Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[Synneve]

I am thankful that discerning truth is not just for those with the longest degrees and honors list.

So am I.

God uses the simple to confound the wise.

Of course he does.

But you raised the issue of reading, and you announced that everything you’ve read paints Joseph Smith as a self-serving fraud. I don’t doubt for a moment that everything you’ve read about him paints him so. But, plainly, you’ve haven’t read much, and you’re unwilling to read much, and your denunciation of “propaganda” comes across as deeply ironic, and your professed devotion to “facts” seems very hollow:

If you think those books are great, thats wonderful for you. I have not read those books and I have NO interest in reading them.

Indeed.

If you think the website you have not read is “propaganda” before you even read it, thats your perrogative. And it’s what I expected.

I didn’t say that I hadn’t read it. I have read it. And very much on that topic besides.

(Which is, perhaps, not precisely what you had expected.)

But I am curious what bones you have to pick with the Bibliography of the site - a fine collection of primary sources:

If you think that most of the items you listed are primary sources, you apparently don’t know the meaning of the term primary source. Your list consists almost entirely of secondary sources.

What do I think of them? I think they’re worth reading. I’ve read them. In fact, I own all of them. And the author of In Sacred Loneliness has been a friend of mine for nearly thirty years.

I think they’re all part of the conversation. As are such items as

mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=291

mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=290

and, most recently,

mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=2&id=721

None of which, it goes without saying, you’ll be willing to read. But at least one or two others here may want to inform themselves before pronouncing on this subject. At a very minimum, it’s safer that way.

 

[Synneve]

Find me a biography of Joseph Smith, written by a non-mormon, that comes to the same conclusions, then we’ll talk. I’ll never leave the Catholic faith, but at least I might, and I stress might, be willing to give it more credibility. A biography of Joseph Smith written by an LDS that doesn’t come to the conclusion he is a fraud is no surprise whatsoever. That is exactly the conclusion I would expect them to come up with. Sometimes educational credentials don’t mean a lot when their biases come shining through.

Would you respect my decision – if I ever were to make such an absurd decision – to post and pronounce upon Catholic issues while vowing never to read anything about Catholicism, Catholic leaders, or Catholic claims unless it were written by a non-Catholic?

I sincerely hope not.

Still, if you refuse to read a biography written by Richard Bushman, one of the most respected of American historians, that was published by a prestigious non-Mormon press in New York City, simply because he’s a Latter-day Saint, I can nonetheless offer you Robert V. Remini’s Joseph Smith (New York, 2002). Remini is perhaps the leading historian of Jacksonian America, and a non-Mormon:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Remini

 

[Eliza10]

I didn’t say that I hadn’t read it. I have read it. And very much on that topic besides.
.

Okay great you’ve read it. So do you think God wanted Smith to ask each of those girls/woman/teens/wives to marry him him? Smith told the girls God commanded him to ask them. What do you think? Was he telling the truth, or was he lying?

…http://www.for-cats-only.com/images/submittedPhotos/reviews/reviewFurnitureDorus01.jpg

 

[Synneve]

Okay great you’ve read it. So do you think God wanted Smith to ask each of those girls/woman/teens/wives to marry him him? Smith told the girls God commanded him to ask them. What do you think? Was he telling the truth, or was he lying.

Sorry, Eliza. You refuse to read serious, balanced scholarship on the life of Joseph Smith, dismissing it all (without even having set eyes on it) as “propaganda,” and then you demand that I respond here to the accusations of a genuine propaganda web site?

The double standard is breathtaking.

I think Professor Bushman’s treatment of this subject is quite good, as is Greg Smith’s. I’ve identified them for you, and, in Dr. Smith’s case, supplied you with a link. You’re welcome to read them. Or not. Your choice.

 

[PaulDupre]

No serious historian of Mormonism, believer or not, accepts the Spalding/Rigdon hypothesis. Not a single one. That should suggest something, I think.

You mean, no Mormon accepts it. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[Eliza10]

Sorry, Eliza. You refuse to read serious, balanced scholarship on the life of Joseph Smith, dismissing it all (without even having set eyes on it) as “propaganda,” and then you demand that I respond here to the accusations of a genuine propaganda web site?

The double standard is breathtaking.

I think Professor Bushman’s treatment of this subject is quite good, as is Greg Smith’s. I’ve identified them for you, and, in Dr. Smith’s case, supplied you with a link. You’re welcome to read them. Or not. Your choice.

You know, this is interesting. This conversation with you sounds manipulative. And Smith - he was a master manipulatior.

…http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/466037263_bc4b8fc3fa.jpg

 

[Eliza10]

I’ll be heading for bed now…
Hope you all enjoyed the kitties
…http://www.dailykitten.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/1164033386kitten.jpg
And the Fairies
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/aspen/sussex/blake.jpg

I’m going to be away
on retreat
so you can have the last word
(for now)
because I’ll be back

I’ll set my compass
…http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3381/3615945882_a1beb63e01.jpg

 

[Synneve]

You mean, no Mormon accepts it. Gee, I wonder why?

No. I meant what I said. No serious historian, believer or not, accepts it.

There is no sign that Robert Remini, the eminent non-Mormon historian and Smith biographer, accepts it. There is nothing to suggest that John Brooke, the prize-winning non-Mormon historian of early Mormon thought, accepts it. The famous Smith biographer Fawn Brodie, who was definitely not a believer, rejected it. The contemporary Smith biographer Dan Vogel, who is definitely not a believer, rejects it.

No serious historian of Mormonism, believer or not, defender or critic, Mormon or non-Mormon, accepts the Spalding/Ridgon theory of Book of Mormon authorship. Not a single one.

You know, this is interesting. This conversation with you sounds manipulative.

In the sense that I’ve suggested things to read that you’ve refused to read and have dismssed without seeing?

And Smith - he was a master manipulatior.

A judgment you’ve come to on the basis of your refusal to read lots and lots of things?

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s fine. I’m not here with any realistic hope of converting Catholics on this board to Mormonism. Likewise, I’m extraordinarily unlikely ever to surrender my beliefs in order to become a Catholic – much as I genuinely respect Catholicism and the Catholic Church.

But that has nothing whatever to do with the fact that Eliza has been telling us that everything that she’s read about Joseph Smith reveals him to have been a self-serving fraud – and that, it turns out, Eliza hasn’t read very much, refuses to read much more, and apparently confines herself to hostile anti-Mormon propaganda.

If I were to do the same thing with regard to Catholicism and Catholic leaders (which I emphatically don’t), the Catholics here would have a legitimate basis for complaint against me.

Hostile anti-Mormon propaganda? That is what you call wivesofjosephsmith.org? What in any of that site is hostile? How about what it is largely based on, Compton’s book “In Sacred Lonliness”? Is that also hostile, anti-mormon propaganda?

 

[Synneve]

Hostile anti-Mormon propaganda? That is what you call wivesofjosephsmith.org? What in any of that site is hostile?

Did I call it that?

How about what it is largely based on, Compton’s book “In Sacred Lonliness”? Is that also hostile, anti-mormon propaganda?

See above.

I don’t presume that Eliza has read absolutely nothing about Joseph Smith. She simply refuses to read the very widely purchased and long-awaited biography of him by one of the most eminent living American historians, dismisses collections of primary source materials as “romanticized propaganda,” and cites only a web site. I have no doubt that she’s devoured at least one or two other web sites consistent with her prejudices.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Did I call it that?

See above.

I don’t presume that Eliza has read absolutely nothing about Joseph Smith. She simply refuses to read the very widely purchased and long-awaited biography of him by one of the most eminent living American historians, dismisses collections of primary source materials as “romanticized propaganda,” and cites only a web site. I have no doubt that she’s devoured at least one or two other web sites consistent with her prejudices.

I appreciate your passion, however, in my experience Deseret Book and other LDS publishers or authors, pump out books on JS at a good pace. Give this book a few years on the shelf, and it will be relegated to “opinion”.

 

[MelanieAnne]

As a Catholic, I would never give up the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, in the Eucharist for bread and water. I don’t care what anyone says about Joseph Smith, the BoM, D & C, Pearl of Great Price, etc. etc. I would not give up the truth for a lie. My bet is, a lot of Catholics on this board agree with me on this one.

Absolutely!

 

[MelanieAnne]

I appreciate your passion, however, in my experience Deseret Book and other LDS publishers or authors, pump out books on JS at a good pace. Give this book a few years on the shelf, and it will be relegated to “opinion”.

Careful Rebecca! That didn’t really sound very critical! In fact it didn’t really sound critical AT ALL! And you have a reputation to preserve!

 

[dianaiad]

You mean, no Mormon accepts it. Gee, I wonder why?

I believe that the claim was 'no serious historian,* believer or not*, Paul.

 

[dianaiad]

I appreciate your passion, however, in my experience Deseret Book and other LDS publishers or authors, pump out books on JS at a good pace. Give this book a few years on the shelf, and it will be relegated to “opinion”.

You may appreciate the passion, Rebecca, but you didn’t pay attention to it or you wouldn’t characterize authors published by well respected and mainstream non-Mormon publishers as "pumped out’ LDS published books on JS.

 

[Elric]

Actually, it is rather important, Elric. It indicates a communication breakdown that might cause issues in other areas. I’ve been around the block quite often, and have been around Mormons (and anti-Mormons and Mormon critics) for a long time. You are the absolutely first person to tell me that Moroni helped Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon. Something’s screwy somewhere.

No, its not important. It still amounts to either God being falliable or the BoM being fiction.

Nothing much…a change of subject within the post. You ARE holding the Book of Mormon to a different standard than you are holding the bible to; in terms of archeology, it’s apples and oranges.

Riiiight.

The only differences is with the books themselves. One has other things to support it as well as physical evidence, the other has nothing to support it and no physical evidence.

Plus the BoM make some pretty “bold” claims that go beyond the unreliability of the bible.

an excuse? perhaps not, but it is a reason. It doesn’t much matter whether you personally think that the reason is good enough, y’know. It is what it is.

Well they didnt have much faith in the work if they could only put out a shoddy copy of it. Seriously this is supposed to be the work that God wants us to follow, I wouldnt want to knowingly put out a faulty copy of it.

Considering what they supposedly had, that isnt a reason at all.

Not before Joseph Smith was done looking at them, they didn’t.

Fantastic, so they were gone before the 3rd edition.

Glad you see the light.

OK, educate me. How does Joseph’s non-translation of bogus plates relate to the Book of Mormon?

Non-translation?

Perhaps a pattern of fraud…

 

[cthulhubryan]

Yeah, and I would not put Mormonism in the same category as Scientology.

While you may wish to do that philosophically, it cannot be done from a legal standpoint. The LDS church meets the normal ‘criteria’ of religion with leaders, structures, rules and deities. Scientology does not.

 

[cthulhubryan]

They probably did. The question, of course, is…gee, why haven’t we found everything there is to be found in 10 million square miles of land area, in less than a century of modern archeology?

While I was still in Utah many LDS scholars were excited about the Monte Verde site found in southern Chile. It dates to something like 1200 BC (May be 12,000 BC) AFAIK not much has been found yet. Of course, Diana, with the University of Utah having the best Anthropology department in the western US they were going to be the ones going.

Bryan
B.S. Anthropology
University of Utah

 

[cthulhubryan]

“The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central and northeastern Asia.”
“…none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492.”

FYI: Later genetics work proves that American Indians are descendant from the peoples of the East Asian steppes.

In fact, genetics work by Shawn Carlisle (by now Dr. Shawn Carlisle) at the ahem University of Utah not only proved this but also that the modern day Navaho are the true descendants of the blood thirsty Anasazi.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Well, that is the point. People who comment about Joseph Smith in a negative way should at least read that book by Bushman to engage the conversation. But…

Have YOU read it, whyme?