If Jos. Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon, Who did?

[SirThomasMore]

]I must be a remarkably dense person

.

don;t be so hard on yourself. Do more studying and you won;t be…of course, then you won;t be LDS, either

 

[Pahoran]

Part 2:

Until I began to read Long Journey’s book*** I could not express clearly why this seemed the right approach.

But Long Journey gives the logical reason. (Thanks LG!). Its called the “Occam’s razor”. LG explains:

“The first premise of Occam’s razor [OR] is “no supernatural interventions”. This premise … implies that since Gods purposes are so complex as to be beyond understanding, peole can only call an event a miracle when they ahve ruled out all other possible causes for the event. …The original use of OR was to combat religious faud, , such as promotion of fraudulent relics and iracles. The Catholic Chruch still uses it in its evaluation of miracles.”

Except that you are putting the cart before the horse. “Supernatural intervention” is not an ad hoc explanation cobbled together to explain what is otherwise unexplainable in the Book of Mormon; rather, it was put forward right from the start, before there was ever a book to explain. The Book of Mormon is offered as the documentary evidence for Joseph’s supernatural claims, not the other way around.

But here’s the thing: although Brodie started off trying to explain away the Book of Mormon, what she ended up producing was a biography of Joseph Smith. And it is in the nature of biographical writing that the only good biography is a sympathetic one. I don’t mean one that assumes that the subject is perfect, or even a “good guy,” but one that makes a pretty determined effort to understand what matters to the subject, and what he was trying to achieve.

What mattered to Joseph was his religious mission, centered in his early religious experiences. Brodie did not – because she could not – grant that those early experiences were real, even to him, and so she inevitably turned out a hatchet job.

It was entertainingly written; but it was still a hatchet job.

So it is not logical for me to first assume it must be purely a supernatural miracle, as I understand you are obligated to assume if you are a Mormon. I am not Mormon, so I am not bound to that. I can look at it in a logical way, and logic says I must use Occam’s razor.

So because you are not a Mormon, you can be logical. The corollary to that would seem to be that Mormons cannot be logical about this subject. Is that what you were saying?

Question: does this apply to all believers, or only to Mormons?

Would you say, for example, that St. Thomas Aquinas was illogical?

Don’t you see how easily this could also apply to you? Given that your own religious faith obligates you to assume that the Book of Mormon does not have a divine origin, wouldn’t that make it difficult if not impossible for you to dispassionately consider the evidence in favour of that possiblity?

So the purpose of this thread to research in order to understand how the Book of Mormon got written, and my motivation is motivated by that strong sense that “something is awry!”

You’re right. In 180 years, no single naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon has arisen that has satisfied all those who reject it. First it was declared that “obviously” Joseph wrote it himself. Then came the Spaulding theory, which has died and been resuscitated more often that Christopher Lee in the 1960’s Dracula movies. Then came Mrs. Brodie, with her “Joseph did it using View of the Hebrews in order to play a joke on his parents” theory. (Did you realise that that was her theory? Nailing down what she is actually arguing can be difficult at times.) Clearly, something is seriously awry.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

You’re right. In 180 years, no single naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon has arisen that has satisfied all those who reject it.

that is not uncommon. Joe was a criminal…he was convicted of treasure seeking, later ran from a charge of bank fraud, violated peoples’ rights…

many crimes have gone unexplained…look at the Kennedy assassination. The bottom line, it is not from God…it is not divinely inspired. The Spaulding Theory seems the most likely, especially since we have sworn testimony from people who knew his work that has yet to be refuted.

 

[Pahoran]

that is not uncommon.

Really? You know of other large books purporting to be divinely inspired for which no satisfactory naturalistic explanation has been forthcoming for almost two centuries? Do tell!

Joe was a criminal…

Evidently you, Sir, were a “Mormon” just long enough to figure out how to offend believing Latter-day Saints without tripping the moderating team’s remarkably high threshold of tolerance for someone else’s ox being gored.

Since Joseph was never convicted of any crime, you as a lawyer have no good faith basis to believe what you assert.

And people call him “Joe” only to taunt and offend Latter-day Saints who hold him in high esteem.

he was convicted of treasure seeking,

He was not even tried for “treasure seeking,” which was not a crime in New York, and was discharged without trial from the “examination” (now called a preliminary hearing) to which you allude.

But hey – why let the facts get in the way of a good story? After all, as a matter of law, you can’t libel the dead.

later ran from a charge of bank fraud,

That’s as truthful as most of your assertions. He fronted up to the charge of breaching a banking regulation and paid the fine.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[PaulDupre]

He was not even tried for “treasure seeking,” which was not a crime in New York, and was discharged without trial from the “examination” (now called a preliminary hearing) to which you allude.

Uh oh…

 

[Eliza10]

Well I am two thirds through the Criddle website and I think its safe to say I am a Spalding-Rigdon theory convert now. I don’t see any way around that.

Its great to have the Briodie book make even more sense now. I will have to read Long Journey’s book too, as I think, LG, you must address how Brodie missed this?

i am glad I read the Brodie book first adn got the broader historical context. Now most of those names mentioned int he Spalding-aRigdon theory are familiar. But actually I liked Joseph Smith more when I had just read her book than I do now after reading Spalding-Rigdon theory where he now seems more of a plotting con man that the more likeable figure that Brodie portrays (in spite of the fact that she exposed his many deciets). She really is rather sympathetic towward him, as I think some of the Mormon reviewers mentioned on the Amazon reviews.

Now why is that? The Criddle website makes this point:

**[re: Smith as a con man] … evidence that shows Smith to have been an honest man is also consistent with the con man theory, because that is precisely how many successful con men normally present themselves. A successful con man must pass himself off as trustworthy in order to gain the “confidence” of his marks so that he can then take advantage of them. Con men may even believe at some level that they can actually do the improbable things they claim to be able to do. **

That would explain the likeable qualities that drew him to people and came across after all these years - beign likeable is how he presented himself.

That later statement I am sure is true, as IMO, I see “Narcissist” in Smith’s psychological makeup - I imagine thats been said before. A Narcissist lies and then believes his lies, at least on some level.

That would explain the likeable qualities that drew him to people and came across after all these years - being likeable is how he presented himself.

 

[Eliza10]

Pahoran, a quick response –

It looks like you are not understanding the main point of what I wrote about my approach to this question, which is, examining the issue by doing what our Church does when examining alleged miracles, relics, Saints, mystics or prophets. The first thing is to assume that the phenomena is NOT supernatural, and look to natural explanations. Only if NO natural explanations are found, then we start to look at supernatural ones.

Now I am aware that Smith claimed that the writing of the Book of Mormon was all supernatural. I am aware also that your religion requires you to believe that. And I respect that. But I am not bound by that, so I am taking a differing approach.

Just a couple of things that caught my eye:

[friend of Brodie:]“With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.”

This was essentially Brodie’s own approach as well. She said, “I was convinced before I ever began writing the book that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.” How can this be “unbiased?”

Its not a problem for me that she rejects the supernatural explanation off-hand because that is my appoach anyway (as described above).

… Naturally, just like you, I prefer writers who share my view of things that matter to me. However, I don’t go into raptures about how “unbiased” those writers are.

…http://occultview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/3.jpg
… "Oh, my! Those unbiased writers!!!"

 

[SirThomasMore]

Really? You know of other large books purporting to be divinely inspired for which no satisfactory naturalistic explanation has been forthcoming for almost two centuries? Do tell!

 

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, a quick response –

It looks like you are not understanding the main point of what I wrote about my approach to this question, which is, examining the issue by doing what our Church does when examining alleged miracles, relics, Saints, mystics or prophets. The first thing is to assume that the phenomena is NOT supernatural, and look to natural explanations. Only if NO natural explanations are found, then we start to look at supernatural ones.

Now I am aware that Smith claimed that the writing of the Book of Mormon was all supernatural. I am aware also that your religion requires you to believe that. And I respect that. But I am not bound by that, so I am taking a differing approach.

Just a couple of things that caught my eye:

Its not a problem for me that she rejects the supernatural explanation off-hand because that is my appoach anyway (as described above).

Which is my point. When you say she is “a truly unbiased mind,” what that really means is that her biases – which determined her conclusions from the beginning – are transparent to you, because they coincide with yours.

Which brings us full circle: everyone is biased. You just like Mrs. Brodie’s biases better than mine, for example, because hers conform to your worldview, while mine challenge it.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

Which is my point. When you say she is “a truly unbiased mind,” what that really means is that her biases – which determined her conclusions from the beginning – are transparent to you, because they coincide with yours.

Which brings us full circle: everyone is biased. You just like Mrs. Brodie’s biases better than mine, for example, because hers conform to your worldview, while mine challenge it.

Regards,
Pahoran

you seem to believe that having a bias pre-determines the outcome. That is not true. When I began reading LDS doctrinal books to be a better Mormon, my bias was strong LDS> It was through my studies that I realized the LDS Church was false.

 

[Pahoran]

I begin to understand why you are LDS…you keep missing the point. What I mean was, it is not uncommon for crimes to go unexplained when conmen are involved.

The accusation that Joseph was a “conman” is at best a disputed, controversial accusation against a religious leader revered by millions. At worst, it is a false accusation. It is irresponsible to throw it about so carelessly, and untruthful to pretend that it is an established fact, when you know that it is not.

As to your fictional “and it came to pass” book, how Joe got the Spaulding Book is explained on other threads.

I am familiar with the oft-exploded Spaulding theory. Not being desperate for a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon, I of course do not accept it.

Sure he was. It has been evidenced in other threads.

No. He was not.

I call him Joe because his name was Joe.

His name was Joseph Smith, Junior. You were not his personal friend on nickname terms with him. You call him “Joe” to belittle him and to annoy believing Latter-day Saints.

He was breaking the law.

What law?

He got arrested.

An arrest is not proof of guilt. He was arrested many times, and never convicted.

He got convicted of a crime.

He was discharged without trial.

If a guy is driving drunk and gets arrested for drunk driving and accepts a plea bargain to plead guilty to drunk and disorderly…does that mean he did not break the law by driving drunk?

False analogy. Joseph did not “accept a plea bargain.”

Incidentally, Joseph was a minor at the time, employed by one of the notables of the town. Why was Josiah Stowell not had up for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

Oh, that’s right; the minor in question wasn’t found guilty of anything. That’s why.

As a matter of law, truth is a defense.

Not one available to you in this instance.

However, as I already observed, you don’t need it; you can’t libel the dead.

no he didn’t. He RAN, like he almost always did, and ran away from charges.

You seem to have made an error of fact here; inadvertently, no doubt. Joseph fronted up and paid the fine. He left Kirtland, all right – because his life was in danger. But he did not defraud anyone through the KSS. He borrowed on behalf of the bank to try to keep it afloat, and even after he had moved to Missouri and then Illinois, he kept on working to repay his debts, even though his Ohio creditors could no longer touch him.

I know it’s not consistent with the caricature of Joseph you want others to accept as a faithful portrait; but it is true, nonetheless.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Pahoran]

you seem to believe that having a bias pre-determines the outcome.

That is not what I wrote. I said that Mrs. Brodie’s bias pre-determined her conclusions.

You must learn to parse English prose more carefully.

That is not true. When I began reading LDS doctrinal books to be a better Mormon, my bias was strong LDS> It was through my studies that I realized the LDS Church was false.

I am aware of the standard exit narrative.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[LongJourney]

That is not what I wrote. I said that Mrs. Brodie’s bias pre-determined her conclusions.

You must learn to parse English prose more carefully.

I am aware of the standard exit narrative.

Regards,
Pahoran

I see a problem with this post. First you fault Brodie, saying she went into her study with a bias against JS and Mormonism, then you dismiss STM’s brief exit narrative. Brodie BEGAN her study of JS before she wrote her book. She began it as a TBM. She studied her way out. Her book is only a compilation of the information she gathered on her way out.

Similarly, I BEGAN my study of the BoM with the motivation of a critic seeking to reform LDS culture from the outside. (Misguided, I know) I was even open to the possibility that it might seriously challenge my own faith. It did. My own faith matured.

It is possible for a member of LDS to read my book with an open mind, and begin, as a result, an attempt to reform LDS from the inside. There are still a few questions unanswered.

 

[LongJourney]

Perhaps you might want to refer to the opening statements of the Follett Discourse on false prophets:

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being he is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world – a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life. But if all religious teachers were honest enough to renounce their pretensions to godliness when their ignorance of the knowledge of God is made manifest, they will all be as badly off as I am, at any rate; and you might as well take the lives of other false teachers as that of mine, if I am false. If any man is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in taking away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end of blood? And who would not be the sufferer?[1]

The Privilege of Religious Freedom

But meddle not with any man for his religion: and all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God’s kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.

jon.swelter.net/king_follett_discourse.html

Here, JS says that people have the constitutional RIGHT to follow religious fraud. He as much as admits that he is a fraud. And, following the first sentence of this quote, he proceeds to go contrary to the Bible and every Christian and Jewish theologian who ever wrote.

 

[Todd520]

Perhaps you might want to refer to the opening statements of the Follett Discourse on false prophets:

jon.swelter.net/king_follett_discourse.html

Here, JS says that people have the constitutional RIGHT to follow religious fraud. He as much as admits that he is a fraud. And, following the first sentence of this quote, he proceeds to go contrary to the Bible and every Christian and Jewish theologian who ever wrote.

Well, maybe i have a reading comprehension issue, cause i understood

Par 1
He must must be connected with God to effectively convey his teachings and the Spirit into your heart. If he fails in this task then he’s a false teacher. Logical argument against killing false teachers.

Par 2
He supports constitutional Freedom of Religon, even if 99% of religious ministers are false and not connected to God. Killing all false teachers would fill the world with blood

 

[SirThomasMore]

The accusation that Joseph was a “conman” is at best

sigh, we have discussed this. I am not going to instruct you again

He was discharged without trial.

wrong. He poaid a fine.

False analogy. Joseph did not “accept a plea bargain.”

he was arrested for treasure seeking and paid a fine for something less. Do the math.

Incidentally, Joseph was a minor at the time, employed by one of the notables of the town. Why was Josiah Stowell not had up for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

Because, if Joe wsas breaking the law, Joe’s mom and dad should have also been arrested…red herring. But I like the point you have made…Joe was a conman since he was a teen

Not one available to you in this instance.

sure it is. I speak the truth. I do not jide my head in the sand and follow the party line

However, as I already observed, you don’t need it; you can’t libel the dead.

would not matter. If he was alive, there would be no lawsuit for libel because Joe would not have the courage to face a trial

You seem to have made an error of fact here; inadvertently, no doubt. Joseph fronted up and paid the fine. He left Kirtland, all right – because his life was in danger. But he did not defraud anyone through the KSS. He borrowed on behalf of the bank to try to keep it afloat, and even after he had moved to Missouri and then Illinois, he kept on working to repay his debts, even though his Ohio creditors could no longer touch him.

Wrong. he ran and ran and ran. He broke the law…he ran. He lost a lot of money for those who trusted him…he ran. He tried to run in Nauvoo until his family shamed him into going to carthage. Joe was a typical conman…do the con and run

 

[SirThomasMore]

That is not what I wrote. I said that Mrs. Brodie’s bias pre-determined her conclusions.

You must learn to parse English prose more carefully.

I am aware of the standard exit narrative.

Regards,
Pahoran

lol…nice try. I was tossing you a life raft, because everyone knows there is no way you could know what her bias did. You were, as usual, speaking without knowing.

 

[twopekinguys]

The accusation that Joseph was a “conman” is at best a disputed, controversial accusation against a religious leader revered by millions. At worst, it is a false accusation. It is irresponsible to throw it about so carelessly, and untruthful to pretend that it is an established fact, when you know that it is not.

I am familiar with the oft-exploded Spaulding theory. Not being desperate for a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon, I of course do not accept it.

No. He was not.

His name was Joseph Smith, Junior. You were not his personal friend on nickname terms with him. You call him “Joe” to belittle him and to annoy believing Latter-day Saints.

What law?

An arrest is not proof of guilt. He was arrested many times, and never convicted.

He was discharged without trial.

False analogy. Joseph did not “accept a plea bargain.”

Incidentally, Joseph was a minor at the time, employed by one of the notables of the town. Why was Josiah Stowell not had up for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

Oh, that’s right; the minor in question wasn’t found guilty of anything. That’s why.

Not one available to you in this instance.

However, as I already observed, you don’t need it; you can’t libel the dead.

You seem to have made an error of fact here; inadvertently, no doubt. Joseph fronted up and paid the fine. He left Kirtland, all right – because his life was in danger. But he did not defraud anyone through the KSS. He borrowed on behalf of the bank to try to keep it afloat, and even after he had moved to Missouri and then Illinois, he kept on working to repay his debts, even though his Ohio creditors could no longer touch him.

I know it’s not consistent with the caricature of Joseph you want others to accept as a faithful portrait; but it is true, nonetheless.

Regards,
Pahoran

I am afraid you are mistaken, he was in fact convicted. (bolding mine)

*Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826.

That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the amn the witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money: And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.

• Joseph Smith’s 1826 court transcript; see Abanes, One Nation Under Gods, p. 501*

I don’t know if I would use “He was arrested many times, and never convicted.” as a defense. Look at OJ.

I have attached a picture of where he paid the court for hearing his case. “fine”.

BTW, he was 20 years old at the time of the trial, so he was (in those days) considered an adult.

 

[twopekinguys]

It’s funny how things change.

It used to be widely known and discussed that JS put his head in his hat for the “translation” process.

Now that his fraud conviction has been found and become public, we don’t hear that so much anymore. In fact, most artistic representations of JS “translating” the BoM, show him looking at the plates, without a scribe or anyone else present.

When I was at lds.org, I really had to dig to find anything that mentioned the head in the hat process.

 

[Eliza10]

Pahoran, I am feeling I should have given you a more serious answer to parts of your posts #40 that I ignored, and the next one, so I am going to try here. But I do think SirThomasMore, Long Journey and Twopekingguys are doing a great job addressing things!

…“A sense that something is awry” is something quite different than the approach Brodie took. Her good friend and confidant, Dale Morgan, once wrote:

“With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.”

This was essentially Brodie’s own approach as well. She said, “I was convinced before I ever began writing the book that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.” How can this be “unbiased?”

I agree, Brodie’s friend Dale Morgan did have a very different approach (God does not exist) than just “something is awry”. It does seem like a very big bias, one that must trip one up a lot. And you and I and Catholics and Mormons are on the side of truth here: God exists. We can be so grateful to not have to live with such an error as Morgan does.

As I said: it was written to inform, not entertain. I can see where it might be heavy going, and if scholarly writing is not your ouvre. I had no problem with it.

This comment refers to the link you gave to explain an earlier question, the link to a long, long article that I skimmed through and concluded was “extremely boring!”. That is still my assessment. I did not realize that your friend wrote it, however, I still stand with my evaluation. Yes, I can see it was meant to inform. Some people can inform in a more readable way than others - it takes a particular kind of intelligence to do that.

As to your above reference to “scholarly articles”, your friend’s article, was, IMO, not very scholarly - my impression was: “bad scholarship”. Bad scholars do get degrees, so I am not questioning if your friend has degree credentials.

One thing I recall from my skimming is his calling non-Mormons “the gentiles”. LOL, that is goofy-sounding, and quaint, at best. Clannish, maybe. I guess it’s “insider talk”, but, if endeavoring to address to a broader audience, I don’t think its appropriate terminology. I think the Jewish people would have a thing or too to say about implication that Mormons are Jews.

Such things, and there were many in his article, detract from his main point. It was very hard to find his main points in his writing style. It was just not very readable.

There seems to be a natural human tendency for us to readily spot the biases of those with whom we disagree, but to be quite unconscious of our own, including when they are shared by others.

I am sure you are right about that.