Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_Dr. Shades]

Well lets put it this way: the Book of Mormon gave Joseph Smith nothing but trouble.

How do you figure? It also gave Joseph Smith lots of extra women, plenty of money, loads of adulation, copious amounts of respect, and the list goes on and on.

He failed in his mission if the book is a fraud. He died for that darn book, . . .

No, he died because of the locals' fear of the Nauvoo Legion and further Mormon depradations.

. . . not to mentioned the fact, he rattled the religious bigots of his day.

Actually, he rattled his creditors.

Joseph was not a success at all, if he is a fraudster. This 'fraud' brought him and his family nothing but pain and emotional hardship.

See above.

Certainly it wasn't a success. It cost some of Joseph Smith's children their lives, his brother Hyrum lost his life and Joseph Smith lost his life, leaving his mother devastated. And Emma a widow. Where is the personal success in this story? No where.

Joseph didn't know that his excesses would lead to his death. The Book of Mormon can't be blamed for his & Hyrum's loss of life, his mother's devastation, and Emma's widowhood.

[_charity]

Joseph didn't know that his excesses would lead to his death. The Book of Mormon can't be blamed for his & Hyrum's loss of life, his mother's devastation, and Emma's widowhood.

So, you think victims of crime are resonsible for being victims? Women are just asking to be raped, I suppose, in your scheme of things? Did the develoment of your philosophy of life stop in 1950?

[_Chap]

Joseph didn't know that his excesses would lead to his death. The Book of Mormon can't be blamed for his & Hyrum's loss of life, his mother's devastation, and Emma's widowhood.

So, you think victims of crime are resonsible for being victims? Women are just asking to be raped, I suppose, in your scheme of things? Did the develoment of your philosophy of life stop in 1950?

That really does not answer the point at all. Dr. Shades' argument was that since Joseph Smith did not, when he produced the Book of Mormon, know or have reasonable grounds to believe that he was likely to be killed by a mob as a result, the fact of his later death cannot be used as an argument against his having had self-seeking motives in producing it.

Of course it is in any case disputable that he was killed because of the Book of Mormon itself, but that is a different argument.

I hope that is clear.

[_karl61]

Joseph didn't know that his excesses would lead to his death. The Book of Mormon can't be blamed for his & Hyrum's loss of life, his mother's devastation, and Emma's widowhood.

So, you think victims of crime are resonsible for being victims? Women are just asking to be raped, I suppose, in your scheme of things? Did the develoment of your philosophy of life stop in 1950?

That really does not answer the point at all. Dr. Shades' argument was that since Joseph Smith did not, when he produced the Book of Mormon, know or have reasonable grounds to believe that he was likely to be killed by a mob as a result, the fact of his later death cannot be used as an argument against his having had self-seeking motives in producing it.

Of course it is in any case disputable that he was killed because of the Book of Mormon itself, but that is a different argument.

I hope that is clear.

The Masons got him - that's my theory. He disclosed too much.

[_Mercury]

Joseph didn't know that his excesses would lead to his death. The Book of Mormon can't be blamed for his & Hyrum's loss of life, his mother's devastation, and Emma's widowhood.

So, you think victims of crime are resonsible for being victims? Women are just asking to be raped, I suppose, in your scheme of things? Did the develoment of your philosophy of life stop in 1950?

Lets look at who the criminal is. Joseph smith, using his brainwashed followers ordered the destruction of a printing press that was getting out the facts of his life.

Frontier law being used to justify the castrations and murders of hundreds in Utah, I do not see why you would have a problem with the execution of a madman.

[_why me]

Lets look at who the criminal is. Joseph smith, using his brainwashed followers ordered the destruction of a printing press that was getting out the facts of his life.

The printing press deserved to be destroyed. It was superhyping the mob against the Mormons. Sorry but such hateful press deserved to be shut down. Joseph Smith saved lives. And the editors of the Nauvoo Expositor knew exactly what they were doing.

[_why me]

Well lets put it this way: the Book of Mormon gave Joseph Smith nothing but trouble.

How do you figure? It also gave Joseph Smith lots of extra women, plenty of money, loads of adulation, copious amounts of respect, and the list goes on and on.

Not really. It did not give him lots of extra women. If fact, polygamy gave him a huge headache. What adulation? It came at a high price. A lot of hatred for Joe Smith out there in them there hills at that time. Respect? Tar and feathers know no respect and the list goes on and on.

Fact: Joseph Smith would have been more successful without the Book of Mormon. His divine calling was one big headache and downer for him. But he rose to the challenge.

[_Blixa]

Lets look at who the criminal is. Joseph smith, using his brainwashed followers ordered the destruction of a printing press that was getting out the facts of his life.

The printing press deserved to be destroyed. It was superhyping the mob against the Mormons. Sorry but such hateful press deserved to be shut down. Joseph Smith saved lives. And the editors of the Nauvoo Expositor knew exactly what they were doing.

To quote charity, why me:

"So, you think victims of crime are resonsible for being victims?"

[_why me]

The Masons got him - that's my theory. He disclosed too much.

Actually the exmormons got him. They spread their hatred and the hatred took. The Nauvoo Expositor was going to be one more hate rag until Joseph Smith with town council approval had it destroyed. And I do believe that William Law had his hand in the paper.

It would be no different today, right? We also have diehard exmos today who would have led the charge against Joe Smith. Nothing changes...only the year.

[_beastie]

If I recall correctly, it wasn't until 1870 when the protective rights of derivative works were addressed (I.e. translations, adaptations, etc.). I’m not sure of all the ins-and-outs, but I think that until that time, translations of texts/books weren’t protected under copyright law.

I’ve been wrong before, and I’m only going by memory here, so be forewarned.

Wasn't the second printing in 1837? I'm trying to figure out what changed in those seven years.