Daniel dodges a dilemma by substituting his own

[Flemming]

GOTTEM!
✧˖°. ✧˖°.

[dantana]

...one thing was clear: They’re a major obstacle to people who, like my friend, want to accept Joseph as a sincerely religious man while rejecting his claimed experiences as not literally true...

Hmmm... Are there actually people out there who 1)want to accept Joseph as a sincerely religious man, while simultaneously 2) rejecting his claimed experiences as not literally true?

What exactly would a person like that be thinking? Smith was so religious that he had to make up claims to get people to join his religion?

To a person like that, the plates and DCP's deluded insistence that 'witness' means 'fact' are not "a major obstacle," they are simply another (completely ordinary and explainable) part of the imaginary, fantastical story.

Yeah, to even ponder for a second that J. made it all up but did it for the greater good of mankind is a waste of a second.

But, lets just consider for a half second that it be true. How would one tell? I guess, take a look at what he did with it after his sect was established. Well, how about just take a look all things temple related...which must then be all made up as well. Countless hours by countless people doing temple things all because J. needed a cover to boink everything that moved. express his love for human females.

[Analytics]

I have always wondered about those who manufactured the relics, the pious frauds, as some call them. How did they justify their actions? What makes a sacred relic sacred if it can’t be its authenticity as the item in question? Is Joseph Smith more in touch with that world than we might ordinarily suppose?

I also think of the magical lamens in the Smith family’s possession. They, too, seem like holy relics, but the Smiths either made them or had them made by someone else. Were they interpreted as being something like the vestments of the high priest in Israel?

You see, there are many interesting questions that suggest intriguing possibilities. Was Joseph Smith a con-man is NOT a perennially interesting question. Fraud or authentic is not a good place to start. We should start, based on what Smith himself said, with the assumption that there were no ancient plates. We have to accept, however, that some object or objects were treated AS IF they were the plates....

Maybe we should start with the question of whether or not the Book of Mormon invites us to do good and persuades us to believe in Christ. Because the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. (Moroni 7:16)

Maybe God could have caused there to be real Lehites who wrote a book on gold plates in Mesoamerica and then had an unfortunate soul haul it up to upstate New York for Joseph Smith's eventual convenience so he could translate it without actually referring to it. Sure, God could do that. But if the point is to invite us to do good and persuade us to believe in Christ, and if a fake book can do that just as well as an authentic book, why go through the hassle of making an authentic book when a fake one works just as well?

[Philo Sofee]

Having actual plates, being a con artist, and being a chuckleheaded loon, are not mutually exclusive.

The proprietor’s point, as he himself pointed out, is that the plates leave no room for Joseph being sincerely deluded by his own imagination or mental illness. If the plates never existed, then he (Joseph) was being purposefully deceitful when he said they did. . . No room for being a “pious” fraud.

Unless... of course (!), he made them himself for the glory of the con.

[Dr. Shades]

An interesting thought occurred to me: what if the plates fit into the tradition of manufacturing sacred relics?

Then Joseph Smith was still practicing deception.

As you all are probably aware, Medieval Christians were big on locating and laying claim to pieces of the True Cross, body parts of the saints, etc., and then storing them in reliquaries 8in their churches. The important relics attract a lot of powerful mojo. I have always wondered about those who manufactured the relics, the pious frauds, as some call them. How did they justify their actions?

To make more money from the increase of pilgrims bringing their offerings, obviously.

What makes a sacred relic sacred if it can’t be its authenticity as the item in question?

That's just it: It isn't actually sacred. People may think it is, but it's not.

Is Joseph Smith more in touch with that world than we might ordinarily suppose?

He may have been more in touch with uncommon ways of plying fraud, but that's all.

I also think of the magical lamens in the Smith family’s possession. They, too, seem like holy relics, but the Smiths either made them or had them made by someone else. Were they interpreted as being something like the vestments of the high priest in Israel?

Perhaps, but their interpretation was wrong.

You see, there are many interesting questions that suggest intriguing possibilities. Was Joseph Smith a con-man is NOT a perennially interesting question.

??? It isn't? I thought the question of his telling the truth or lying made all the difference between whether people were sinking their time, money, and devotion into something efficacious or not.

Fraud or authentic is not a good place to start.

I disagree. It's the absolute BEST place to start, because it's the only question that makes any difference at all.

We should start, based on what Smith himself said, with the assumption that there were no ancient plates.

I agree that starting with the assumption that he was lying is the best place to start, because the stories he told certainly don't happen to anyone else.

We have to accept, however, that some object or objects were treated AS IF they were the plates.

Yep. And he lied by saying it was something it actually wasn't.

Where we go from there ought to be closer to questions concerning the making of sacred objects and further away from the realm of archaeology.

By "sacred objects," I assume you mean "fraudulent objects." And yes, those get us quite far away from the realm of archaeology, since they aren't ancient.

Yeah, to even ponder for a second that J. made it all up but did it for the greater good of mankind is a waste of a second.

I wholeheartedly agree. I've never heard of an altruistic con artist. . . not one. To me, "altruistic con artist" / "pious fraud" makes about as much sense as a "square circle."

I can buy the term "pious fraud" only if we understand it as "using piety as a means to commit fraud."

The proprietor’s point, as he himself pointed out, is that the plates leave no room for Joseph being sincerely deluded by his own imagination or mental illness. If the plates never existed, then he (Joseph) was being purposefully deceitful when he said they did. . . No room for being a “pious” fraud.

Unless... of course (!), he made them himself for the glory of the con.

Which falls under the heading of "being purposefully deceitful," just like I said in the post you yourself quoted.

[Kishkumen]

Didn't Anne Taves have a similar view?

I believe it was her who made the point that the Brother of Jared brought ordinary stones to the Lord who sanctified them.

On the other hand, the Liahona just appeared.

Yes! But she sees it as something like transubstantiation, whereas the Brother of Jared is engaging in an alchemical process.

[Kishkumen]

Having actual plates, being a con artist, and being a chuckleheaded loon, are not mutually exclusive.

Having the plates, and the Book of Mormon being fiction, are not mutually exclusive.

Accepting Joseph having actual plates does make all the other issues go away. Having actual plates does not, for instance, make the KJV plagiarism magically disappear. It doesn’t make Joseph magically not take advantage of Fanny Alger in the barn. It doesn’t change much of anything at all.

And of course, there’s no evidence for the existence of the plates outside of the say so of some of Joseph’s friends and relatives, all of whom have proven to be unreliable in one way or another.

I agree with you that having actual plates doesn’t change much of anything unless you can actually get ahold of them and actually confirm that Joseph’s translation was at least somewhere in the ballpark of correct.

Worse yet, every claim Joseph made could be true, and that would not insure that the LDS Church is what it claims to be. All it would mean is that Smith was what HE claimed to be.

LDS apologists regularly try to bootstrap claims in this way. Missionaries do too. Unfortunately, a testimony of the Book of Mormon does not mean the LDS Church is the only true church.

[Kishkumen]

The dirt does its job despite its humble origins. My wife and I visited during an ordinary time of year with only modest groups of people. Attended mass and found it a moving experience. We enjoyed the art a lot.(could be called Mexican Indian hybrid)

I incline to think that faith and participation are more important or effective than any special quality of the dirt.

Thanks for sharing that, huckelberry! Very cool. I agree that the production of holy or sacred things is about creating loci for faith or the experience of the divine. The irruption of the divine is, at its heart, the triggering of people’s perception of divine presence. Joseph Smith did this kind of thing repeatedly.

[I Have Questions]

Having actual plates, being a con artist, and being a chuckleheaded loon, are not mutually exclusive.

The proprietor’s point, as he himself pointed out, is that the plates leave no room for Joseph being sincerely deluded by his own imagination or mental illness. If the plates never existed, then he (Joseph) was being purposefully deceitful when he said they did. . . No room for being a “pious” fraud.

Why does “plates never existed” rule out Joseph being deluded and thinking they did exist due to imagination or mental illness?

[Nevo]

The irruption of the divine is, at its heart, the triggering of people’s perception of divine presence. Joseph Smith did this kind of thing repeatedly.

Nicely observed. Bushman talks about this in his essay, "Joseph Smith and the Creation of the Sacred." He argues that one major reason for Joseph's lasting influence was that he "met a human need for the sacred": "He offered new sites for encountering the sacred, and it was the growing potency of these distinctive loci that set Mormonism apart from the rest of the Christian world." Bushman focuses on two: sacred words and sacred places.

In raw, untutored form, Joseph Smith gave his followers both words from heaven and spaces in which to pledge themselves to God. . . . We may devise our own explanations for Smith's influence in antebellum America. But if we asked the early converts, they most likely would have said they heard God in their prophet's words and found God in their holy city and in their sacred temple. We can look behind and beneath their explanations for one that satisfies us, but in the end we cannot lightly dismiss their own accounts of how the sacred entered their lives.

I like Bushman's essay because it also fits my own experience. I've had what I consider to be encounters with the divine a few times in my life, and they have all occurred in a Mormon context: while reading the Book of Mormon, while attending the temple, while participating in priesthood blessings, etc. I don't just mean a feeling of spiritual connection, but the feeling of the presence of a real, divine Other.

If Joseph Smith was a con man, the religious world he helped create has nevertheless been a great blessing in my life. I know others here don't feel that way, but it has been my experience.