This is an assumption on your part Dan that Smith believed what he was writing. The evidence is not good that he wrote the Book of Mormon on his own. And the evidence is he willingly used deception, at times just to manipulate or spin a yarn, at other times for personal gain. You've already argued in your book, he intentionally was deceptive in his treasure seeking younger days. In later years, his polygamy followed his extramarital affairs..and as a prophet he wanted a means to gain acceptance of his behavior. He'd be quite delusional if he actually thought God was forcing him to bed numerous women, including daughters and wives of the inner circle. So it's more likely Dan, as he learned throughout life from an early age... it's easy to manipulate some people.
Of course, you can always try reading Joseph Smith’s mind and say he wasn’t sincere or didn’t believe what he was saying or writing. My point was that the Book of Mormon wasn’t intended as a novel, which it would be if Spalding wrote it. The Book of Mormon is didactic—designed to promote religious values. Pointing to sins and manipulation doesn’t negate religious sincerity. Indeed, my thesis is that he used deception and manipulation to promote religion. That’s the moral dilemma he faced. Promoting good through these things. Part of Joseph Smith’s reasoning is revealed in Moroni 7:
“Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God … wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God” (7:12-13).
Joseph Smith had an elaborate system of justifying religious deception, or anything he wanted. Joseph Smith wasn’t the only one who believed in concubinage and “spiritual wifery”—many religious people did, which is why I directed you to that footnote in my book. You might consider the possibility that he didn’t see such behavior as sinful, and that pointing to such behavior isn’t the slam dunk you think it is. We can argue endlessly about his sincerity, but I’ll settle for an acknowledgement that the Book of Mormon is a pious fraud, whether or not Joseph Smith was.
I realize what I'm going to suggest to you might seem preposterous given your assumptions, but I think it's a good probability his behavior indicated he didn't believe in an 'interfering in man..sort of God'. He used religion to gain attention, power and his livelihood.
I would say that even if that is true, it doesn’t negate a belief that he was doing good. It’s a patronizing attitude, to be sure, and he probably believed he deserved the things he sought as rewards for helping us. The world needed his leadership, even if he had to do it through deception.
Dan the only way any of the theories in this case, can be disproved is by having positive proof of how the book was written...because Spalding is a probability source for the Book of Mormon..given the data..just as Smith is. So we are left with inductive reasoning instead. It's a matter of looking at all the evidence which has been gathered, evaluating that evidence and reaching a best fit conclusion. If either side had "proof" there'd be no need for any accumulation of evidence to evaluate.
Be this as it may, you are missing the point I made to Roger. Roger was formulating an argument that derived a positive conclusion from negative evidence—“We don’t know that such and such isn’t the case, therefore it is the case.” Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Your position would be stronger and the S/R weaker, if Smith showed interest in writing in the years before hand, if he was observed by objective individuals to dictate the Book of Mormon, if he had the sort of knowledge and interest in subject matter of the Book of Mormon, if there weren't the parallels to Spalding in the discovery narrative of MSCC and what Smith described as the discovery narrative for the Book of Mormon, if there weren't so many obvious lies associated with the Book of Mormon and coming from the Book of Mormon witnesses and Smith, if Smith wasn't known as a treasure seeking con artist and opportunist..the list goes on Dan.
I have already mentioned that Lucy said that Joseph Smith was telling stories about the ancient Americans “as if he lived among them all his life” (paraphrase), beginning in September 1823. According to Orsamus Turner, Joseph Smith was a member of the Palmyra debating club, helping them solve some difficult questions about ethics, and that he was also a passable Methodist exhorter.
There aren’t any verbal similarities between Joseph Smith and Spalding’s discovery narrative. The similarities you see are situational only. Both are resolving the Mound Builder Myth by discovering a record preserved under a rock—and that’s where the similarities end. You mentioned the importance of differences, so why not do it here too? How else could Spalding begin such a story? Spalding follows a predictable narrative. He finds a Latin text on parchment, which he can translate. What could be more natural for a learned man. Joseph Smith doesn’t follow a predictable story, but it was nevertheless believable to his treasure seeking friends and family. Joseph Smith is told where to find the record by a treasure-guardian spirit. It is written on gold plates, not parchment, and it is written in Reformed Egyptian, which can only be translated through Joseph Smith’s gift of seeing in a stone.
You have never shown “many obvious lies … coming from the Book of Mormon witnesses.” Rather, their testimonies about Joseph Smith’s method of dictating the Book of Mormon without MS, which is supported by his inability to replaces the lost beginning, is another reason for rejecting Spalding’s witnesses. All of which you and Roger have dealt with rather feebly.
The weakness in your approach, is you start off with the assumption Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, and that he was a pious fraud and then you try to make some facts fit, dismissing facts that don't. So you dismiss the S/R witnesses as being confused despite that confusion doesn't describe their recall when they say on some things they 'clearly remember'.
Some say the clearly remember. Like Miller, who thought he recognized verbatim passages in a portion of the Book of Mormon that had been according to your theory rewritten twice. Miller’s not credible. Other witnesses, like Martha Spalding, confessed the intervening years prevents her remember with clarity, but that the Book of Mormon brought back memories. That’s a problematic situation. We have no way of accessing their memories, and a distinct possibility exists that they were wrong. This possibility becomes more certain with the full array of evidence surrounding the Book of Mormon’s production. So, since the Book of Mormon came through Joseph Smith’s mouth while his head was in the hat, I assume he was the author.
You accept the Book of Mormon witnesses as credible despite they must be the most incredible witnesses one could possibly imagine.
How so? You have yet to back up such accusations.
You look for parallels in the Book of Mormon with Joseph's life even though the parallels are tenuous. You psychoanalyze Smith to suit your purpose..which is to defend the Smith only/pious fraud assumption.
You are not following me here. I didn’t look for parallels to prove Joseph Smith was author over the Spalding theory. My analysis of the Book of Mormon assumes Joseph Smith is the author to learn about Joseph Smith. Authorship is a separate debate. I use the parallels like any parallel evidence. It is only a small part of a complex analysis. Most of it can’t be used in this fashion. Take the quote above from Moroni. This is used to show how Joseph Smith might have rationalized pious fraud, or how he may have believed his project was inspired although it wasn’t real history. It tells me something about Joseph Smith without being a parallel or something that can be used to decide authorship questions. If I had been preoccupied with polemical concerns, I couldn’t mine the book for these kinds of insights. The same thing would be true if I were preoccupied with the ancient vs. modern debate.