It has been established that Emma was no fan of the Nauvoo Joseph and his polygamy. And yes, she lied to her son but her son forgave her. However, that does not establish that she would lie about the plates and be a fraudster or teach her children from a book of lies. That would be a leap.
There is nothing to my logic that shows emma wavering in her belief in the Book of Mormon. As far as different props being used I don't think that this would be possible. The possibility for success would be slight. Who would make the props? And where?
Here is the point: If emma was in on the fraud, the critics can not feel sorry for her about polygamy and her reaction to it. She would be guilty as a fraudster and deserve what she got. And I see nothing in her makeup that would make her just one more stupid woman who loved their man too much. That would be a stretch.
But here is your scenerio: Emma knew the fraud. She put up with polygamy because she loved her man. She was just a stupid woman.
But we need to remember that she witnessed Joseph Smith put his head in a hat to translate the plates. What prop was used for the Book of Mormon? Was it the same prop that Emma orginally felt? Or did Joseph Smith make a different prop? And then did Joseph Smith make a different prop for the 11 witnesses? But if all were fraudsters why use a prop at all?
Or was everybody that Joseph Smith recruited at that time just stupid?
First, I have no doubt that by your own personal logic, nothing can persuade you that your assertions are problematic. I’ve seen it play out on this board many times. There’s an example right on this thread. You assert that the early followers of Mormonism would have been happy to find out the whole thing was a hoax, a fraud – despite having given up all their earthly goods, relocated in often painful and difficult ways, and sometimes seeing family members and friends die due to their involvement in Mormonism. Your belief that they would have been happy to find out that all their sacrifices and pain were for naught, because it was just one big hoax would be plainly illogical to most people, and yet you still insist you are correct. So the fact that much of this conversation seems a stretch to you means little in terms of its logical strength.
There is undeniable evidence that Emma lied about something extremely important for the duration of her life. There is undeniable evidence that Emma perpetrated this lie against her own children. Emma was obviously protecting Joseph’s reputation, since her denials were often couched in reminders of what a good man Joseph was, and was likely ashamed of the whole affair. But I think it would take a significant amount of willingness to deny simple reality to refuse to admit that this indicates a willingness to lie about other things in order to protect Joseph’s reputation. I do think you have the prerequisite amount of willingness to deny simple reality, but hopefully not many others do.
There is also the troubling reality that Emma apparently felt no compunction to association with the various branches of Mormonism until her son became persuaded he should be the leader of one of those branches, many years after Joseph’s death. So her deep belief in Mormonism didn’t appear to be deep enough to persuade her of continued association, did it? Perhaps that belief was not as deep as you imagine. One could also make the argument if she sincerely believed in her husband's revelatory ability, she wouldn't have been willing to throw God's Revelation on the fire, and blatantly ignore the threat about her own salvation if she didn't give in to Joseph.
Now you insist that if a critic believes that Emma may have been a part of the fraud in that she could have lied about the plates and translation (which, by the way, is not a necessary conclusion, but a possible conclusion), that same critic is contradicting him/herself if the critic expresses sympathy for Emma’s situation. Is this some unwritten rule of the universe in your view? If an individual is guilty of a crime or wrong-doing, other human beings are no longer allowed to feel sympathy for other things that human being may have endured? My sympathy for Emma is admittedly limited. Although I am not certain what her options may have been, it does appear she could have always returned to her family, who appeared to love her. So yeah, I agree that she brought quite a bit of this on herself, including the polygamy nonsense. If a woman or man has acceptable options – and some women and men do not, that is why caution is advised - then if he/she chooses to remain in a situation that has caused significant pain in the past, then he/she is choosing some responsibility for that pain. That does not absolve the person who continues to inflict that pain, of course. While Emma may have made choices that resulted in her continued enduring the pain of her husband’s behavior, Joseph was still responsible for that behavior and for choosing to inflict pain on his wife.
I have no idea if there were props, who would have made them, or any of the details. I also have no idea if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, or if he plagiarized it from another source. I have no idea if all the witnesses were frauds, as well, or dupes. It’s not necessary to know these details to reasonably conclude it was a fraud, pious or non, and it doesn’t matter that critics have contradictory opinions on these points. People are regularly found guilty of crimes without the jury knowing every detail of how the crime was committed.
Let me put it this way. I have seen critics agree with theories that would contradict their previous statements. And that is the problem. It comes from desperation to grasp at any idea that is negative toward the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith or any other thing LDS. I have seen this when I posted briefly on the postmo site. As I told them years ago, all critic theories can not be true since these theories can contradict each other. One must go with one theory and hope for the best.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that there are divergent apologetic theories, as well. Is it loose or tight translation? Were there really horses or not? Do you hold apologists to the same strained standard to which you hold critics? Obviously not.
by the way, stupidity or smartness are not very useful qualifiers in discussing the propensity of human beings to be fooled by others, or the propensity to believe things without much legitimate cause for that belief. It is simply human nature. Our brains are not wired for logic and rationality. It takes a lot of effort to try and utilize those standards, and the results are necessarily limited.
So unless you’re willing to label, for example, all the believers of Scientology, or other odd religions, “stupid”, you shouldn’t demand that critics label all the believers of early Mormonism, or Mormonism today, stupid, either. It doesn’t have to do with native intelligence or lack thereof. It has to do with our intense desire for clear answers about life, and our desire for assurance, and the particular fashion in which our brains happen to be wired.