Runtu wrote:You seem to take our disagreement as a sort of insult. If I have said anything to give you that impression, I'm sorry. I am genuinely trying to understand where you are coming from, as your perspective is quite foreign to me.
As for the above, I think I get what you're saying, that Joseph basically ignored the Book of Mormon once it was finished. I don't know what I'd go that far, but he certainly didn't use it much as a source of doctrine and didn't preach from it much at all. He didn't abandon it entirely, however, as he went back through the manuscripts in 1837 and 1840 and made pretty substantial revisions. Someone who was "clueless" about the book would not have done that.
If I were a believer, I would say that the book's apparently lesser importance (at least compared to today) reflects how the Book of Mormon was seen in the early church as a witness to the truth of the Bible, not as supplanting or enhancing it. My wretched unbeliever self sees it more as the church's (and Joseph's) claim to revelation and authority; its existence, not really its content, was what supported Joseph's role as leader and prophet, so it's not surprising that he ignored the contents somewhat thereafter.
The other thing to remember is that Joseph Smith always had a project going, whether building a city or creating new scriptures. These projects--the here and now of his life--occupied his time, and there's a pretty good track record of him losing interest and moving on to the next project. The Book of Abraham was pretty much forgotten for 7 years or so, but he went back to it in Nauvoo for whatever reason.
I'm skeptical of claims to contact a "spirit world," but I can't rule out that such things happen. But that's really not of interest to me, as the book speaks for itself. I am, however, deeply skeptical of someone who uses a particular "supernatural" method for one task (say, finding treasure) and fails utterly, but then turns around and claims to use the same method successfully for another task (say, translating gold plates). The text would have to be pretty damn compelling for me to give that person the time of day.
Thank you for your kind response.
Usually when a person creates something, such as authoring a book, that is their "baby" and they nurture is along. I would think that this would be particularly true of the first book. According to the accounts I have read, this was not the case with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Maybe you are aware of something that shows otherwise. What evidence is there that he was aware, at the time, of the content of the Book of Mormon? (Yes, revisions were made later on, indicating that there was an awareness of possible problems with the content) If you believe statements, such as by Emma, he seemed surprised by some of the things that he was dictating. But, as we have seen, statements by witnesses can be interpreted in different ways, based primarily, I think, on a person's belief system.
Regarding channeling, we should be aware that Joseph Smith as a youth was having experiences that were new and possibly confusing to him. He likely really thought that he could find buried treasure, given the budding experiences he was having. At some point, he may have made actual contact with the spirit world. Perhaps this occurred first in dreams which he repeated to his family. But eventually the information started to come to him when he was awake, either through his stone or though ideas that came into consciousness, and which he then dictated to his scribe. He likely thought that what he was experiencing came from God, but the content of the Book of Mormon (especially the numberous changes that have been made) says otherwise. I can imagine, if this is what was going on, that initially it could have been a slow process as he became familiar with this new-found ability and that by the time that Oliver Cowdery came on the scene, he had become relatively skilled in receiving and dictating the text of the Book of Mormon. This is how I imagine what might have happened. As we have seen, this view receives very little support, from critics and apologists alike. But thank you, anyway, for your interest. I assume you are sincere.