Second Thoughts

[_Polygamy Porter]

Ray,

Wow.

Your letter was well written. It is amazing to see that this same letter could be written today, nearly 20 years later... completely applicable to what bothers us fresh non believers.

It was also very bold of you to ask for excommunication, especially compared to today's name removal which seems quite simple compared to this!

Thank you again for putting up with my pointed questions and giving such detailed, timely, and kindly responses.

Best Regards,

Poly G. Porter :)

[_Roger Morrison]

"to thine own self..." Who said, why and under what circumstances? BUT it does call You to look at your priorities and values.

That's Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 3 near the beginning. Look for a long solioque by a character named Polonius if you're interested.

The context was Polonius giving advice to his son about being careful at college. Other famous sayings like "neither a borrower or a lender be" come from this scene. It's a fairly famous part of the play. Not as famous as "to be or not to be" but still.


edit: in the play it should be noted that Laertes (the son) doesn't do this but instead listen's to the advice of the evil character (Claudius) to the detriment of most of the characters

Bond

"Thanks James!" You've twigged my interest. As a 'materialist' i never had a lot of time for some of those "better things in life."

On a 'religious' note :-) Walmart's 'fiction' inspires folks. Sort-of, like Joe's?? Warm regards, Roger PS: Hope ya don't mind a first-name relationship ;-)

[_Roger Morrison]

Ray and all, obviously this follows my comment above. At that time i had not read pages 4 & 5 that exemplify, in my opinion dialogue between individuals with differring views, at its best. BRAVO! Ray said:

I don't feel about the other standard works as I do about the Book of Mormon. I like selected portions of the D&C, and also believe that section 121 is inspired. I think if Joseph had stopped with the Book of Mormon that would have been sufficient. That to me, is "pure Mormonism". I am with David Whitmer on this. I believe the church evolved into a religious bureaucracy, which was criticised even by Nibley. From sacred grove to sacral power structure. (Bold added)

To the bolded, i do too. Especially from verses 34 to 46, the end, that i easily paraphrase to be inclusive of all humanity. Does that mean "The Church IS True?" Not in the least. Does it make Joseph a prophet? Not in the least, except as understood by Mormon masses.

However, 'inspiration' is available to those who at special moments hear/feel something beyond the norm, and can articulate it in a way that makes it truly great--to some. Inspiration is no respector of persons.

Connecting this to my comment in the above post re Shakespeare and Joseph Smith: They might both be geniuses in their particular classes of appeal. Surely they have both been heralded as such by their followers and quoters.

IMSCO, the Book of Mormon is literature. It contains all the elements of a good story: Antagonists, protagonists, comedy, tragedy, the unbelievable, and the believable true to human foible characters and actions. Quality is not brought into question here.

I think Mosiah contains some pretty good stuff: "...never pass a beggar... are we not all beggars before "God"?"

As with Ray, LDSism contributed much to my life, and as such served me well. When i no longer required what they offer it was simply over and out. The anger felt by some, that comes with disenchantment, i respectfully suggest is more self destructive than not--when carried too far--is best gotten over with.

In much of this antagonism, the church is its own worse enemy. By exagerating its significance, and claims of divine unquestionable leadership, it sets itself up to scrutiny that cannot pass everyones' test. Causing those who "Believed" to feel violated when the honey-moon is over--for them. A purely personal time frame...

Is the Mormon Church of the "Devil"? No more than any other. Is the Mormon Church of "God"? No less than any other. Take what ya need, for as long as YOU need it, from any of them. Warm regards, Roger

[_Runtu]

"Thanks James!" You've twigged my interest. As a 'materialist' i never had a lot of time for some of those "better things in life."

On a 'religious' note :-) Walmart's 'fiction' inspires folks. Sort-of, like Joe's?? Warm regards, Roger PS: Hope ya don't mind a first-name relationship ;-)

Polonius' counsel to his son can also be read as satirical, as Polonius throughout the play is never sincere, always devious and obsequious, so when he tells his son to be "true to thine own self," he is telling him to live a life that is the polar opposite of the way Polonius actually lives his. Of course, he could also be speaking as if to tell his son this out of regret for the kind of life he's chosen. It works better as satire for me, but divorced from the play it's wise counsel.

[_Who Knows]

Ray - Can we back up a bit and get back to the gold plates? I just want to hear your view of them. If I understand your views correctly, there were no actual ancient gold plates. Is this correct? And if this is correct, Joseph Smith's elaborate story was to deceive people "in order to achieve greater ends"? Is this correct?

[_Ray A]

Ray - Can we back up a bit and get back to the gold plates? I just want to hear your view of them. If I understand your views correctly, there were no actual ancient gold plates. Is this correct? And if this is correct, Joseph Smith's elaborate story was to deceive people "in order to achieve greater ends"? Is this correct?

WK, there are many conflicting accounts about the plates, and sometimes, frankly, I don't know which one to believe. I believe the most likely scenario is that they were seen in "visionary trance". There is this account from Harris:

I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state. I wrote a great deal of the Book of Mormon myself, as Joseph Smith translated or spelled the words out in English. Sometimes the plates would be on a table in the room in which Smith did the translating, covered over with a cloth. I was told by Smith that God would strike him dead if he attempted to look at them, and I believed it. When the time came for the three witnesses to see the plates, Joseph Smith, myself, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, went into the woods to pray. When they had engaged in prayer, they failed at the time to see the plates or the angel who should have been on hand to exhibit them. They all believed it was because I was not good enough, or in other words, not sufficiently sanctified. I withdrew. As soon as I had gone away, the three others saw the angel and the plates. In about three days I went into the woods to pray that I might see the plates. While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates.

B.H.Roberts suggested that the plates were "subjective with Joseph Smith", in one of his last statements to Wesley Lloyd:

"shows that the plates were not objective but subjective with Joseph Smith, that his exceptional imagination qualified him psychologically for the experience which he had in presenting to the world the Book of Mormon and that the plates with the Urim and Thummim were not objective."

My theory of automatic writing is not a popular one, but it fits perfectly with what I have studied on the subject. The witnesses gave conflicting statements, and even Henry Moyle, who spoke with Whitmer, had some reservation about the "spiritual" nature of Whitmer's account:

The subjective aspect of Whitmer's experience was detailed in an 1885 interview conducted by James Henry Moyle: "Mr D. Whitmer Sen did not handle the plates. Only seen <saw> them .... Says he did see them and the angel and heard him speak. But that it was indiscribable[,] that it was through the power of God (and was possibly or at least [visionary]) [.] he then spoke of Paul hearing and seeing Christ but his associates did not. Because it is only seen in the Spirit." Moyle attempted to ascertain whether "the atmosphere about them was normal." In other words, did the angel appear in normal surroundings or was the natural world obscured? According to Whitmer, "it was indescribable, but the light was bright and clear, yet apparently," in Moyle's words, "a different kind of light, something of a soft haze. ..." A recent law school graduate at the time, Moyle noted his disappointment: "I was not fully satisfied with the ex=planation. It was more spiritual than I anticipated" (VI.A.25, DAVID WHITMER INTERVIEW WITH JAMES HENRY MOYLE, 28 JUN 1885).

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/doc5.htm

Whatever the case, the witnesses believed they experienced strong manifestations, but some of them also accepted Strang's plates, including Lucy Mack Smith. The Kinderhook plates, though never translated, is also a guide to how Joseph Smith thought. He believed at first they were genuine, and said they were an "ancient record". He also said he talked with John the Revelator, so obviously his religious imagination was always at work. If you go back to the lady I gave the example of earlier (she also claimed to have seen Jesus Christ), I think this is a good example of how Joseph Smith most likely thought. But the bottom line to all of this is explaining the production of the Book of Mormon. If you have a very complex "end product", then the means are secondary. Perhaps something like Paley's watch. There are so many theories of Book of Mormon production, and not one has conclusively nailed it. That is why I think my theory fits best. Do you have a conclusive answer? If so, what is it?

[_Who Knows]

Ray - Can we back up a bit and get back to the gold plates? I just want to hear your view of them. If I understand your views correctly, there were no actual ancient gold plates. Is this correct? And if this is correct, Joseph Smith's elaborate story was to deceive people "in order to achieve greater ends"? Is this correct?

WK, there are many conflicting accounts about the plates, and sometimes, frankly, I don't know which one to believe. I believe the most likely scenario is that they were seen in "visionary trance". There is this account from Harris:

I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state. I wrote a great deal of the Book of Mormon myself, as Joseph Smith translated or spelled the words out in English. Sometimes the plates would be on a table in the room in which Smith did the translating, covered over with a cloth. I was told by Smith that God would strike him dead if he attempted to look at them, and I believed it. When the time came for the three witnesses to see the plates, Joseph Smith, myself, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, went into the woods to pray. When they had engaged in prayer, they failed at the time to see the plates or the angel who should have been on hand to exhibit them. They all believed it was because I was not good enough, or in other words, not sufficiently sanctified. I withdrew. As soon as I had gone away, the three others saw the angel and the plates. In about three days I went into the woods to pray that I might see the plates. While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates.

B.H.Roberts suggested that the plates were "subjective with Joseph Smith", in one of his last statements to Wesley Lloyd:

"shows that the plates were not objective but subjective with Joseph Smith, that his exceptional imagination qualified him psychologically for the experience which he had in presenting to the world the Book of Mormon and that the plates with the Urim and Thummim were not objective."

My theory of automatic writing is not a popular one, but it fits perfectly with what I have studied on the subject. The witnesses gave conflicting statements, and even Henry Moyle, who spoke with Whitmer, had some reservation about the "spiritual" nature of Whitmer's account:

The subjective aspect of Whitmer's experience was detailed in an 1885 interview conducted by James Henry Moyle: "Mr D. Whitmer Sen did not handle the plates. Only seen <saw> them .... Says he did see them and the angel and heard him speak. But that it was indiscribable[,] that it was through the power of God (and was possibly or at least [visionary]) [.] he then spoke of Paul hearing and seeing Christ but his associates did not. Because it is only seen in the Spirit." Moyle attempted to ascertain whether "the atmosphere about them was normal." In other words, did the angel appear in normal surroundings or was the natural world obscured? According to Whitmer, "it was indescribable, but the light was bright and clear, yet apparently," in Moyle's words, "a different kind of light, something of a soft haze. ..." A recent law school graduate at the time, Moyle noted his disappointment: "I was not fully satisfied with the ex=planation. It was more spiritual than I anticipated" (VI.A.25, DAVID WHITMER INTERVIEW WITH JAMES HENRY MOYLE, 28 JUN 1885).

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/doc5.htm

Whatever the case, the witnesses believed they experienced strong manifestations, but some of them also accepted Strang's plates, including Lucy Mack Smith. The Kinderhook plates, though never translated, is also a guide to how Joseph Smith thought. He believed at first they were genuine, and said they were an "ancient record". He also said he talked with John the Revelator, so obviously his religious imagination was always at work. If you go back to the lady I gave the example of earlier (she also claimed to have seen Jesus Christ), I think this is a good example of how Joseph Smith most likely thought. But the bottom line to all of this is explaining the production of the Book of Mormon. If you have a very complex "end product", then the means are secondary. Perhaps something like Paley's watch. There are so many theories of Book of Mormon production, and not one has conclusively nailed it. That is why I think my theory fits best. Do you have a conclusive answer? If so, what is it?

So, you believe that it's possible that there were no actual tangible plates, but that Joseph Smith somehow 'saw' them in a visionary sort of way? And that he could help reproduce this visionary sort of thing for other people? ie., Emma touched the plates as they were covered with a cloth. Was she touching actual plates? Was she having some sort of vision where she thought she was touching actual plates? When Joseph Smith described digging up the plates, that was sort of a visionary thing? When he described running through the forest carrying the plates, that was some sort of visionary thing? He thought he was digging up real plates, he thought he was running through the forest carrying real plates, but it was visionary?

Sorry, I'm just having a hard time understanding your theory here.

[_Ray A]

So, you believe that it's possible that there were no actual tangible plates, but that Joseph Smith somehow 'saw' them in a visionary sort of way? And that he could help reproduce this visionary sort of thing for other people? ie., Emma touched the plates as they were covered with a cloth. Was she touching actual plates? Was she having some sort of vision where she thought she was touching actual plates? When Joseph Smith described digging up the plates, that was sort of a visionary thing? When he described running through the forest carrying the plates, that was some sort of visionary thing? He thought he was digging up real plates, he thought he was running through the forest carrying real plates, but it was visionary?

Sorry, I'm just having a hard time understanding your theory here.

There was a long discussion on FAIR some months ago in which Dan Vogel suggested that Joseph Smith also made up tangible plates. That's also a possibility. Which is why he kept tham covered with cloth and told no one to look at them.

I would like to hear your theory of Book of Mormon production.

[_MormonMendacity]

I would like to hear your theory of Book of Mormon production.

Ray, can I respectfully ask, "Why do we need to provide an alternate theory of the crime?"

His claims at best are unsubstantiated, doubtful, delusions and at worst they are lies straight-faced lies.

If I claim to be King of America, do you have to provide evidence I'm not?

[_Who Knows]

There was a long discussion on FAIR some months ago in which Dan Vogel suggested that Joseph Smith also made up tangible plates. That's also a possibility. Which is why he kept tham covered with cloth and told no one to look at them.

Ok, that's what I'm trying to get at. So what I wrote above is accurate - in that you think the whole 'the plates weren't real, but they were visionary even to Joseph Smith' is plausible? You think that when Emma was touching what she thought was the plates, that they may not have been 'real' but it was more of a visionary experience? And all of the other stories about actual tangible plates may not have been real, but the were real to the people experiencing the 'visions'?

Or secondly, Joseph Smith made fake plates, but for some type of 'greater good'?

I can see the 2nd scenario, but not the first. I could see how Joseph Smith thought he might have been doing some sort of 'greater good' by making fake plates, but i can't see the whole 'visionary' thing - given the piles and piles of stories of 'tangible' plates.

I would like to hear your theory of Book of Mormon production.

I don't have a theory. Sorry. :( I'm just trying to learn here.

More specifically, I'm trying to learn how there could have been no real 'tangible' plates, yet Joseph Smith not be considered a 'fraud'. In other words, telling someone that there are real 'tangible' plates under this cloth, when there weren't real 'tangible' plates under the cloth - how can that not be considered fraudulent (unless of course you believe that he knew he was intentionally being deceitful, but doing it for some 'greater good'). Of course I have a problem with this though, as I can't fathom a God who would deceive millions of members of his one true church by leading them to believe that there were actual gold plates, when, in fact, there weren't. In that case, you could say that God is a fraud.