MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:07 pm
You asked earlier about why I brought Emma into the picture of Book of Mormon translation. I thought that was interesting. Why? Because she played an integral part in all that was going on. If Joseph was doing the long con, then so was she.
I see no reason to suggest that one must require the other. Nothing requires Emma to be ‘in’ on anything other than being in the service of her husband, whom she believes is engaged in a task given by God, even as she was (by her own words) never allowed to see those elusive plates.
Joseph starting out the long game by false witnessing to the woman he loved? That’s a stretch.
And yet, she was never allowed to see the plates?
Seems as if Smith respected Lucy Harris’s skepticism more so than Emma’s support, given where his efforts to convince were concentrated. Perhaps because he knew that Emma would safely accept and believe whatever he told her?
Is history devoid of examples where one partner in a marriage ‘falsely witnesses’ to the other? We even have the example of Smith not being straight with Emma as regards plural marriage and his behavior associated with it.
Anyway, here we have Emma at the end of her life saying:
My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity – I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.
https://www.deilataylor.com/last-testim ... mma-smith/
Have you not yet perused the JSP project? It’s awesome. It’s filled with a few bazillion examples of Smith simply and easily rattling off long-winded rumination, or pronouncement, or repeating the supposed Word of God extensively for paragraph after paragraph, down to minor details about how to fold cloth napkins for Sunday dinner (OK, maybe not the last 8 words). That’s a much more extensive history to examine and consider than Emma’s comment on what he was supposedly capable of.
Emma (read Joseph’s letters to her) was the love of Joseph’s life. To think as you and others would like to that Joseph would do the ‘long con’ on Emma, bring her into a fraudulent translation process, etc., is, like I said, a real stretch.
As mentioned above - he wasn’t straight with her about his affairs within the issue of plural marriage (pun not intended).
Earlier I mentioned ‘savant’ in connection with Joseph. Emma seems to contradict this. Genius? Same.
So then you’re back to…how did he do it?
That’s where imagination kicks in.
Why are you determined to label Smith as an idiot?
Check out the JSP. Tell me how what you see there squares with your determination to cast Smith as an idiot.