked like. How literate would Joseph be after two or three years (with time out for required daily and seasonal farm duties) of whatever such schooling consisted? Not much rigorous study, one might assume, nor high scholastic expectations. In the early 1800s, the mother was the primary teacher of the children, and while there may have been some sort of community effort to school the children, teachers were not trained nor accredited. Most schools used advanced students to monitor or tutor their peers under the direction of the teacher.

I went to school the old fashioned way, a one-room schoolhouse with one teacher and one room with pot-bellied stove and grades one through eight.  Blackboards, wooden desks with ink-wells, steel-nib pens, and scrap paper to practice penmanship or math.  No kindergarten.  As a second-grader, the teacher had me take the two first-graders out onto the porch under the belfrey where I would read to them.

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Kind of like Hyrum did. 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smiths-education-and-intellect-as-described-in-documentary-sources/

Of course, due to his typhoid and osteomyelitis in 1813, Joseph spent the summer recuperating at his uncle's place in Salem, Mass.  Did Joseph meet and play with young Nathaniel Hawthorne that summer?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/31/2024 at 12:07 PM, Anakin7 said:

 Thank you Robert My Brother In Christ Jesus for your thought/post, it is good to hear from you. May True Grace be with you and all you Love.

A heartfelt thank you to you, Brother Anakin

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Frank11 said:

Joseph Smith is allowed to make mistakes, but in this case he is acting as a prophet on the instructions of God, more precisely an angel with a drawn sword. If this is not true, he would be deliberately prophesying falsely and the question of the false prophet would answer itself. It would be a different matter if he had ‘fun’ with Fanny in the barn and was later sorry. Then that would just be human weakness. 

I'm not talking about mistakes but things that can be criticized.  When Christ broke up up legitimate businesses at the temple, it ruined people's livelihood; prevented people from worshipping and fulfilling commandments.  And He did it because He said He was doing under God's authority.

You don't believe that Jospeh was commanded to practice polygamy and you see that as strong proof he is a false prophet.  And someone who believes temple worship shouldn't be interrupted by a person would also say that there strong proof to not accept Christ.  But for someone who does believe in Christ, they can find testimonies and other reasons that remove or weaken that critism.  There's nothing wrong with doing that.

Edited November 2, 2024 by webbles

[Zosimus]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

How proficient is a student today after a few years of school?

I have nephews that have never seen a day in a public school, and they are arguably more educated than many high school grads.

Joseph's father was a teacher. Grandma Mack was also a teacher. Hyrum could have been his tutor. The Mack's valued education, as we see with Stephen Mack Jr., Joseph's cousin, was also from Turnbridge and attended Moors with Hyrum. He went on to establish educational centers in the frontier, one of which became Rockford College. In Illinois, there's even a Stephen Mack Middle School and a Hononegah High School, named after Stephen Mack's wife, two hundred years later.

Bright kids, from families that valued education, could learn a lot if they had the drive. I've been reading the works of Hannah Adams. Hannah never attended school. She learned at home under the care of her father. Almost entirely self-taught, Hannah Adams would go on to write:

• View of Religious Opinions (1784)
• A Summary History of New England (1799)
• Evidences of Christianity (1801)
• The Truth and Excellence of the Christian Religion (1804)
• An Abridgment of the History of New-England: For the Use of Young Persons: Now Introduced into the Principal Schools in this Town (1807)
• History of the Jews (1812)
• Controversy with Dr. Morse (1814)
• A Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations (1817)
• Letters on the Gospels (1824; second edition 1826)

Access to books certainly helps. But I think there's very little to support the argument that Joseph didn't have access to the books he'd need to do what he was able to do. For example, he could have picked up the basics of nearly everything Hannah Adams knew about religion from one book, her "Dictionary of All Religions and Religious Denominations", which was in the Manchester Library. In History of the Jews, she talks about the different arguments supporting the claims that the Jews scattered to places as far away as the Americas, and she has some interesting comments on them being "the natural branches of the Olive Tree" broken off by unbelief, to "be grafted in again".

After going through many of the books that were circulating in Joseph's youth, I do believe we underestimate the information that was available and the conversations that were happening in towns like Hanover and Palmyra. You didn't need to sit in a classroom to participate in, and learn from, those discussions

Edited November 2, 2024 by Zosimus

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

have nephews that have never seen a day in a public school, and they are arguably more educated than many high school grads.

 

The internet probably makes a difference.

I would be more impressed by the saying so and so was a teacher if they had standardized teaching certificates at the time so we had at least a vague idea of their abilities.  At this point we have no real clue how good a teacher Joseph Sr or Hyrum were.  Apparently not good enough to make a living with it. 

Edited November 2, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Bright kids, from families that valued education, could learn a lot if they had the drive.

And the time. 

[Frank11]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

When Christ broke up up legitimate businesses at the temple, it ruined people's livelihood; prevented people from worshipping and fulfilling commandments.  

Is that really what is taught in Sunday school, would be very sad? But since some people like it, that's probably the case.

It's good that Jesus always explains himself, in this case the core statement is Mark 11:17.

"And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves."

I found the following commentary on this:

The first half of Jesus' quote is from Isaiah 56:7. Isaiah 56:3–8 prophesies about Gentiles who will worship God, and how God is faithful to them. God promises to bring non-Jews who choose Him over their families to His mountain, give them joy, and accept their offerings. This will be entirely fulfilled in the millennial kingdom, but God's purpose for Israel always included blessing Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6).

The second half of Jesus' condemnation is from Jeremiah 7:11: "Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?" The courtyard once dedicated to God-worshiping Gentiles is now filled with money changers, bird merchants, and locals who think of it as a common shortcut. They are "robbing" Gentiles of space dedicated for worship and prayer to God. They are robbing the customers through inflated prices and opportunism.

Jesus isn't addressing the offerings due to the priests. The Bible establishes that the priests deserve to be supported by the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:1) just like Christian teachers deserve to make a living from their work for the kingdom (1 Corinthians 9:8–12). Jesus is speaking to laymen who are abusing the devotion of God-worshipers for their own gain. 

I'm sure there are many other commentaries, but I'd be surprised if there was one that supported your view.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I went to school the old fashioned way, a one-room schoolhouse with one teacher and one room with pot-bellied stove and grades one through eight.  Blackboards, wooden desks with ink-wells, steel-nib pens, and scrap paper to practice penmanship or math.  No kindergarten.  As a second-grader, the teacher had me take the two first-graders out onto the porch under the belfrey where I would read to them.

Of course, due to his typhoid and osteomyelitis in 1813, Joseph spent the summer recuperating at his uncle's place in Salem, Mass.  Did Joseph meet and play with young Nathaniel Hawthorne that summer?

Of course he did. How else could Joseph have become such a capable writer an early age? He clearly absorbed Hawthorne’s stereotypical image of Native Americans which he then so skillfully projected onto his Book of Mormon Lamanites…

Quote

A party of Indians--in their savage finery of curiously embroidered deerskin robes, wampum-belts, red and yellow ochre, and feathers, and armed with the bow and arrow and stone-headed spear--stood apart with countenances of inflexible gravity, beyond what even the Puritan aspect could attain.

Where was your school? Apparently you were taught quite well,  considering what you have accomplished in your life.