Which BOM origination theory do you believe? (15th attempt)

[Viking]

The poll results are quite interesting. There is a lot more consensus regarding the BoM than other of JS's later acts here, potentially supporting my "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" thesis.

[Surfah]

The poll results are quite interesting. There is a lot more consensus regarding the BoM than other of JS's later acts here, potentially supporting my "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" thesis.

Lord Acton?

[Viking]

Lord Acton?

Yes.

JS, in my view, suffered from this. He was his own, personal...Jesus.

Edit: The actual quote from acton is somewhat different. This is the commonly attributed paraphrased quote

[Surfah]

Yes.

JS, in my view, suffered from this. He was his own, personal...Jesus.

Edit: The actual quote from acton is somewhat different. This is the commonly attributed paraphrased quote

I know who said it. My quibble is with you saying this was your thesis.

[Jacob]

You've brought this up before. Tell me truly, though. If it did turn out that there was a signed statement, would that change how you felt?

I don't see how a signed statement would be any better proof than the typed statements we have. All the witnesses confirmed at carious times that they indeed agreed that they put their names to those documents.

OTOH, whether they signed it or even believed it is certainly not dispositive, and perhaps not even very good evidence. We have many signed affidavits by others declaring that Joseph is a fraud. We have other new scriputres and other apparitions attested to by signed writings in similar manner to the BOM. Not to mention visitations of the Virgin, etc. Even Strang, the Mormon Prophet Josephs family chose to follow after Joseph's death came up with a new scripture, on plates, which were attested to by witnesses.

Rigdon keeps his mouth shut initially to preserve power in his offshoot group and later to preserve his legacy as a witness and not a liar. I don't think that's a huge reach and would have been important to a 19th century preacher.

But what about later? His son claims to have asked him 25 years after not having contact with any Mormons and affirming his original story.

How firm was the gold plates story at the time? Was it more of a back-dated story? In other words, was Joseph telling Martin and Emma and Oliver that he was lugging them around during the translation process?

Of this, I don't think there is any doubt. There are contemporaneous accounts of the plates by friends and enemies alike. This is where the notoriety came from.

[SportUTE]

The poll results are quite interesting. There is a lot more consensus regarding the BoM than other of JS's later acts here, potentially supporting my "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" thesis.

I have no problems with the possibility that Joseph was removed by the Lord if his alleged polyandry and polygamy practices did in fact happen.

[Mormon Red Death]

We have pictures?

All I'm saying is you are starting with some premises here. And if you probe you'll see even your premises are suspect to put it generously.

If you look back at your life you will see that many things were told you as a child that you accepted without question because you loved and depended on the people who told you these things. An easy example is the purported "witnesses'" estimony. For starters, there are no signed statements and probably never were any (note the way they are formatted is intended to make you think there were actual signed statements). Hence, there's no reason to give those pages at the front of the book of Mormon any credence at all. In fact, there's good reason to disbelieve them based on common sense and experience. It's not necessary to speculate about conspiracy and motives and such. A court of law or a scientist would reject them. You believe what you believe rather than Muhammad's story because of where and when you were born and who raised you.

This is gettiing to be just like Bill Shakespeare authorship question.

[SeattleUte]

This is gettiing to be just like Bill Shakespeare authorship question.

There is a better paper trail for Shakespeare.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If pigs could fly it might change my view of pigs, but it wouldn't happen on the object known as planet earth, I'm quite sure.

I point out absense of an original signed document because it's an easy succinct example of a lack of substantiation that pervades the entire LDS canon. We don't need to address stuff like there being so many Whitmers (as Mark Twain noted). To ask for an original signed document expressing the alleged witness' eyewitness testimony is a threshold question anyone empricaly testing Mormonism's claims would ask, and not surprisingly there isn't one.

They put the testimonials at the front of the Book of Mormon with names at the bottom. There are all the trappings of a sworn affidavit. So cough up the damn original signed document! It's not a lot to ask. It's the natural thing to ask. Not surprisingly, there isn't one, and it fits what logic tells us to expect partly because there never is a source document in this context. Like when they supposedly found Jesus' bronther James' coffin; that it would wind up a hoax could be predicted with certainty. Also, common sense tells us that angels are an ages old fantasy and not something that really happens.

The one time what ought to have been or apparent substantiation of the LDS canon has reared its head--the Book of Abraham scrolls--we get what objective observesrs would regard as a smoking gun conclusively exposing JS a liar. No, it isn't the Book of Mormon, but it's not a leap to assume that if he lied about the Book of Abraham's source he lied about the Book of Mormon's source.

But back to first principles. The ancient world of revelation and scriptures wrought by the finger of God was not itself actually the magic world view Joseph used as his model. Science has common sense earthbound explanations for all of it. So the model that functions as the premise for the faithful member's evaluation of the Book of Mormon is itself not what it presents itself as being. Really, what Joseph was all about was nostalgia for that view, in the face of the Enlightenment, modernism, etc. He and Mary Shelly and Richard Wager really belong in a like category.

Nevertheless, these symbols printed by humans on paper continue to give rise to and shape whole civilizations. Why that is so is the tantalyzing mystery for me, not whether Moses really wrote the Pentateuch or the Book of Mormon really came from a gold book shown to Joseph Smith by Moroni.

I wish I could find one of those old quotes of yours where you claim that you never waste your time with these types of discussions.

[YOhio]

I wish I could find one of those old quotes of yours where you claim that you never waste your time with these types of discussions.

Search "ant shit".

[MarkGrace]

I think that it was a tall tale that some people started to believe, and the more he told it, the more he believed it had happened. It could start as a simple lie to impress/awe some people that became entrenched in his mind as an actual event. Psychology has several models showing that this does happen, including something as simple as bipolar disorder. People who have this condition are subject to intense delusions of grandeur that they fully believe as reality. Add in someone who is charismatic enough to convince people that you are really what your delusion entails, then you can see this happen.

I guess that I do not see JS starting all of this with the intent to deceive. I look at it as a tall tale that morphed into something bigger.

Sweet. I read No Man Knows My History, too!

[All-American]

If pigs could fly it might change my view of pigs, but it wouldn't happen on the object known as planet earth, I'm quite sure.

I point out absense of an original signed document because it's an easy succinct example of a lack of substantiation that pervades the entire LDS canon. We don't need to address stuff like there being so many Whitmers (as Mark Twain noted). To ask for an original signed document expressing the alleged witness' eyewitness testimony is a threshold question anyone empricaly testing Mormonism's claims would ask, and not surprisingly there isn't one.

They put the testimonials at the front of the Book of Mormon with names at the bottom. There are all the trappings of a sworn affidavit. So cough up the damn original signed document! It's not a lot to ask. It's the natural thing to ask. Not surprisingly, there isn't one, and it fits what logic tells us to expect partly because there never is a source document in this context. Like when they supposedly found Jesus' bronther James' coffin; that it would wind up a hoax could be predicted with certainty. Also, common sense tells us that angels are an ages old fantasy and not something that really happens.

The one time what ought to have been or apparent substantiation of the LDS canon has reared its head--the Book of Abraham scrolls--we get what objective observesrs would regard as a smoking gun conclusively exposing JS a liar. No, it isn't the Book of Mormon, but it's not a leap to assume that if he lied about the Book of Abraham's source he lied about the Book of Mormon's source.

But back to first principles. The ancient world of revelation and scriptures wrought by the finger of God was not itself actually the magic world view Joseph used as his model. Science has common sense earthbound explanations for all of it. So the model that functions as the premise for the faithful member's evaluation of the Book of Mormon is itself not what it presents itself as being. Really, what Joseph was all about was nostalgia for that view, in the face of the Enlightenment, modernism, etc. He and Mary Shelly and Richard Wager really belong in a like category.

Nevertheless, these symbols printed by humans on paper continue to give rise to and shape whole civilizations. Why that is so is the tantalyzing mystery for me, not whether Moses really wrote the Pentateuch or the Book of Mormon really came from a gold book shown to Joseph Smith by Moroni.

That's a very long-winded dodge.

I'm aware of the problem with posing contrafactual hypotheticals. I just find it most curious that you've decided that THIS is a fault line on which you'll stake your claim. I'd like to know if this is really what bothers you. Not surprisingly, it isn't; "common sense tells us that angels are an ages old fantasy and not something that really happens." In other words, if it turned out that there was a signed document (or that twelve people with no legal training living on the frontier in 1830 didn't think it necessary to preserve a separate signed piece of paper, thinking that the affidavit-like statement included in each copy of the book was close enough), you'd find something else to argue about.

[SeattleUte]

That's a very long-winded dodge.

I'm aware of the problem with posing contrafactual hypotheticals. I just find it most curious that you've decided that THIS is a fault line on which you'll stake your claim. I'd like to know if this is really what bothers you. Not surprisingly, it isn't; "common sense tells us that angels are an ages old fantasy and not something that really happens." In other words, if it turned out that there was a signed document (or that twelve people with no legal training living on the frontier in 1830 didn't think it necessary to preserve a separate signed piece of paper, thinking that the affidavit-like statement included in each copy of the book was close enough), you'd find something else to argue about.

The fact that there isn't a signed document isn't really what bothers me. I'm not bothered at all. It would be like being bothered by the number of cold grey days in Seattle. The LDS Church is what it is because that's the way life is. Do you think I was surprised when DNA evidence didn't support that Indains were Jews? I don't believe in fairies. If there were a signed document I'm sure there would be a more raational explanation than that those guys really saw Christ and/or angels bearing a gold book.

But nor do I dismiss religious experience and tradition. I just don't think it's an open question about Joseph's claims. You know all that talk about allegorical or literal belief in the Book of Mormon or the Bible? It applies to Joseph Smith as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Search "ant shit".

Wow. A few seconds with the search engine reveals a treasure trove of quotes. Tip of the iceberg (all from SU):

...it is a fool's errand to argue historicity of the Book of Mormon

...arguing historicity of the Book of Mormon is no different than arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I think fixation on this is intellctually impoverished. At bottom there is nothing to talk about. The subject could not be less interesting.

But I wouldn't waste a second debating the recent purported Noah's Ark find. That would be like debating Book of Mormon historicity.

I do generally abstain. ... I think historicity arguments (in contrast to empirical study of the religion's rise and development in a larger cultural context) are a fool's errand for both apologists and skeptics.

Normally I don't find these types of debates very interesting or helpful to anyone

and finally:

When I left the Mormon faith, I was no expert on such things like the Book of Abraham scrolls, or Book of Mormon historicity arcana. I'm still not.

[Viking]

I know who said it. My quibble is with you saying this was your thesis.

You missed my other thread which discusses my thesis.

I placed dear lord acton's words in quotes for a reason.