Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_MCB]

MARG!!! You are forgetting about the fact that the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon were lost, and Smith & Co. wrote a whole new beginning. Therefore, you will see evidence of Smith's hand, both autobiographical and psychological, in I Nephi, II Nephi, and Jacob. It is really rather obvious. I would suggest you read Dan's book-- paying little attention to his generalizations about the entire Book of Mormon. :) When you debate with an authority like him, you gotta have all your duckies lined up in perfect order.

And I think that's what Smith had in mind.

I don't think that is what he had in mind from the beginning. He was chosen as a figurehead, because with his reading and writing problems, the only way he could have written a book on his own would be through a miracle.

[_GlennThigpen]

I want to see what it would look like. Taking out all religion without adding in anything of their own. And I want to see how the lost tribes fit into any story without religion.

I don't see a problem having the lost tribes separate to religion. They are part of history. The exiled tribes after 721 B.C. from N. Israel of which there is no further historical record.

marge, the Bible is the history of the lost tribes. You will not find the story told in history books except as a myth. Their very existence, even before the Biblical exile story, is a subject of debate among historians to this day.

The only historical references are those with religious connotations.

Glenn

[_marg]

MARG!!! You are forgetting about the fact that the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon were lost, and Smith & Co. wrote a whole new beginning. Therefore, you will see evidence of Smith's hand, both autobiographical and psychological, in I Nephi, II Nephi, and Jacob. It is really rather obvious. I would suggest you read Dan's book-- paying little attention to his generalizations about the entire Book of Mormon. :) When you debate with an authority like him, you gotta have all your duckies lined up in perfect order.

We are talking about Laban story not the whole beginning of the Book of Mormon. One witness, Lake recalls the Laban story clearly, his daughter says that when Hurlbut visited he'd read from the Book of Mormon and her dad would say what came next.

If this is the situation how do you account for Spalding writing the Laban story, do you think he incorporated a God character in it as the Book of Mormon does, how about a God character throughout the Book of Mormon? Or do you think Lake was mistaken in recall? What do you think the witnesses meant by the Book of Mormon was the same in most respects historically to Spalding's MF except absent the religious parts?

And I think that's what Smith had in mind.

I don't think that is what he had in mind from the beginning. He was chosen as a figurehead, because with his reading and writing problems, the only way he could have written a book on his own would be through a miracle.

[/quote]

Please be careful to critique something said within the context it was said in. Those words quoted were within the context of what Smith had in mind with regards to polygamy.

That's okay to use quote those words and elaborate further on something else you have in mind except you also commented you don't think that's what he had in mind...but then you don't go on to discuss anything with regards to polygamy. It sounds as if you are disagreeing with me, but you don't address what it is I addressed which you disagree with.

[_marg]

marge, the Bible is the history of the lost tribes. You will not find the story told in history books except as a myth. Their very existence, even before the Biblical exile story, is a subject of debate among historians to this day.

The only historical references are those with religious connotations.

Glenn

The Bible is NOT the history of the lost tribes Glenn. That's why they are lost, after their exile there is no historical account of them within the Bible.

It is not as if historically the tribes of the Northern Kingdom were not recognizes, they were. It is after their exile, in which there is no account of them and they become known as the lost tribes.

[_MCB]

Those words quoted were within the context of what Smith had in mind with regards to polygamy.

And that is exactly it. He had money and power in mind. He was a newlywed at the time he started on the project. Polygamy was not his original objective. That developed later when he could use his power as a religious leader to seduce women, and he was more attractive because of hero-worship.

Part of the framework of the beginning of the Book of Mormon came from Spalding, but the actual writing and embroidery came from Smith & Co, and the Bible.

[_marg]

The interpretation I gave of the Nephi-Laban encounter was not to prove Joseph Smith was the author—that is assumed. I’m trying to show you how the strange ethics is actually meaningful given the Book of Mormon’s fraudulent origins.

I think that's pretty standard fare for religious stories, that the ends justify the means.

It still gets back to perspective and context, that although to some people that story might have deep meaning and viewed in a religious context, or it's authors of the Book of Mormon intended it to be such it doesn't need to be viewed in the same context by all. And a writer wanting to show the ridiculousness of similar biblical stories might have used such a story to illustrate that. Laban really had no choice, Nephi was going to take those records no matter what. With a God involved things are worse, because a God in theory should be able to figure out better ways of doing things.

but I think J. Smith was an opportunist by nature well before the Book of Mormon came along. And example of his opportunistic nature was polygamy which he used his authority for his own selfish ends, not as means to a religious end.

Again, assuming Joseph Smith was the author, I’m mostly concerned about his motives as explained in the text he produced. The same motives come out in his revelations. He may have other motives as well. There are examples of people who begin with pious motives that become corrupted by the power and trust given them. Moreover, what happens later doesn’t negate what was intended at the beginning.

So you think he started out with pious motives..because that fits with your Smith alone pious fraud theory. I can appreciate that, I just think you are wrong. I don't think he planned it out, I think the opportunity presented itself.

I agree that Joseph Smith emotionally and sexually abused his followers, but I don’t think he viewed it as you describe above.

After following the case in B.C. regarding polygamy in which the men exchange young girls with each other in which families offer their young daughters to the prophet..that's when it occurred to me that Smith realized young women could be had, simply by taking the daughters of others produced. And all it takes is 12 - 14 years time and there is another batch of young women for the men to trade amongst themselves. Why use prostitutes when they can be bred.

[_GlennThigpen]

marge, the Bible is the history of the lost tribes. You will not find the story told in history books except as a myth. Their very existence, even before the Biblical exile story, is a subject of debate among historians to this day.

The only historical references are those with religious connotations.

Glenn

The Bible is NOT the history of the lost tribes Glenn. That's why they are lost, after their exile there is no historical account of them within the Bible.

It is not as if historically the tribes of the Northern Kingdom were not recognizes, they were. It is after their exile, in which there is no account of them and they become known as the lost tribes.

marge, you did not get my point. There is no secular history corroborating the existence and the exile of the lost tribes. It is Biblical history. And a religious connotation. There is no history for those tribes outside the Bible. The verse from 2 Esdras is what has fueled the speculation about those tribes migrating to the Americas.

Glenn

[_marg]

Those words quoted were within the context of what Smith had in mind with regards to polygamy.

And that is exactly it. He had money and power in mind. He was a newlywed at the time he started on the project. Polygamy was not his original objective. That developed later when he could use his power as a religious leader to seduce women, and he was more attractive because of hero-worship.

I realize polygamy was not what he had in mind at the beginning. I brought up polygamy only to show his opportunistic nature.

Part of the framework of the beginning of the Book of Mormon came from Spalding, but the actual writing and embroidery came from Smith & Co, and the Bible.

Well that doesn't really match up with the conneaut witnesses who say it's essentially the same historically absent religion. How could the laban story be the same...absent God which is in it? Was Lake remembering that story or not. Was god in that story or not?

[_marg]

marge, you did not get my point. There is no secular history corroborating the existence and the exile of the lost tribes. It is Biblical history. And a religious connotation. There is no history for those tribes outside the Bible. The verse from 2 Esdras is what has fueled the speculation about those tribes migrating to the Americas.

I have a history book it mentions lost tribes...why.. because the tribes exiled in 720 from N. Israel became known as the lost tribes. That's not only biblical history. One can refer to the lost tribes...and it refer to the tribes exiled. That's irrespective of religion.

[_MCB]

Was Lake remembering that story or not. Was god in that story or not?

Lake was remembering the TRAGIC death of Laban. That story was about a justified murder-- at least in the minds of the authors, who used the framework of Judith. The actual seminal story was about Eric the Red, who killed a man because of some silly, to our minds-- family Norse religious heirlooms. God was not in that story-- at least, not our god.