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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eliza10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
There are, as Mr. Abanes knows – I have tweaked his nose about it more than once – two versions of this alleged “transcript,” which is not an official court document. The version Abanes chose not to use does not contain the bolded part, which appears to be a later interpolation.
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”.
I have looked carefully at the picture. (I am familiar with the document in question, BTW; there is not much anti-Mormon stuff I’m not familiar with.) It doesn’t say he paid a fine. It says the JP charged that much for the time he spent on the hearing. The document in question is the JP’s expenses claim to the county, not a list of fines or penalties. Note that he claimed for all of the cases he heard.
BTW, he was 20 years old at the time of the trial, so he was (in those days) considered an adult.
BTW, in those days an adult was someone 21 or older. He was in the employ of Deacon Stowell, and worked under his direction, as his servant or agent. Assuming for the sake of argument that Joseph really was doing anything illegal at Stowell’s behest, why was Stowell not arrested therefor?

Regards,
Pahoran
 
Are you able to make any argument without comparing your target to Hitler?

Regards,
Pahoran
If Hitler was one of the most abysmal examples of humanity, then nearly all others shine in comparison. Do you expect us to compare Joseph Smith/Brigham Young with Mother Theresa? Do modern LDS really choose Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as models for behavior? Or perhaps you would rather take Moroni as a model for life:
For example, Captain Moroni convinced the nation to give him the power to force people to go to wars. The alternatives were imprisonment and execution…
Another example is Captain Moroni’s administering of possibly poisoned food and drink to his prisoners of war. While this may seem a type of poetic irony, it strikes me as a great abuse of prisoners, who are wholly dependent on their jailers for food…
While not a war crime, Moroni’s tendency to insist on unconditional surrender and treaty acceptance seems to prolong the war… Perhaps Zarahemnah and Ammoron would have responded better to Nephite peace overtures if Moroni hadn’t insisted on implying they were the children of hell.
Mormon, a participant in a scorched earth campaign, presents these details without comment… Why else the inclusion of Moroni’s threats of military coup when writing to the legally-elected, civil authorities of his country?
bycommonconsent.com/2008/09/01/captain-moroni-war-criminal/

Would you do what Moroni did? I certainly hope you would not do what Hitler did; by his refusal to yield, his beloved country was nearly destroyed. In fact, one analysis of Hitler indicates he hated Germany. Many Mormons have suffered because of the actions and decisions of their leaders. Hand-carts across the Great Plains in winter-time, anyone?

What would Moroni do? What would Joseph do? What would Brigham do?

or:

What would Jesus do?
 
If Hitler was one of the most abysmal examples of humanity, then nearly all others shine in comparison. Do you expect us to compare Joseph Smith/Brigham Young with Mother Theresa?
I expect people who are engaging in an interfaith discussion with some semblance of good faith to avoid making extreme, invidious and gratuitously inflammatory comparisons.

Is that really too much to expect?
Do modern LDS really choose Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as models for behavior?
No; we largely hold up Jesus as the great exemplar.
Or perhaps you would rather take Moroni as a model for life:
I certainly would not take the writer of that hatchet piece as a model of responsible historiography.
Many Mormons have suffered because of the actions and decisions of their leaders. Hand-carts across the Great Plains in winter-time, anyone?
Actually the “leaders” advised the Martin company against setting out that late in the season; and winter set in unusually early and with unusual severity that year.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
Actually the “leaders” advised the Martin company against setting out that late in the season; and winter set in unusually early and with unusual severity that year.
I appreciate that bit of information, Not really done much research about it. However, horse and travois would have been almost as inexpensive, and much faster. Or do you think they might have rebelled against using a “Lamanite” means of travel?
 
Part 2:… The Book of Mormon is offered as the documentary evidence for Joseph’s supernatural claims, not the other way around.
Okay. But then people do question the supernatural origins of the said evidence, and then search for the proof of supernatural, as well as proofs of it not being supernatrual. Looking for proof of the supernatrual is what a lot of people do with the Bible, and those same people (i.e., Bible Scholars) look for the same things in the BofM.
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.
True.
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.
Yes, I do think she made a rather sympathetic biography of Smith. It was strange, even though there were so many troubling revelations about what Smith did, he came off kind of likeable. Probably because it was so admirable that he had such a fertile imagination to come up with the BofM of the top of his head – still there is much imagination, even with the “it came to pass’s” and the “children of men’s” – to think he could have sat and dictated it into a hat like that was pretty remarkable. And then the way he rolled with the times, starting out with just needing a book to keep his family afloat, and then having it evolve naturally into this religion. That was pretty impressive, the way Brodie presented it.

Well now I am not* as* impressed, as I read the Spalding-Rigdon theory, which makes the most logical plain sense. The fertile imagination was highly supplemented by the imagination of other intelligent imaginative people like Spalding and Rigdon and maybe Cowdry, and the “new, restored religion” was Rigdon’s dream - he just needed the convincing charisma of a man like Smith to pull it off. The theology - some of it is good - came from the Cambellite religion. So it really was a group effort - thats why it was so surprising to thinkof it coming from one man.

And that makes Smith more of a plain old lying con man - sorry, Pahoran; I know that won’t sit well with you, and that’s okay, I respect that --, and of course a* false prophe*t - as his brother William, Rigdon, Cowdry, and other close associates often called him.
What mattered to Joseph was his religious mission, centered in his early religious experiences.
I disagree. I think what mattered to Joseph was being the star of his religion, having the attention and esteem of many people, not to mention an ever-improving lifestyle, a fine home, secular as well as religious power, and his out-of-control appetite for having lots of women to bed, who felt they had to be his extra wives because he said that God said so. What mattered to him is what the facts of his life spell out.

As to religious experiences, Joseph’s childhod was not marked by and piety or by religious experiences, but by magic arts, tricking people and story-telling - so say ALL who knew young Joseph, and there are no known exceptions, outside his immediate family. It was Rigdon who had the religious experiences (though I would not say he was pious.)
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.
I read all the reviews on Amazon, and I saw none that agree with you there, unless they were LDS. I am sure on LDS sites there are plenty to agree with you, but its the bias speaking. Her book was not a hatchet job.

So what if Brodie did not grant that Smith’s early experiences are real? If one follows is objective, one must first eliminate the supernatural, and look for natural explanations And if there are none, then look at supernatural. Brodie found so many plausible natural explanations, there was no need to consider supernatrual.]

**
 
[response to Pahoran, continued]
…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?

I do not think you are being logical, though I believe you are sincerely trying to be. SirThomasMore and others here are doing a good job pointing out what is not logical about your arguments. And I think the problem here is what Long Journey describes as “cognitive dissonance” (well explained at the beginning of the book he links on his posts). It explains a lot. And I am sorry for that, having experienced the same thing myself, in another context. You are believing something not true, and believing in falsehood holds you as a certain slave, in a context. However, you believe you are believing truth, and it is only natural, and I think honorable, to hold fast to what you believe is true.


…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?
No, I don’t think so. On the other hand, I think that unless you are willing to temporarily suspend your belief in the supernatural explanation for the book of Mormon, you cannot possibly see the plain logic to the natural explanations. So why can you not do that? I think it is your training - and post-Mormons can say better than I - - is it something in your training that makes it a big no-no to temporarily suspend your belief in Smith/BofM in order to look at the situation impartially???


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.
But that would be impossible! No naturalistic explanation will satisfy all the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddists, the SDA’s, the Jehovah’s witnesses, either. It is too strong a cultural identity, for one, and some people just can’t, just don’t want to let go of it. Some people do NOT WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH - at least not certain parts of it - and God does not violate the will of a person. Thankfully He is able to work with this anyway, with His grace; He works with cracked pots all the time, and only He knows whose hearts are culpable.


First it was declared that “obviously” Joseph wrote it himself. Then came the Spaulding theory, which has died and been resuscitated…
Sometimes purposely hidden truths take a little CSI detective work. Not all the clues are found immediately, many clues have been purposely destroyed. Brodie’s theory was strong, and really excellent with what she had to work with. The Spalding-Rigdon theory is really strong.


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.
Hmm, no, I didn’t read it that way. I am not saying she didn’t make that argument (that Joe did it to “play a joke on his parents”) but perhaps if she did argue that, its based on the fact that he did, in his youth, tell them stories as a “joke” and was surprised at their credulity, and then would keep the story alive when he saw they believed, according to the testimony of a neighbor and childhood friend of Joe Smith’s (Joe is what they called him, according to history, and as we are tallking about him in a historical way, thats why I am calling him that).

 
There are, as Mr. Abanes knows – I have tweaked his nose about it more than once – two versions of this alleged “transcript,” which is not an official court document. The version Abanes chose not to use does not contain the bolded part, which appears to be a later interpolation.
A transcript is not an official court document? I see, so when appeals courts etc. review trial transcripts, they aren’t looking at “official” court documents? I wonder if the Supreme Court is aware of this? :eek:
I have looked carefully at the picture. (I am familiar with the document in question, BTW; there is not much anti-Mormon stuff I’m not familiar with.) It doesn’t say he paid a fine. It says the JP charged that much for the time he spent on the hearing. The document in question is the JP’s expenses claim to the county, not a list of fines or penalties. Note that he claimed for all of the cases he heard.
You are aware, that in many cases, when a person is found guilty, they are required to pay the costs of the trial right?
You also realize that in many cases, a person convicted of such a crime was merely run out of town right?
BTW, in those days an adult was someone 21 or older. He was in the employ of Deacon Stowell, and worked under his direction, as his servant or agent. Assuming for the sake of argument that Joseph really was doing anything illegal at Stowell’s behest, why was Stowell not arrested therefor?
So, using your logic, JS should be tried for all of the hanky panky with underage women right? Or doesn’t that apply? Not really good territory you’re heading into now is it?

BTW, As of now, in New York State, the age of adulthood is 18, please provide proof for your assumption that it was 21 at the time.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
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.
Pahoran, I am in the camp now that believes Joseph Smith was not only a false prophet, but a con man. And I am certainly not throwing that label about carelessly. I gave him all the benefit of the doubt - I pressumed “pious fraud” before I read the Spalding-Rigdon theory . Though, it was strange to me that the actions of taking 30- 50 or 60 wives, in two years, and in the grossly immoral manner that he did*, were not the actions of any kind of pious person though. Still, I was willing to suspend judgment until I had more facts. But con man really is the only logical explanation, and it really is what the evidence presents.

*Actually, I can’t think of a “moral” way to take on all those wives, unless you did it to protect them in some way, and lived chastely with them, and supported them, because they had no other means of support and no other possiblility of marrying – all the men had died because of plague?? Really, its a stretch to imagine collecting all these wives being in any way moral.
 
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 [who began with a bias for]…
Yes, it looks like you can’t win no matter where you begin.
 
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.
Hmm, that* is* odd.
 
Are you able to make any argument without comparing your target to Hitler?

Regards,
Pahoran
He did that because you said, “The accusation that Joseph was a “conman” is at best a disputed, controversial accusation against a religious leader revered by millions” SirThomas was pointing out that being revered by million is not an endorsement. Hitler is an example of how someone can be really evil in all their actions and* still* be revered by millions.

SirThomasMore was certainly not likening Smith to Hitler, so there is no need to take offense…
 
He did that because you said, “The accusation that Joseph was a “conman” is at best a disputed, controversial accusation against a religious leader revered by millions” SirThomas was pointing out that being revered by million is not an endorsement. Hitler is an example of how someone can be really evil in all their actions and* still* be revered by millions.

SirThomasMore was certainly not likening Smith to Hitler, so there is no need to take offense…
ah…how refreshing,…an intelligent voice
 
It does seem a LITTLE soon to invoke Godwin’s law, at that…
lol…well, your co-heart seemd to have the silly idea that how the number of people that revere someone actually means something.

I disppelled that silly notion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top