Our leaders

[_Nevo]

That may have been his defence in court but I seem to remember that out of court he admitted to someone that he had no seeric ability. I'm not at home, nor do I have the time currently to investigate.

I believe also there was a witness to Smith admitting to Emma's dad he had no special ability involving the supernatural.

According to Peter Ingersoll, Joseph admitted to Isaac Hale that "he could not see in a seer stone now, nor never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false. He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones" (Vogel, ed., EMD 2:43).

Isaac's son, Alva, who was also present, remembered Joseph saying that "this 'peeping' was all damned nonsense. He (Smith) was deceived himself but did not intend to deceive others;--that he intended to quit the business, (of peeping) and labor for his livelihood" (EMD 4:291).

For his part, Isaac Hale recorded only that "Smith stated to me that he had given up what he called 'glass-looking' and that he expected to work hard for a living, and was willing to do so" (EMD 4:285-86).

Dan Vogel thinks that "Alva's memory may be more precise [than Ingersoll's] in that, in his account, Joseph doesn't confess to fraudulent behavior" (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 92), and I am inclined to agree. Had Joseph actually admitted to intentionally deceiving people, surely Alva and Isaac would have remembered it. In fact, Alva Hale reports that Joseph told him on another occasion "that his (Smith's) gift in seeing with a stone and hat, was a gift from God."

It appears, then, that by 1827 Joseph had come to regard "peeping" for buried treasure as "nonsense" although he still believed that his seeric gift came from God. This is consistent with Joseph Smith Sr.'s testimony at his son's 1826 court hearing:

He delineated his [Joseph Smith, Jr.'s] characteristics in his youthful days--his vision of the luminous stone in the glass--his visit to Lake Erie in search of the stone--and his wonderful triumphs as a seer. He described very many instances of his finding hidden and stolen goods. He swore that both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre, or its equivalent in earthly treasures, and . . . he said his constant prayer to his Heavenly Father was to manifest His will concerning this marvelous power.

-- William D. Purple Reminiscence, 28 April 1877, in Vogel, ed., EMD 4:135.

[_marg]

That may have been his defence in court but I seem to remember that out of court he admitted to someone that he had no seeric ability. I'm not at home, nor do I have the time currently to investigate.

I believe also there was a witness to Smith admitting to Emma's dad he had no special ability involving the supernatural.

According to Peter Ingersoll, Joseph admitted to Isaac Hale that "he could not see in a seer stone now, nor never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false. He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones" (Vogel, ed., EMD 2:43).

Isaac's son, Alva, who was also present, remembered Joseph saying that "this 'peeping' was all damned nonsense. He (Smith) was deceived himself but did not intend to deceive others;--that he intended to quit the business, (of peeping) and labor for his livelihood" (EMD 4:291).

For his part, Isaac Hale recorded only that "Smith stated to me that he had given up what he called 'glass-looking' and that he expected to work hard for a living, and was willing to do so" (EMD 4:285-86).

Dan Vogel thinks that "Alva's memory may be more precise [than Ingersoll's] in that, in his account, Joseph doesn't confess to fraudulent behavior" (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 92), and I am inclined to agree. Had Joseph actually admitted to intentionally deceiving people, surely Alva and Isaac would have remembered it. In fact, Alva Hale reports that Joseph told him on another occasion "that his (Smith's) gift in seeing with a stone and hat, was a gift from God."

Just because Isaac Hale doesn't specifically mention fraud in the line he wrote "Smith stated to me that he had given up what he called 'glass-looking' and that he expected to work hard for a living, and was willing to do so" doesn't mean he doesn't assume fraud. Why on earth should Isaac Hale be expected to spell out fraud in what he writes with regards to Smith's activity of "glass-looking". It's pretty obvious that's what it is. And similarly with Alva recalling Smith saying the "peeping" was nonsense. Again it's not up to Alva to spell out fraud. So just because they don't mention fraud doesn not mean one can assume they thought fraud wasn't involved, in fact based on what they wrote it seems that fraud was a given.

And Nevo just because Alva recalls Smith on another occasion saying that his gift is from God doesn't mean a thing. It's not the least bit surprising that he would. Obviously he was not consistent with his admission of fraud and only rarely admitted to it.

It appears, then, that by 1827 Joseph had come to regard "peeping" for buried treasure as "nonsense" although he still believed that his seeric gift came from God. This is consistent with Joseph Smith Sr.'s testimony at his son's 1826 court hearing:

There is too much inconsistency here such that it makes little sense. You can't have a person believing "seeric ability is from God yet nonsense as well. If one takes the "gullibility" factor out of this...Smith knew his claimed seeric ability was nonsense and knew no God was involved. It simply was a con which he was fully aware of.

[_Nevo]

So just because they don't mention fraud doesn not mean one can assume they thought fraud wasn't involved, in fact based on what they wrote it seems that fraud was a given.

What does this have to do with anything? The issue isn't whether Isaac and Alva Hale thought Joseph's scrying involved fraud (they did), but whether Joseph admitted to them that he intentionally deceived people by only pretending to see things in his stone.

My point is simple: had Joseph actually made such a confession, we would expect Isaac and Alva to have mentioned it in their statements--which were, after all, intended to discredit Smith. Why would they omit such a damaging admission?

Instead, Alva records Joseph saying that he did not intend to deceive others with his scrying. And that on another occasion Joseph told him his gift of seeing in the stone came from God.

There is too much inconsistency here such that it makes little sense. You can't have a person believing "seeric ability is from God yet nonsense as well.

But Alva doesn't have Joseph saying "my seeric ability is all damned nonsense" but rather "this 'peeping' [is] all damned nonsense." As Richard Bushman points out, by 1827, Joseph had begun "to orient himself away from treasure and toward translation" (RSR, 51). By this time he was probably making a distinction between "seeing" with a stone--the work of a "seer"--and "peeping" for buried treasure. This may seem like a distinction without a difference to you, but it may have been significant for Joseph. Commenting on Joseph's 1826 court testimony, Bushman writes:

Under examination, the twenty-year-old Joseph said that he had looked for "hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth" and had helped Stowell several times. . . . But he was not happy with this work. "Of late he had pretty much given it up on account of injuring his Health, especially his eyes, made them sore." Treasure-seeking, he said, was not his idea. "He did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business." He had been under pressure from neighbors, from the enthusiastic and well-off Stowell, and from his own father. They kept after him even though the hunts invariably failed (RSR, 52).

Joseph's "lack of involvement in the actual digging and occasional absence from the site of the digs he was directing" (see Quinn, EMMWV, 2d ed., 65) suggests that he was not an enthusiastic money digger. But this should not surprise us. As Quinn explains, "for the treasure-seer the primary reward was expanding his or her seeric gift." That done, Joseph was now ready to move on to bigger and better things. Which brings us back to Alan Taylor's analysis:

"Joseph was after something more than mere material wealth: by accumulating spiritual understanding he hoped to attain divine power. He began small by grappling with the guardian spirits of treasure troves in nocturnal, ritualistic digging expeditions but, through such experiences, matured his concerns toward his ultimate role as the Mormon prophet. By the time he recovered the treasure he sought, it was no longer the mammon of a few years earlier but instead a book of divine knowledge" (Alan Taylor, "Rediscovering the Context of Joseph Smith's Treasure Seeking," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 4 [Winter 1986]: 24).

[_Roger Morrison]

"Joseph was after something more than mere material wealth: by accumulating spiritual understanding he hoped to attain divine power. He began small by grappling with the guardian spirits of treasure troves in nocturnal, ritualistic digging expeditions but, through such experiences, matured his concerns toward his ultimate role as the Mormon prophet. By the time he recovered the treasure he sought, it was no longer the mammon of a few years earlier but instead a book of divine knowledge" (Alan Taylor, "Rediscovering the Context of Joseph Smith's Treasure Seeking," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 4 [Winter 1986]: 24).

A most interesting & seemingly subjective statement, as I read and understand it.

"...a book of divine knowledge." Who said so? Are not all/most ego driven power seekers, political or otherwise, after, "...more than material wealth"? Is "...divine (like) power..." not the dream of all/most Emperors? What true "...spiritual understanding (did Joseph) accumulate..."?

Is Alan Taylor testifying that Joseph Smith was/is truly, "...the Mormon Prophet (of God)."? Is Taylor exposing Joseph Smith as simply another of history's megalomaniacs? Of whom there are many who did build empires. Joseph Smith seems to fit the pattern. Or, is he objectively laying out the suppositions of others? Himself being neutral re Joseph's integity or fraudulence???

[_marg]

What does this have to do with anything? The issue isn't whether Isaac and Alva Hale thought Joseph's scrying involved fraud (they did), but whether Joseph admitted to them that he intentionally deceived people by only pretending to see things in his stone.

My point is simple: had Joseph actually made such a confession, we would expect Isaac and Alva to have mentioned it in their statements--which were, after all, intended to discredit Smith. Why would they omit such a damaging admission?

Instead, Alva records Joseph saying that he did not intend to deceive others with his scrying. And that on another occasion Joseph told him his gift of seeing in the stone came from God.

Nevo, was Alva asked questions and responded to them or did he write a letter to someone in the church for example with regards to whether J. Smith was deceived but didn't want to deceive others. by the way Alva would be in no position to know whether Smith was deceived, so I'm wondering why he would have commented specifically on that, in other words say Smith was deluded.


As far as your wondering why Alva and Isaac didn't mention intentional fraud or whether Smith admitted fraud to them or not I think you are naïve. Smith knew the future father in law didn't like that he wasn't working other than treasure seeking. As a son in law he's not likely to admit he commits intentional fraud against others. That he's willing to quit treasure seeking and find respectable work is all the father in law wants. It also isn't likely that Smith would open up to the brother in law and admit he acts fraudulently who might report back to Emma or the dad. And why should alva be someone Smith should confide in.

There is too much inconsistency here such that it makes little sense. You can't have a person believing "seeric ability is from God yet nonsense as well.

But Alva doesn't have Joseph saying "my seeric ability is all damned nonsense" but rather "this 'peeping' [is] all damned nonsense." As Richard Bushman points out, by 1827, Joseph had begun "to orient himself away from treasure and toward translation" (RSR, 51). By this time he was probably making a distinction between "seeing" with a stone--the work of a "seer"--and "peeping" for buried treasure. This may seem like a distinction without a difference to you, but it may have been significant for Joseph. Commenting on Joseph's 1826 court testimony, Bushman writes:

"Under examination, the twenty-year-old Joseph said that he had looked for "hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth" and had helped Stowell several times. . . . But he was not happy with this work. "Of late he had pretty much given it up on account of injuring his Health, especially his eyes, made them sore." Treasure-seeking, he said, was not his idea. "He did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business." He had been under pressure from neighbors, from the enthusiastic and well-off Stowell, and from his own father. They kept after him even though the hunts invariably failed"(RSR, 52).

Apparently farm animals went missing on nights he went out with others, so seeking treasure for money may not have been their prime motivation.

Joseph's "lack of involvement in the actual digging and occasional absence from the site of the digs he was directing" (see Quinn, EMMWV, 2d ed., 65) suggests that he was not an enthusiastic money digger. But this should not surprise us. As Quinn explains, "for the treasure-seer the primary reward was expanding his or her seeric gift." That done, Joseph was now ready to move on to bigger and better things.

Or more likely Smith didn't like physical work such as digging.

Which brings us back to Alan Taylor's analysis:

"Joseph was after something more than mere material wealth: by accumulating spiritual understanding he hoped to attain divine power. He began small by grappling with the guardian spirits of treasure troves in nocturnal, ritualistic digging expeditions but, through such experiences, matured his concerns toward his ultimate role as the Mormon prophet. By the time he recovered the treasure he sought, it was no longer the mammon of a few years earlier but instead a book of divine knowledge" (Alan Taylor, "Rediscovering the Context of Joseph Smith's Treasure Seeking," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19, no. 4 [Winter 1986]: 24).

Joseph Smith was a good con man and the thrill of the con is what interested him the most. He didn't plan the Book of Mormon or being a prophet until people came to him with ideas. The circumstances evolved, the opportunity presented itself and he took advantage of it. With Spalding's book in Ridgon's hand Rigdon needed others to present a religious book as if it was true history. Even Rigdon may not have initially thought of starting a religion when he first came across Splading's unpublished book, his motivation initially may have been potential profits from the sale of a religious book presented as if historically true. by the way, I hope Nevo that you do not think the Book of Mormon is a true historical account.

[_Nevo]

Nevo, was Alva asked questions and responded to them or did he write a letter to someone in the church for example with regards to whether J. Smith was deceived but didn't want to deceive others.

The statements I quoted came from an affidavit Alva Hale swore before Susquehanna County justice of the peace Charles Dimon on or before 20 March 1834. The affidavit was forwarded, along with affidavits sworn by his father and other relatives, to the editor of the Susquehanna Register. An excerpt from Alva's affidavit appeared in the 1 May 1834 issue. The same excerpt was subsequently published in E. D. Howe's Mormonism Unvailed (1834). Unfortunately, this is all that has survived of Alva Hale's original affidavit.

As far as your wondering why Alva and Isaac didn't mention intentional fraud or whether Smith admitted fraud to them or not I think you are naïve. Smith knew the future father in law didn't like that he wasn't working other than treasure seeking. As a son in law he's not likely to admit he commits intentional fraud against others. That he's willing to quit treasure seeking and find respectable work is all the father in law wants. It also isn't likely that Smith would open up to the brother in law and admit he acts fraudulently who might report back to Emma or the dad.

I'm glad we agree that Ingersoll was wrong: Smith didn't admit to committing intentional fraud.

Apparently farm animals went missing on nights he went out with others, so seeking treasure for money may not have been their prime motivation.

So ritually sacrificing animals was their prime motivation?

Or more likely Smith didn't like physical work such as digging.

I don't know if he liked it or not, but he certainly did a lot of it.

Sources document over two dozen kinds of labor the Smiths performed for hire, including digging and rocking up wells, mowing, coopering, constructing cisterns, hunting and trapping, teaching school, providing domestic service, and making split-wood chairs, brooms and baskets. The Smiths also harvested, did modest carpentry work, dug for salt, constructed stone walls and fireplaces, flailed grain, cut and sold cordwood, carted, made cider, and "witched" for water. They sold garden produce, made bee-gums, washed clothes, painted oil-cloth coverings, butchered, dug coal, painted chairs, hauled stone, and made maple syrup and sugar.

Joseph Jr.'s account suggests honest industry in the face of difficult conditions: "Being in indigent circumstances," he says, "[we] were obliged to labour hard for the support of [our] Large family and . . . it required the exertions of all [family members] that were able to render any assistances" (Jessee 4). The Smith men had a reputation as skilled and diligent workers. William Smith asserted that "whenever the neighbors wanted a good day's work done they knew where they could get a good hand" (Peterson 11). Eight wells in three townships are attributed to the Smiths (Research File). They likely dug and rocked others, including some of the 11 wells dug on the farm of Lemuel Durfee, who lived a little east of Martin Harris. The Smiths did considerable work for this kindly old Quaker; some of their labor served as rent for their farm after it passed into his ownership in December 1825 (Ralph Cator; Lemuel Durfee Farm books).

-- Donald L. Enders, "The Joseph Smith, Sr., Family: Farmers of the Genesee," in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, the Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 222.

In fact, the day after Joseph recovered the gold plates he traveled to Macedon, NY, to dig a well for a widow.

Joseph Smith was a good con man and the thrill of the con is what interested him the most. He didn't plan the Book of Mormon or being a prophet until people came to him with ideas. The circumstances evolved, the opportunity presented itself and he took advantage of it. With Spalding's book in Ridgon's hand Rigdon needed others to present a religious book as if it was true history. Even Rigdon may not have initially thought of starting a religion when he first came across Splading's unpublished book, his motivation initially may have been potential profits from the sale of a religious book presented as if historically true.

Spalding's Manuscript Found was a "religious book"? That's news to me.

by the way, I hope Nevo that you do not think the Book of Mormon is a true historical account.

I don't know for sure, but I strongly doubt it. That said, I still regard it as inspired scripture containing the word of God.

[_marg]

Nevo, was Alva asked questions and responded to them or did he write a letter to someone in the church for example with regards to whether J. Smith was deceived but didn't want to deceive others.

The statements I quoted came from an affidavit Alva Hale swore before Susquehanna County justice of the peace Charles Dimon on or before 20 March 1834. The affidavit was forwarded, along with affidavits sworn by his father and other relatives, to the editor of the Susquehanna Register. An excerpt from Alva's affidavit appeared in the 1 May 1834 issue. The same excerpt was subsequently published in E. D. Howe's Mormonism Unvailed (1834). Unfortunately, this is all that has survived of Alva Hale's original affidavit.

thanks

As far as your wondering why Alva and Isaac didn't mention intentional fraud or whether Smith admitted fraud to them or not I think you are naïve. Smith knew the future father in law didn't like that he wasn't working other than treasure seeking. As a son in law he's not likely to admit he commits intentional fraud against others. That he's willing to quit treasure seeking and find respectable work is all the father in law wants. It also isn't likely that Smith would open up to the brother in law and admit he acts fraudulently who might report back to Emma or the dad.

I'm glad we agree that Ingersoll was wrong: Smith didn't admit to committing intentional fraud.

When it comes to brief conversations, not recorded at the time, people have a tendancy to forget exact words and intent. We are dealing with only 3 people all apparently recollecting the same conversation. Peter Ingersol's statement is consistent with the father Isaac Hale ..it seems to me. And it seems to me that Alva had the impression that Smith was deluded...when he says Smith was deceived.

You say: "According to Peter Ingersoll, Joseph admitted to Isaac Hale that "he could not see in a seer stone now, nor never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false. He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones".

I don't follow where this is not consistent with Alva. Alva acknowledge that the peep seeing was nonsense, according to Smith. That means it was false, and that's what Ingersoll heard as well.

Apparently farm animals went missing on nights he went out with others, so seeking treasure for money may not have been their prime motivation.

So ritually sacrificing animals was their prime motivation?

:) Going out and getting meat to eat was.

Or more likely Smith didn't like physical work such as digging.

I don't know if he liked it or not, but he certainly did a lot of it.

I read that he didn't do a lot of it, that others did the digging while he instructed or watched.

Sources document over two dozen kinds of labor the Smiths performed for hire, including digging and rocking up wells, mowing, coopering, constructing cisterns, hunting and trapping, teaching school, providing domestic service, and making split-wood chairs, brooms and baskets. The Smiths also harvested, did modest carpentry work, dug for salt, constructed stone walls and fireplaces, flailed grain, cut and sold cordwood, carted, made cider, and "witched" for water. They sold garden produce, made bee-gums, washed clothes, painted oil-cloth coverings, butchered, dug coal, painted chairs, hauled stone, and made maple syrup and sugar.

Joseph Smith is the issue, not the Smiths.

Joseph Jr.'s account suggests honest industry in the face of difficult conditions: "Being in indigent circumstances," he says, "[we] were obliged to labour hard for the support of [our] Large family and . . . it required the exertions of all [family members] that were able to render any assistances" (Jessee 4). The Smith men had a reputation as skilled and diligent workers. William Smith asserted that "whenever the neighbors wanted a good day's work done they knew where they could get a good hand" (Peterson 11). Eight wells in three townships are attributed to the Smiths (Research File). They likely dug and rocked others, including some of the 11 wells dug on the farm of Lemuel Durfee, who lived a little east of Martin Harris. The Smiths did considerable work for this kindly old Quaker; some of their labor served as rent for their farm after it passed into his ownership in December 1825 (Ralph Cator; Lemuel Durfee Farm books).

Again J. Smith is the issue not his family. I have 4 other siblings and one of them detests physical work. But the others are quite willing to work hard physically.

-- Donald L. Enders, "The Joseph Smith, Sr., Family: Farmers of the Genesee," in Joseph Smith: The Prophet, the Man, ed. Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1993), 222.

In fact, the day after Joseph recovered the gold plates he traveled to Macedon, NY, to dig a well for a widow.

And did he dig it? If so is he the only witness?

Joseph Smith was a good con man and the thrill of the con is what interested him the most. He didn't plan the Book of Mormon or being a prophet until people came to him with ideas. The circumstances evolved, the opportunity presented itself and he took advantage of it. With Spalding's book in Ridgon's hand Rigdon needed others to present a religious book as if it was true history. Even Rigdon may not have initially thought of starting a religion when he first came across Splading's unpublished book, his motivation initially may have been potential profits from the sale of a religious book presented as if historically true.

Spalding's Manuscript Found was a "religious book"? That's news to me.

Spalding's book was the catalyst which gave Rigdon ideas and he used it as a basis for creating another book to be presented as religious. Spalding wrote his story in King James english to sound ancient, not to sound religious and that's probably what initially gave Rigdon the idea of creating a religious text to sell.

by the way, I hope Nevo that you do not think the Book of Mormon is a true historical account.

I don't know for sure, but I strongly doubt it. That said, I still regard it as inspired scripture containing the word of God.

One can assume the highly unlikely scenario that a God would want a book to be translated from plates into 16th century King James English, instead of the english of the day in the 1800's. One can assume the unlikely that this God would want those plates, good strong evidence if available taken away or one can be realistic and assume the more likely scenario that a small group created the Book of Mormon, written in King James english simply to sound ancient, like the King James Bible and religious like the Bible.

[_Jersey Girl]

Nevo,

The link you supplied is about the Oberlin Manuscript, is it not? According to witnesses, Manuscript Story and Manuscript Found were two separate works created by Spalding. Furthermore, marg made no claim whatsoever that the Oberlin Manuscript (or Manuscript Found) were religious books.

[_Nevo]

You say: "According to Peter Ingersoll, Joseph admitted to Isaac Hale that "he could not see in a seer stone now, nor never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false. He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones".

I don't follow where this is not consistent with Alva. Alva acknowledge that the peep seeing was nonsense, according to Smith. That means it was false, and that's what Ingersoll heard as well.

Ingersoll's statement is inconsistent with Alva's in that he claims that Joseph admitted to intentionally deceiving people (by saying he could see in a stone when he couldn't--and never could), whereas Alva quotes Joseph saying that he didn't intentionally deceive people.

Spalding's book was the catalyst which gave Rigdon ideas and he used it as a basis for creating another book to be presented as religious. Spalding wrote his story in King James english to sound ancient, not to sound religious and that's probably what initially gave Rigdon the idea of creating a religious text to sell.

Spalding didn't write his story in Jacobean English, but even if he had I don't see how a story about a group of 4th-century AD Romans in America would give Rigdon "the idea of creating a religious text to sell."

. . . or one can be realistic and assume the more likely scenario that a small group created the Book of Mormon, written in King James english simply to sound ancient, like the King James Bible and religious like the Bible.

That doesn't sound any more likely, in my opinion. There were numerous witnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon. None of them reported seeing a committee produce the book.

[_Nevo]

Nevo,

The link you supplied is about the Oberlin Manuscript, is it not? According to witnesses, Manuscript Story and Manuscript Found were two separate works created by Spalding. Furthermore, marg made no claim whatsoever that the Oberlin Manuscript (or Manuscript Found) were religious books.

Yes. And I think it is telling that those witnesses only "remembered" a second manuscript after learning that the manuscript Spalding's widow turned over to Hurlbut didn't resemble the Book of Mormon very closely at all. I regard the supposed existence of a second manuscript as nothing more than a convenient fiction, a desperate attempt on their part to save face. I don't believe it ever existed.

As for marg making no claim whatsoever that Spalding's book was "religious," I think it is a reasonable inference to draw from her statement: "With Spalding's book in Ridgon's hand Rigdon needed others to present a religious book as if it was true history." That is to say, the "religious book" Rigdon hoped to present as true history was none other than Spalding's unpublished manuscript. Isn't that the whole point of the Spalding-Rigdon theory--that Rigdon et al. turned Spalding's manuscript into the Book of Mormon?