Joseph's Smith Conveniently Never Knew

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SirThomasMore

Guest
Ok, so we have a guy who claims God talked to him. He gets visits from God, Jesus, angels, Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, etc etc. He finds plates and writes a book.

He claims God tells him so many things. He is told who to send where, how to build things, that people should build him a house, what to eat, where to go, how to, where to, when to, everything. He is told about people who were the basis of the BM. He is told about what they said, when they said it, what they did, ate, used to to fight…etc.

Seems God told him everything…except WHERE the Book of Mormon took place…

Does that seem even plausible to you? God tells you all about the people and their lives…even to the extent that the American Indians are their descendants…but does not tell you where it took place?

It seems that every one of the things Joseph could not use as proof (the plates, etc.) there is a very convenient reason.

Now we have God telling Joe EVERYTHING…except WHERE. How handy. Because no one could ever go excavate.

Does that seem even close to reality?
 
SirThomasMore said:
Now we have God telling Joe EVERYTHING…except WHERE. How handy. Because no one could ever go excavate.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Smith was afraid of excavations, because he probably believed that the Indians really were Israelites. That was such a common claim at the time, that even one American President, William Henry Harrison, believed it.

One of the reasons that has been suggested as to why the final battle at Cumorah was so huge, involving millions of soldiers, is that it explains the existence of Indian burial mounds in the area. People thought the Iroquois were too savage to have made them (and indeed they didn’t), so they supposed that they housed the remains of another, more cultivated race that the Iroquois had destroyed. On that basis Smith might have expected favorable results from excavation, and he in fact cited a post-BOM reprint of Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews as confirming evidence of Hebrew civilization in North America.
 
soren1 said:
I don’t think Smith was afraid of excavations, because he probably believed that the Indians really were Israelites.
Click to expand...
I think Smith was not afraid because he was too busy riding a wave of BS he and his associates were creating.
 
TikiTokiguy said:
I think Smith was not afraid because he was too busy riding a wave of BS he and his associates were creating.
Click to expand...
Sure, but my point is that it was a calculated wave. The BOM was not as far out at the time as it seems to be today. Barely anybody suspected that the Indians came from Asia, whereas theories of their Hebrew origins were respectable and thought by many to be supported by evidence.
 
I never meant to give the impression that Smith did not tell where because he was afraid of excavation. I meant that him not knowing is handy because it makes it hard to excavate.

I think Smith was not specific as to place because he simnply did not know, when writing his fiction, where to place it. The more vague, the better. Hard for anyone to disprove the existance of something that no one knows where it is.
 
SirThomasMore said:
I never meant to give the impression that Smith did not tell where because he was afraid of excavation. I meant that him not knowing is handy because it makes it hard to excavate.

I think Smith was not specific as to place because he simnply did not know, when writing his fiction, where to place it. The more vague, the better. Hard for anyone to disprove the existance of something that no one knows where it is.
Click to expand...
I see I misunderstood you, but I’m still not sure I agree. I suspect that Smith knew that if he excited sufficient religious fervor in his followers, that he would become immune to investigation. That doesn’t mean he did nothing to cover his bases, but I don’t think he was afraid to make testable claims if they were not easily testable, or not likely to be tested. For instance, it had to occur to him that the Book of Abraham could in principle be tested if anyone could translate the papyri; but that was a remote enough possibility that is obviously did not stop him. Besides, what gave his stories their appeal was not their plausibility but their fabulousness.

Another thing to remember is that he did show the plates - or something else - to the witnesses. Mormons often think that this is very good evidence, because to pull that off would require Smith to show them something very compelling. In fact, it might have done it with a very poor mock-up, provided that he first excited sufficient desire among this followers to believe in whatever he showed them. It any case, whatever he did to persuade the witnesses involved some risk that could have threatened exposure by providing testable evidence, but he knew he could banking on it not being tested. Speaking of banks, we have evidence of him doing the same type of thing at Kirtland. Several early ex-Mormons independently claimed that to convince people of his bank’s solvency Smith lined the walls of the vault with weighted chests each marked $1,000, but which were actually filled with junk. A person audacious enough to tell really big lies is, for that very reason, unafraid of investigation. To do the kind of thing Smith did, one must be daring enough to fear no accountability.
 
soren1 said:
I

Another thing to remember is that he did show the plates - or something else - to the witnesses. Mormons often think that this is very good evidence, because to pull that off would require Smith to show them something very compelling. In fact, it might have done it with a very poor mock-up, provided that he first excited sufficient desire among this followers to believe in whatever he showed them.
Click to expand...
From what I read Smith let a witness hold the plates but they were covered with cloth or something. So someone held the plates but did not actually see them. And don’t forget the difference in “seeing” and “spiritually seeing”. Sounds like no one really truly saw the plates.
 
soren1 said:
I see I misunderstood you, but I’m still not sure I agree. I suspect that Smith knew that if he excited sufficient religious fervor in his followers, that he would become immune to investigation. That doesn’t mean he did nothing to cover his bases, but I don’t think he was afraid to make testable claims if they were not easily testable, or not likely to be tested. For instance, it had to occur to him that the Book of Abraham could in principle be tested if anyone could translate the papyri; but that was a remote enough possibility that is obviously did not stop him. Besides, what gave his stories their appeal was not their plausibility but their fabulousness.

Another thing to remember is that he did show the plates - or something else - to the witnesses. Mormons often think that this is very good evidence, because to pull that off would require Smith to show them something very compelling. In fact, it might have done it with a very poor mock-up, provided that he first excited sufficient desire among this followers to believe in whatever he showed them. It any case, whatever he did to persuade the witnesses involved some risk that could have threatened exposure by providing testable evidence, but he knew he could banking on it not being tested. Speaking of banks, we have evidence of him doing the same type of thing at Kirtland. Several early ex-Mormons independently claimed that to convince people of his bank’s solvency Smith lined the walls of the vault with weighted chests each marked $1,000, but which were actually filled with junk. A person audacious enough to tell really big lies is, for that very reason, unafraid of investigation. To do the kind of thing Smith did, one must be daring enough to fear no accountability.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I believe Smith knew that the more vague he was in certain things, the less likely it would be testable.

I also believe that he had no idea the LDS Church would grow like it did. He depended on people being gullible (after all, he had people believing he could locate treasure) but I doubt he ever believed they could be THIS gullible.

And I also have often speculated that, after his success in fooling people, he began to believe in his own legend and press clippings. He grew in to actually believing what he was saying.

I also believe that he never knew, nor should he have known (unless he was a prophet) that many of his claims could be actually tested in the future (DNA, advances in archeology, science, etc.).
 
I also believe that he never knew, nor should he have known (unless he was a prophet) that many of his claims could be actually tested in the future (DNA, advances in archeology, science, etc.).
Click to expand...
I really don’t think he thought of future generations. All he cared about was his own profit and privileges in his own lifetime. He thought it could not be proved a fraud in his lifetime.

IMHO, however, I think his “critics” were well on the way to proving it a fraud by June of 1844, but others were too angry by then to wait for such a trial. The chaos that ensued then allowed his followers to obscure and destroy the evidence.
 
SirThomasMore said:
Perhaps. I believe Smith knew that the more vague he was in certain things, the less likely it would be testable.

I also believe that he had no idea the LDS Church would grow like it did. He depended on people being gullible (after all, he had people believing he could locate treasure) but I doubt he ever believed they could be THIS gullible.

And I also have often speculated that, after his success in fooling people, he began to believe in his own legend and press clippings. He grew in to actually believing what he was saying.

I also believe that he never knew, nor should he have known (unless he was a prophet) that many of his claims could be actually tested in the future (DNA, advances in archeology, science, etc.).
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with thomas, I think he just wanted to have money, power, respect, and women. He didn’t think that anyone would put his legend to the test. It doesn’t matter to him now, because he’s dead, and he obviously didn’t care who succeeded him, because he never made it clear. It’s still desputed today, which is why there are the LDS,RLDS, FLDS, etc.
 
LongJourney said:
I really don’t think he thought of future generations. All he cared about was his own profit and privileges in his own lifetime. He thought it could not be proved a fraud in his lifetime.

IMHO, however, I think his “critics” were well on the way to proving it a fraud by June of 1844, but others were too angry by then to wait for such a trial. The chaos that ensued then allowed his followers to obscure and destroy the evidence.
Click to expand...
Thanks longjourney, I started posting my last responce before you posted yours.
 
SirThomasMore,
I like your style, dude.

Can you recommend a good book about REAL Mormonism?
 
mrmagoo661 said:
SirThomasMore,
I like your style, dude.

Can you recommend a good book about REAL Mormonism?
Click to expand...
There are a series of books by Roger LeBlanc called “Catholicism on Trial”. One of the books is about Mormonism. It is written in a trial format. The series has titles on several Catholic Doctrines. I have purchased several, but the only one I have read so far is the one on Mormonism. I enjoyed the book.

There is another book, written by a Mormon, called “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”. The author, Grant Palmer, is still LDS, I believe. I know he was when he wrote it. It is a very good book that I recommend highly.

Finally, there is a book called “One Nation Under Gods” by Richard Abanes that I found had a lot of good information in it. This book is where I first read about Joe being just one of several people people in his area to have “seen God”. Joe was not even original in his “visions”.

Good Luck
 
Did Smith say he didn’t know where it took place? I don’t think that is the case. I believe he felt it took place in the neighborhood in which he lived – the North American continent with a final battle at Cumorah in New York. It is only modern day Mormons who can’t figure out where it took place.
 
SirThomasMore said:
There is another book, written by a Mormon, called “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”. The author, Grant Palmer, is still LDS, I believe. I know he was when he wrote it. It is a very good book that I recommend highly.
Click to expand...
I’ll second that! I don’t see how anyone could read that book and remain a believing LDS. When I read it, I felt even more foolish for ever having fallen for it.
 
Catholic20064 said:
Did Smith say he didn’t know where it took place? I don’t think that is the case. I believe he felt it took place in the neighborhood in which he lived – the North American continent with a final battle at Cumorah in New York. It is only modern day Mormons who can’t figure out where it took place.
Click to expand...
That’s true. In the Cumorah thread, we presented many statements from Joseph and the LDS General Authorities stating that the one and only Hill Cumorah is the one in upstate New York. It is only with the advent of modern technology that rank and file LDS are trying to distance themselves from this claim. They are ashamed of the fact that every new advancement proves Joseph Smith to be a fraud.

The LDS hope that if they can make their historical claims vague enough, there will always be room for plausible deniability of those claims.
 
SirThomasMore said:
There are a series of books by Roger LeBlanc called “Catholicism on Trial”. One of the books is about Mormonism. It is written in a trial format. The series has titles on several Catholic Doctrines. I have purchased several, but the only one I have read so far is the one on Mormonism. I enjoyed the book.

There is another book, written by a Mormon, called “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”. The author, Grant Palmer, is still LDS, I believe. I know he was when he wrote it. It is a very good book that I recommend highly.

Finally, there is a book called “One Nation Under Gods” by Richard Abanes that I found had a lot of good information in it. This book is where I first read about Joe being just one of several people people in his area to have “seen God”. Joe was not even original in his “visions”.

Good Luck
Click to expand...
Thank you very much Sir.
I will check those out soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top