DiscussMormonism.com

Uncle Dale asked a really great question, one that I've pondered myself.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25920

Mainly for you contra-LDS among our ranks) --


There has been much talk in recent years, regarding the notion that Joseph Smith might have been a "pious fraud," -- that is, he made up his stories of Nephites in order to bring unbelievers to a faith in Jesus Christ which they otherwise might never have experienced.

No need to re-hash all of that, pro or con....

My question is a simple one: Can any reasonable scenerio be presented, in which Joseph Smith was himself deceived into believing that Nephites were a reality of the American past?

Did Joseph Smith invent Mormonism (and some of his extraordinary claims of the 1820s and 1830s) because he had himself been deceived by somebody who told a false Nephite history?

If so, explain to me how on earth such a thing could have happened.

????

Uncle "no, I'm not slyly promoting some new Vogel book here" Dale

I actually think that Joseph Smith probably believed that the story of the Book of Mormon could be true, generally speaking, even if the details may be a bit off.

In other words, he, like so many others in his generation, really did believe that the ancient Americans were from the tribe of Israel, and practiced a form of Judaism on this continent. I also think he, like many others, believed ancient records would be found that would prove this.

I think it's possible that Joseph Smith became convinced that the Book of Mormon really was telling a version of a true story, and maybe even true in details. God works in mysterious ways. Maybe God inspired the Book of Mormon author to tell a story that was actually TRUE.

I subscribe to the Spalding/Rigdon theory, so I rather doubt it.

Perhaps Uncle Dale is postulating that Joseph was decieved by Rigdon into thinking that the manuscript he'd been handed was somehow true, but I honestly don't understand how Uncle Dale can think that, since it required Joseph to employ his rock-in-the-hat deception.

Dr. Shades wrote:I subscribe to the Spalding/Rigdon theory, so I rather doubt it.

Perhaps Uncle Dale is postulating that Joseph was decieved by Rigdon into thinking that the manuscript he'd been handed was somehow true, but I honestly don't understand how Uncle Dale can think that, since it required Joseph to employ his rock-in-the-hat deception.

In other words, he was a deceiver through and through. He believed the manuscript to be true, but set about to deceive people that it was actually a divine revelation, not just "true". Spalding/Rigdon concocted a tale he couldn't resist! It had to be authenticated by "divine revelation". Martin Harris knows nothing about this, so asks for the Lehi MS. He loses it, and Joseph goes into mourning for two weeks, not because he's lost the MS, but because his "plot" is exposed. He spends the two weeks thinking of a way to get out of the mess. All of his recorded anguish is just Hollyhood in action. He put this on to save face, to make people think he had a genuine MS, and even Emma believes this crass act of put on contrition. He, no doubt, only shed crocodile tears. He was an actor through and through.

What the critics of Joseph Smith show, all the time, is how they assign their own devious motives to Joseph Smith. They cannot conceive that he could be above their own devious machinations, even on the issue of polygamy.

Shades, sometimes I really wonder about your motives. You are not a person I would trust in real life. Your thinking is adequate measure of that. You have assigned the most corrupt and sinister motives to Joseph Smith, and frankly, I think this is just an expansion of your own thinking, not Joseph Smith's.

Ray A wrote:In other words, he was a deceiver through and through. He believed the manuscript to be true, but set about to deceive people that it was actually a divine revelation, not just "true".

No no no no no no no no no.

Uncle Dale apparently thinks that Joseph may have believed the manuscript to be true, but Uncle Dale is wrong. Joseph couldn't have believed the manuscript was true, because if it was true, it could be published as is and there would be no need for Rigdon to hire him to do his magic-rock-in-a-hat trick.

Once again, NO, Joseph did NOT believe the manuscript to be true.

Martin Harris knows nothing about this, so asks for the Lehi MS. He loses it, and Joseph goes into mourning for two weeks, not because he's lost the MS, but because his "plot" is exposed. He spends the two weeks thinking of a way to get out of the mess. All of his recorded anguish is just Hollyhood in action.

No, it wasn't Hollywood in action. He really was in anguish because his plot was exposed.

He put this on to save face, to make people think he had a genuine MS, and even Emma believes this crass act of put on contrition. He, no doubt, only shed crocodile tears. He was an actor through and through.

They weren't crocodile tears at all. Nor was he acting.

What the critics of Joseph Smith show, all the time, is how they assign their own devious motives to Joseph Smith. They cannot conceive that he could be above their own devious machinations, even on the issue of polygamy.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean here. Care to break it down for me?

Shades, sometimes I really wonder about your motives. You are not a person I would trust in real life.

Of course. I disagree with one or more aspects of Utah's dominant sect of Brighamite Mormonism, therefore everything I have ever said, am saying, or ever will say is automatically false.

Your thinking is adequate measure of that. You have assigned the most corrupt and sinister motives to Joseph Smith, and frankly, I think this is just an expansion of your own thinking, not Joseph Smith's.

I agree. Joseph Smith has a proven track record of impeccable honesty--for example, when he talked to the saints about his alleged practice of polygamy, and when he told them about the solvency of the Kirtland Bank--so anyone who accuses him of anything otherwise is obviously projecting.

By the way, how far did you get into that book I sent you before you quit reading it?

Dr. Shades wrote:
Uncle Dale apparently thinks that Joseph may have believed the manuscript to be true,

Dale dos not appear to be saying that's what he believes, he is asking for others to present a scenario which might or would support this position.

Let me clarify my thoughts.

It is not unknown in religion in general, and in the Judeo-Christian tradition in specific, for people to view certain teachings/ideas/writings to be "true" in an inspired, revelatory manner, even if they weren't "true" in specific details or historically.

In fact, the entire Bible seems to document that, knowing that people view the teachings of DEAD prophets, teachers, apostles, leaders, with more credibility than what a current, living, "inspired" person may share. It documents that tendency to ascribe writings to past, dead figures, rather than openly admit who the contemporary author was.

So if Joseph Smith, like so many others of his culture, really did believe that the ancient Americans were from the tribe of Israel, and really were practicing some form of Judeo-Christianity, then the story in the Book of Mormon could be "true" even if it weren't true in every detail.

I don't understand why the involvement of another person as author would alter this. Say, for the sake of argument, that Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon. Couldn't Joseph Smith still have viewed it as telling a "true" story, in essence, if not in detail?

It's kind of similar to the way some believers are now viewing the Book of Abraham. In other words, what was needed was some revelatory "prompt", not an actual text to be translated with actual words. Once the revelatory "prompt" was received, then the inspired person was then given the words to speak by God himself in some way, and it was still "true". So all the "hoax" elements, like the spectacles, or maybe fabricated plates, were simply prompts to help people believe what Joseph Smith and Rigdon really believed to be true, anyway.

This doesn't mean that Joseph Smith really believed he had gold plates with the ancient writings on it, just like some modern believers don't think the papyrus actually had the Pearl of great price on it. But they still believe the end result in "true".

Dr. Shades wrote:By the way, how far did you get into that book I sent you before you quit reading it?

Not very far. The forum debates on Spalding have been more enlightening.

During the Uncle Dale/Dan Vogel debate on this forum, it was shown in my opinion to be a draw. No one won, although I do think that Dan did put a screw into Uncle Dale's thesis. For those outside the church, it needs to be imperative to believe in a different idea from the one put forth by Joseph Smith. But what has become clear is that no one has proven the book to be untrue. The book still stands and this is why we are all still here debating the origins of the book itself. It is truly amazing when I think about it.

I take my hat off to whomever wrote it since people in cyberspace are still debating its origins. The Book of Mormon is a powerful book and the Mormon faith is a powerful faith. The faith can grip your mind because the story of the Book of Mormon has a ring of truth in it. And for the most part, those in or out have had a spiritual confirmation of authenticity.

And I do believe that Uncle Dale is no different even though he was RLDS. So, my friends, all questions about Joseph Smith will be answered on our death. If nothing happens as Richard Dawkins suggests, well, then we can curse Joseph Smith even though we will not have a opportunity to curse him. If the catholics are correct about their faith being the true faith we can go down into hell and ask Joseph Smith ourselves. We just need to wait until death comes a calling.

why me wrote:During the Uncle Dale/Dan Vogel debate on this forum, it was shown in my opinion to be a draw. No one won, although I do think that Dan did put a screw into Uncle Dale's thesis. For those outside the church, it needs to be imperative to believe in a different idea from the one put forth by Joseph Smith. But what has become clear is that no one has proven the book to be untrue. The book still stands and this is why we are all still here debating the origins of the book itself. It is truly amazing when I think about it.

I suspect the reason why you think no one has proven the book to be untrue is because you so desperately want to believe it is. I can think of several much different scenarios:

1. it's already been proven false, just as everything else claiming to be scripture has been proven false.
2. few people care if it's true, so the vast majority of people ignore it completely. They can't be bothered to prove it's false.
3. there is no such thing as absolute truth, so the relative truth of one obscure book is immaterial
4. it's been proven false, the Mormons are just too stubborn or blinded to see it.
5. it may be true, in the sense that Aesop's Fables are true, but that doesn't make it divine.

I take my hat off to whomever wrote it since people in cyberspace are still debating its origins. The Book of Mormon is a powerful book and the Mormon faith is a powerful faith. The faith can grip your mind because the story of the Book of Mormon has a ring of truth in it. And for the most part, those in or out have had a spiritual confirmation of authenticity.

And you said that all with a straight face. I'm impressed.

And I do believe that Uncle Dale is no different even though he was RLDS. So, my friends, all questions about Joseph Smith will be answered on our death. If nothing happens as Richard Dawkins suggests, well, then we can curse Joseph Smith even though we will not have a opportunity to curse him. If the catholics are correct about their faith being the true faith we can go down into hell and ask Joseph Smith ourselves. We just need to wait until death comes a calling.

It'll be a while, I hope.

Ray A wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:By the way, how far did you get into that book I sent you before you quit reading it?

Not very far. The forum debates on Spalding have been more enlightening.

How would you know that the debates on Spalding have been more enlightening than the book if you haven't gotten very far into the book?

I respectfully submit that you're selling yourself very, very short.