Location of Book of Mormon events: evidence from Joseph Smith Papers

[_cinepro]

When considering Joseph Smith's writings in the Wentworth Letter and other places, it's good to keep in mind the instructions we've been given in judging a Prophet's words. These two points especially:

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning. There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men--between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire" (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).

Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay, and applying it to the man's eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6-7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river? Yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kings 5.)

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. [Isaiah 55:8,9]

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter--temporal or spiritual.

Said Brigham Young:

Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs... .

In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, "Ye Elders of Israel.... will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?" Not one of them could do it....

I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be. [Journal of Discourses, 10:363-364]

And yes, President Benson totally quoted Joseph Smith's letter to Nancy Rigdon.

[_Who Knows]

Who Knows will serve as a good example of what I had in mind when I commented that it always surprises me how many critics, even fairly sophisticated ones, seem to have expected infallibility from the Church and its leaders.

Well I, for one, am not one of your critics who seemingly expected infallibility. And I'm not sure how you've gathered that I am, from what I've typed. I merely expected that 'gods prophet', in a writing in a church publication that he said was not to be altered in any way, would have been 'inspired' in what he wrote. I guess in such a publication, I expected more than just his personal, uninspired thoughts.

[_John Larsen]

Dr. Peterson, you seem to be missing the point. Why should be believe Joseph at all on anything. We know he was human and he was smart, so some of his statements are bound to be correct. The issue with critics is not infallibility, it is how can you demonstrate that this man demands an credulity at all? Like the Dude pointed out, the things that Joseph commented on that can be tested show a miserable success rate. Why should we assume anything else on the things that can't be verified?

[_The Dude]

Why should we assume anything else on the things that can't be verified?

Verification is important, as Dr. Peterson suggests:

I believe that it needs to be read carefully, to see what it claims and to see what it claims on the basis of what.

...but the basis is always the same: authority and revelation.

[Guest]

Dr. Peterson, you seem to be missing the point. Why should be believe Joseph at all on anything. We know he was human and he was smart, so some of his statements are bound to be correct. The issue with critics is not infallibility, it is how can you demonstrate that this man demands an credulity at all? Like the Dude pointed out, the things that Joseph commented on that can be tested show a miserable success rate. Why should we assume anything else on the things that can't be verified?

Part of this rests on faith -- not a popular concept on this board, I would guess, but still rather well regarded among religious people.

But, in addition to that, there are (in my judgment) many things that Joseph gets right that, merely as a human being making guesses, he would likely not have gotten right. I've published hundreds of pages on this sort of thing, as have others. I don't agree that he shows "a miserable success rate."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why should we assume anything else on the things that can't be verified?

Verification is important, as Dr. Peterson suggests:

I believe that it needs to be read carefully, to see what it claims and to see what it claims on the basis of what.

...but the basis is always the same: authority and revelation.

I simply don't understand your continual urge to create straw men, but it's losing its entertainment value for me. For today, at least.

[_silentkid]

I find it interesting that Dr. Peterson criticizes The Dude for using a strawman argument and then he (Dr. Peterson) goes on to build his own in this very thread...that critics expect Joseph Smith to be infallible. I haven't seen any critics argue for infallibility, as Who Knows aptly points out above.

[_John Larsen]

Dr. Peterson, you seem to be missing the point. Why should be believe Joseph at all on anything. We know he was human and he was smart, so some of his statements are bound to be correct. The issue with critics is not infallibility, it is how can you demonstrate that this man demands an credulity at all? Like the Dude pointed out, the things that Joseph commented on that can be tested show a miserable success rate. Why should we assume anything else on the things that can't be verified?

Part of this rests on faith -- not a popular concept on this board, I would guess, but still rather well regarded among religious people.

But, in addition to that, there are (in my judgment) many things that Joseph gets right that, merely as a human being making guesses, he would likely not have gotten right. I've published hundreds of pages on this sort of thing, as have others. I don't agree that he shows "a miserable success rate."

But how do you decide what to put faith in? Faith really is suspended disbelief. Unfortunately, most people invest faith because that is what their faith tells them to do. I guess after that, it's elephants all the way down.

[_cinepro]

It reminds me of the old saw that Roman Catholics say that the pope is infallible, but don't really believe it, while Mormons say that their leaders aren't infallible, but don't really believe it.

Just thought I'd point out that the Catholics look at "infallibility" almost exactly the same way LDS do:

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Ironically, it turns out the Pope may only be the "Pope" when acting as such.

[_John Larsen]

I find it interesting that Dr. Peterson criticizes The Dude for using a strawman argument and then he (Dr. Peterson) goes on to build his own in this very thread...that critics expect Joseph Smith to be infallible. I haven't seen any critics argue for infallibility, as Who Knows aptly points out above.

Amen. Critics have, and always will argue that Joseph was not inspired. They do so by demonstrating he was fallible on certain issues. Apologists continue to make the irrational jump that critics are trying to argue against his infallibility. I don't know if it is a purposeful mislead or it real is the inability to grasp the argument on the side of the apologists.