Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[Marcus]

Please give your own response, not an A.I. response.

I more or less agree with the A.I. response. Saves a LOT of time...

Then use your words and state your own opinion. Saving time is irrelevant if it means avoiding interaction.

[MG 2.0]

I more or less agree with the A.I. response. Saves a LOT of time...

Then use your words and state your own opinion. Saving time is irrelevant.

Not to me. Saving time is paramount. I proof read the A.I. response. If I agree with the content on the whole, I use it. Just as I would if I were quoting another ‘hard copy’ source.

A.I. is our friend, Marcus. Not our enemy. It’s what you make it. And it saves a LOT of time in some instances when simply retrieving information that is already out there.

Get used to it. Get with the times. Your ‘bump’ has been answered. Now, give it a rest, will ya’?

Again, you are free to take issue with any of the bullet points which have been given to you. As it is I think your original ‘bump’ has been responded to adequately. I’m hoping we can leave it there.

If it’s not good enough for you..then, oh well.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

..A.I. is our friend, Marcus. Not our enemy. It’s what you make it. And it saves a LOT of time in some instances when simply retrieving information that is already out there...

Not the way you use it. It's a lazy and subpar substitute for thinking. It imitates the most basic level of status quo with no regard for accuracy or truth. It has no place on legitimate conversation.

If you need to proofread your errors or clean up your grammar, fine. But using it to replace thinking is inappropriate.

[I Have Questions]

Here’s a full response from Chat Gpt to the input question (always important to cite the question you inputted) “Why might one expect Emma Smith to lie about her husband taking plural wives?”

There are several reasons why one might expect Emma Smith, the wife of Joseph Smith, to deny or be reluctant to acknowledge her husband's practice of taking plural wives, even if it were true. These reasons often stem from emotional, social, and religious dynamics, both personal and cultural:

1. **Personal Distress and Betrayal**: Emma Smith’s likely feelings of betrayal could be a significant factor. She was deeply devoted to Joseph, and the practice of polygamy would have been a profound emotional challenge. Admitting or acknowledging it might have been an unbearable confirmation of her husband's actions that went against her personal beliefs and sense of marital fidelity.

2. **Social and Religious Pressure**: During Joseph Smith's lifetime, the practice of plural marriage was highly controversial. Many people, including Emma's close associates and members of the wider society, were opposed to polygamy. For Emma, publicly confirming her husband's involvement in it could have exposed her to social stigma, criticism, or even ostracism, both within the early Latter-day Saint community and in the broader society.

3. **Theological Confusion or Rejection**: Emma reportedly struggled with the theological justification for plural marriage. Joseph Smith taught that polygamy was a divine commandment, but Emma did not embrace this doctrine and, at times, outright opposed it. If she was in denial or rejected its legitimacy, it might have led her to publicly deny or downplay the practice, either to maintain her personal peace or because she didn’t believe in its divine necessity.

4. **Mistrust and Conflict with Joseph Smith**: In the years leading up to Joseph Smith’s death, Emma and Joseph’s relationship became increasingly strained. Emma likely felt hurt by Joseph’s actions, which could have included marrying other women in secret or without her full consent. This conflict could have fueled her reluctance to speak openly about his polygamous relationships, as doing so could have amplified personal pain or reinforced a narrative of mistrust between them.

5. **Historical Context and Narratives**: In the aftermath of Joseph Smith’s death, Emma was in a precarious position within the early LDS movement. As the widow of the founder of the Church, her testimony and narrative would shape how future generations viewed the events of Joseph's life. Her position might have influenced her responses regarding polygamy, as she could have felt compelled to protect her family's legacy or preserve a version of her husband’s character that was more palatable to her and to others.

In sum, Emma Smith’s denial or reluctance to acknowledge polygamy likely stemmed from a combination of personal hurt, theological objections, social pressures, and the complex dynamics of her marriage and her position within the early Mormon community.

Nobody knows for sure why, but everyone knows for sure that she did lie in favour of Joseph Smith. If one can accept that, one can also accept that the Witnesses were equally able to lie in favour of Joseph Smith when he asked them to sign a statement saying they had seen something.

[I Have Questions]

Please give your own response, not an A.I. response.

I more or less agree with the A.I. response. Saves a LOT of time. If there is something you take issue with, please feel free to do so rather than getting hung up on non essentials.

Regards,
MG

But it shows that when you made your original statement about holding an expectation that Emma would lie about plural marriage, you didn’t have a reason for saying it. You only asked A.I. to trawl and find some answers for you when your own vacuous comment was called out. It’s what you do.

And if you’re okay legitimising Emma’s lies, then you are intellectually compelled to accept that one might equally expect the witnesses to lie in Joseph’s favour.

[Moksha]

A.I. is our friend, Marcus. Not our enemy.
Regards,
MG

Could it also serve as one of our prophets, seers, and revelators?



"The Lord says Howdy"

[Marcus]

I more or less agree with the A.I. response. Saves a LOT of time. If there is something you take issue with, please feel free to do so rather than getting hung up on non essentials.

Regards,
MG

But it shows that when you made your original statement about holding an expectation that Emma would lie about plural marriage, you didn’t have a reason for saying it. You only asked A.I. to trawl and find some answers for you when your own vacuous comment was called out. It’s what you do.

Yes, it is what he does. Sadly.

And if you’re okay legitimising Emma’s lies, then you are intellectually compelled to accept that one might equally expect the witnesses to lie in Joseph’s favour.

Exactly. But, I predict he will disagree, for... reasons.

[I Have Questions]

Using MG’s methodology I asked ChatGpt the question “Why might one expect the Book of Mormon witnesses to lie in support of Joseph smith?” (it’s important to say what question you asked it). Here is the reply:

There are several reasons someone might expect the Book of Mormon witnesses to lie or exaggerate in support of Joseph Smith, based on various historical, psychological, and social factors. Here are a few key considerations:

1. **Social and Religious Pressure**: Many of the witnesses were closely involved with the early Mormon community, which was often under intense persecution and social scrutiny. They may have felt a deep sense of loyalty or duty to support Joseph Smith, even if they had doubts about the physical reality of the events they were testifying to. In such a context, individuals may be influenced by the pressure to conform to group beliefs or ideals.

2. **Personal Gain or Status**: Some might argue that the witnesses could have been motivated by the social, financial, or religious rewards that came with being associated with the movement. Being a witness to a divine revelation, like the Book of Mormon, could bring respect, status, and power within the growing church community. It's possible that some witnesses might have exaggerated or fabricated their testimonies to secure these benefits.

3. **Cognitive Dissonance**: People are often motivated to align their beliefs with their actions to avoid psychological discomfort. If the witnesses were involved in the process of translating the Book of Mormon or in early Mormonism, they might have convinced themselves of the truth of their experiences, even if they had initial doubts. Cognitive dissonance could lead them to support Joseph Smith’s claims to resolve internal conflict.

4. **Lack of Modern Standards of Evidence**: In the 19th century, the concept of "evidence" was often less formal and more subjective. Individuals might have viewed their personal experiences and visions as valid forms of testimony, even if modern standards would consider them unreliable. In such a context, witnesses might genuinely believe that they were testifying to something true, even if it was difficult to prove to others.

5. **Fear of Excommunication or Retribution**: Early Mormonism was often a tight-knit, insular community. Those who spoke out against Joseph Smith or his teachings could face social ostracism or even excommunication, which could be seen as a form of spiritual or social death. This fear of retribution might have led witnesses to support Joseph Smith’s claims, even if they had doubts.

6. **Sincere Belief**: It's also possible that some witnesses genuinely believed in the truth of the Book of Mormon and the claims of Joseph Smith, regardless of any personal or social pressures. People can deeply internalize their religious experiences, leading them to testify honestly, but perhaps under the influence of their own emotions, biases, or interpretations of events.

Of course, it's also worth noting that some witnesses, such as Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and others, later distanced themselves from Joseph Smith or Mormonism entirely, which has led some to question whether they were lying or mistaken in their initial testimonies. In contrast, some witnesses remained steadfast in their testimonies, which adds complexity to the issue.

Ultimately, whether the Book of Mormon witnesses lied, were mistaken, or were truthful is a matter of ongoing debate and interpretation, with different perspectives shaped by religious, historical, and philosophical views.

And it’s important to post the full response, rather than a curtailed or cherry picked segment of it.

Reason #5 stands out to me:
“5. **Fear of Excommunication or Retribution**: Early Mormonism was often a tight-knit, insular community. Those who spoke out against Joseph Smith or his teachings could face social ostracism or even excommunication, which could be seen as a form of spiritual or social death. This fear of retribution might have led witnesses to support Joseph Smith’s claims, even if they had doubts.”

Joseph was known to be spiteful to those whom disagreed with him so that seems a plausible response.

[MG 2.0]

Here are some reasons to consider that Emma Smith was telling the truth about the Book of Mormon translation and the gold plates:

* Firsthand experience: Emma Smith served as a scribe for her husband during the translation process, which means she had a unique perspective on how the translation was actually carried out. Her firsthand account should be given weight in assessing the validity of the translation process.

* Risk of perjury: In 1879, Emma Smith testified under oath that she had felt the plates through a cloth and that her husband had translated them by the power of God. Lying under oath would have put her at risk of perjury charges, which suggests that she believed she was telling the truth.

* Lack of incentive: Unlike the issue of polygamy, Emma Smith had little to gain by lying about the gold plates. If she believed the plates were a fabrication, she could have simply refused to participate in the translation process or even exposed the deception.

* Consistency over time: Emma Smith maintained her testimony about the plates and the translation process for the rest of her life, even after she left the LDS Church and joined the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now known as Community of Christ). This consistency suggests that she genuinely believed her account.

* Lack of evidence of deception: While there have been many theories about how Joseph Smith might have fabricated the gold plates, there is no compelling evidence that he did so. In fact, many of the details of the translation process that Emma described are corroborated by other witnesses and historical sources.

* Personal character: While Emma Smith was not without flaws or biases, she was generally regarded as a person of integrity and honesty. There is no clear reason to suspect that she was lying about her experience with the gold plates.

-Pi A.I.

Regards,
MG

Original inquiry:

What are some good reasons we ought to consider the possibility that Emma was telling the truth as she knew it in regards to the Book of Mormon translation and the plates?

[MG 2.0]

I really can’t definitively say. I would say that it might be one or more of the following:



For each one of us as we look at Emma we have to determine what her motivations were and whether or not they were overpowering enough to cover up the truth in one instance while telling the truth in another. As I’ve said before, I am wary of making blanket statements in situations like this. The fact is, she wasn’t a liar in every situation and in everything throughout her whole life.

We have evidence of her good works and loving kindness to those around her. She was respected.

The question is her basic goodness and her basic tendency to tell the truth. I wouldn’t doubt that from what we know of Emma, and Joseph’s feelings towards her, that she was a good and decent woman.

She may have been telling the truth about the plates and the translation process. She in most respects agrees with the other witnesses.

Earlier I exited this thread. Unless there is an overwhelming purpose/reason for me to continue on this thread I believe I’ve made my case. I realize that others, of course, will disagree.

That’s OK.

Regards,
MG

Every reason that your chatbot gave for Emma lying about polygamy could be adapted as reasons that she lied about the plates. Wouldn’t you agree?

Original inquiry:

Why might Emma Smith lie about her husband, Joseph Smith, taking plural wives?