Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Uncle Ed]

You say "fraud", or might even allow "pious fraud", but you will not allow the possibility that Joseph Smith actually believed in himself as a prophet. That would allow him to do things and say things that are offensive to the world but not to those who believe. That would allow Joseph Smith to be obedient to a higher authority that I gather you do not even believe exists....

Oh please. Why won't you allow the possibility that Joseph Smith, Jr was pious AND a fraud? Just like all the pious scammers that fleece the saints every day of the week. The evidence is overwhelming to any objective person. Unless you're going to deny the sincere religiosity of the rip off artists and cons, which you can speculate on but not know. The hypocrisy of the religious is one of the contributing factor to the unchurching of modern society. And it should be. Religious b***s*** is still b***s***. Polishing and perfuming a turd does not change its character.

Joseph Smith's character in its known entirety is harder to reconcile with your pov, simple as that. I don't see nobility in the scammers, the knowing ripoff artists, the frauds posing as preachers, et al. that you so righteously disdain or even hate. Joseph Smith's character is more noble than those. His weaknesses become even more glaring as a result of the much larger nobility of character that was Joseph Smith. Ditto BY's noble character, he was a giant among spiritual pygmies.

That's how it is with the world's genuine religion makers. You lump them together with the frauds, disallowing that genuine belief of the religion makers in themselves is even a possibility.

I am not suggesting that there is or ever was or ever will be a "true faith" beloved by "God" above all others. What I am suggesting for your perusal is the very real possibility that ALL such persons who genuinely seek to bond with "God" above all other things in life get what they are looking for. Their human weaknesses corrupt that quest into something less than perfect, and the results become part of religious history.

Much good, much reward, can come from a genuinely religious life and the faith it promotes. The opposite is also true: much harm can derive from religious (as in any) fraud. The genuine and fraudulent are the possession of the individual. Nobody and nothing can take away from you what you really are. And nobody can lie to himself and change the reality of what he is.

I believe that Joseph Smith tried to not lie to himself. He was a man wholly devoted to the truth. He was also (like all of us) possessed by his milieu, which molded his expectations and the outcomes that he accepted. There is good evidence that very close to the end, Joseph Smith rejected the entire "plurality of wives" doctrine. He was "removed" before he could plunge into recidivism, which is evidence of the mercy of "God", imho. I believe that if Joseph Smith had continued on and lived to "the age of a tree" as most men do, that he would have largely or entirely unraveled his religion, to the detriment of following generations. Mormonism is and has always been a good force in the world. I believe that "God" promotes good forces to combat the anarchy of "Nature" inherent in the system, which tends to evil uses....

[_Uncle Ed]

Consider the possibility that Joseph Smith knew the LW very well indeed. When it came time to translate the Book of Mormon, the influence was there waiting to be tapped. I don't see any necessity to look at this as an either/or situation. It seems to me that you are asking whether the story of the translation as we have it squares with Joseph Smith sitting down and writing the story in advance. Well, I can imagine ways in which it could, but I can also imagine him tapping the influence in the translation process.

In short, I don't think that someone who believes that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God has to be threatened in any way by the discovery of the LW's influence on the book. In the end, it is little different from the observation that a certain translation of the Bible influenced the Book of Mormon. I agree with the comment above that, had this come anywhere but from an ex-Mormon, this would probably not be all that controversial.

But, the fact that it came out the way it came out is the way it is, and apologists are seeking to discredit the claim for that reason. I thought it was telling that Grant Hardy did not dismiss the possibility out of hand. It seems that he is smart enough to know why this is not a problem.

This is sound reasoning, every bit of it.

Elsewhere I have suggested "God" as the author of all inspiration, since each one of us is a manifestation of "Existence In Total", which puts our minds into continuous contact with ALL Existence, which makes assertions of "anachronisms!" moot. "God" is not anachronistic! The very idea beggars logical assertion.

So yes, Joseph Smith inculcated many sources and influences before the Book of Mormon "process" occurred. It is not even implausible that the entire Book of Mormon could be dictated inside a few weeks, with the entire story in Joseph Smith's head. The phraseology and "style" were a combination of his sources of inspiration and his personality and preferences, his aesthetic approach to religious literature making.

"Scripture" is anything artistic that inspires to appreciation for existence and bettering the world around the receiver. Almost all of our artistic endeavors, therefore, are "scripture", mingled with philosophies of men; but then, philosophy is itself largely scripture, since it is engaged in to answer "the terrible questions", which are only a small step removed from bearding "God" in his lair.... :)

[_Quasimodo]

I said "I gather", not "you said you were an atheist". So your love of making mockery by resorting to specious analogy continues to misfire.

So "delusional" is the OTHER option to "fraud". How are these not the words of an atheist? Okay, agnostic, you possibly (note the qualifier carefully, I never said you were an agnostic either, I don't know, I "gather" you are one or the other because of your evident disdain for religion - note the use of the qualifier "evident", I am not saying that you have said you disdain all religion either) do not profess a disbelief in God or gods, but sit on the safe position of "nobody can know", or possibly "God" exists but we have no evidence that "God" is concerned in the least with mankind, ergo no such thing as "revelation" is real, it therefore must be asserted only from the position of "fraud" or "delusional".

People who actually believe that "God" is in continual communication with our species might give consideration to the third choice: that Darth J doesn't know squat about what he's talking about either, and there really are people receiving inspiration from the Direct Source of our own existence. Joseph Smith has works resulting from his religion making that amount to volumes. Darth J has, what exactly, to show for his negative, dismissive, certitude?...

I'm pretty sure everyone is an agnostic whether they know it or not (yes, that is a play on words). I'm sure you know that the word "agnostic" means unknowable or an admission by someone that they don't know. On the subject of God, I think this is the only honest position to take. Whether you believe in a God or not, you really don't know.

Many people have their own beliefs (such as you), but believing and knowing are very different things. I suppose it's possible that there may be some people in the world that do know, but I've never met one or heard of one that I believe.

[_Uncle Ed]

I'm pretty sure everyone is an agnostic whether they know it or not (yes, that is a play on words). I'm sure you know that the word "agnostic" means unknowable or an admission by someone that they don't know. On the subject of God, I think this is the only honest position to take. Whether you believe in a God or not, you really don't know.

Many people have their own beliefs (such as you), but believing and knowing are very different things. I suppose it's possible that there may be some people in the world that do know, but I've never met one or heard of one that I believe.

Yes, I am agnostic on the topic of knowing "God". My pet description of myself where "knowledge" is concerned is: "I know practically nothing about almost everything", which pretty well describes the whole world of humans and always will. We are ALL agnostic on practically everything about everything. We, don't, know. We believe, and act according to our experience based on what we believe.

I KNOW that "God Exists", because Existence is inarguable. I know that "God" is manifesting as me, because, well, here I AM, after all. Beyond that much, I hardly have a clue, and expect that comparatively I never will amount to more than that. Relative to where I personally have been, or what I personally have been, I am far advanced in knowledge and experience and even wisdom. Relative to "God", i.e. "Infinite Existence", my manifested, finite existence does not even form the beginning of a quantifiable entity. ALL of creation in the world of humans when compared to "God" (Infinite Existence) does not even "statistically" exist: which simply echoes what an astro physicist said in a lecture that I heard on YouTube years ago, when he asserted that dark energy accounts for c. 75% and dark matter for c. 25% of what makes up the universe, so statistically "we", that is to say, all things material, do not exist. Yet, here we are, with our finite minds eternally getting "bigger". And the more we find out the more we see how little we know. That will also never go away or change....

[_Darth J]

Yes, I remember saying I'm an atheist during our discussion where you admitted you like to have sex with goats.

All you're doing is saying Joseph Smith was delusional instead of a fraud. That has nothing to do with the objective truth value of his claim to be reading the words of a Nephite record as he saw them on a magic rock.

I said "I gather", not "you said you were an atheist". So your love of making mockery by resorting to specious analogy continues to misfire.

Speaking of specious, it does not follow that if someone fails to believe in Joseph Smith, one is necessarily an atheist. The existence of hundreds of millions of people who believe in a deity or deities irrespective of Joseph Smith bears that out. There is simply no reasonable way you could gather I must be an atheist from anything I said.

So "delusional" is the OTHER option to "fraud".

That's exactly the other option you offered. The words that you typed mean that Joseph Smith was perpetrating a fraud but didn't know it.

How are these not the words of an atheist?

Because the existence of a deity or deities is irrelevant to your proposing Joseph Smith being unaware that he was lying as an alternative to calling him a knowing fraud.

Okay, agnostic, you possibly (note the qualifier carefully, I never said you were an agnostic either, I don't know, I "gather" you are one or the other because of your evident disdain for religion - note the use of the qualifier "evident", I am not saying that you have said you disdain all religion either) do not profess a disbelief in God or gods, but sit on the safe position of "nobody can know", or possibly "God" exists but we have no evidence that "God" is concerned in the least with mankind, ergo no such thing as "revelation" is real, it therefore must be asserted only from the position of "fraud" or "delusional".

Gibberish

Gibberish is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but carries no actual meaning.

People who actually believe that "God" is in continual communication with our species might give consideration to the third choice: that Darth J doesn't know squat about what he's talking about either, and there really are people receiving inspiration from the Direct Source of our own existence. Joseph Smith has works resulting from his religion making that amount to volumes. Darth J has, what exactly, to show for his negative, dismissive, certitude?...

But of course you do know all about the sapience of the source of the existence that exists of itself as the first cause of the existence that has no cause, right? As soon as you can explain any particular reason why anyone should believe your incoherent, unsupported assertions about the existence of the sapience of the source of sapient existence, please post it.

In the meantime, not a single thing you've said is responsive to the OP.

[_Quasimodo]

I KNOW that "God Exists", because Existence is inarguable. I know that "God" is manifesting as me, because, well, here I AM, after all. Beyond that much, I hardly have a clue, and expect that comparatively I never will amount to more than that.

It might be fair to say that we exist because we are having this conversation (I think René Descartes had something to say about that). I don't think that is enough evidence for you to say that you "know" God exists. You only believe that God exists. You are only pretending to know.

Your (or my) existence does not, in any way, imply the existence of God. If you would like to replace the word "know" with "believe" that might work.

The same with saying you "know" that God is manifesting as you. It's a bit of a stretch. It's fine to say you believe that, but you will have to show some proof to say you know it and convince others.

Even the simple things that people "know" are often not true.

Everyone sees the sun rise. It doesn't, the world turns toward it.

Everyone knows which way is up or down, east or west, but the words are actually meaningless unless related to the exact spot where you are standing on earth.

Everyone knows that their desk top is solid, but there is much more empty space there than there are molecules.

How much easier is it to be wrong about God than these obvious things? If you have objective proof that there is a God then please share it. Otherwise, it's just your belief.

[_Always Changing]

If you live believing that there is no God, and dying, discover that there is one; and I live believing that there is a God, and dying, I discover that my belief was correct, who is better off?

If I live believing that there is a God, and dying, I discover that there is no God, I really don't believe that I have suffered for that belief (except from the bigotry of those who believe in a less perfect god, and atheists).

I'm just not a gambler. YMMV.

[Guest]

If you live believing that there is no God, and dying, discover that there is one; and I live believing that there is a God, and dying, I discover that my belief was correct, who is better off?

This question assumes that God is going to be very angry at you for not believing in him, instead of judging you for something like say, how you live your life.

[_Bazooka]

If you live believing that there is no God, and dying, discover that there is one; and I live believing that there is a God, and dying, I discover that my belief was correct, who is better off?

If I live believing that there is a God, and dying, I discover that there is no God, I really don't believe that I have suffered for that belief (except from the bigotry of those who believe in a less perfect god, and atheists).

I'm just not a gambler. YMMV.

How do you know you've bet on the right God?

[_Quasimodo]

If you live believing that there is no God, and dying, discover that there is one; and I live believing that there is a God, and dying, I discover that my belief was correct, who is better off?

If I live believing that there is a God, and dying, I discover that there is no God, I really don't believe that I have suffered for that belief (except from the bigotry of those who believe in a less perfect god, and atheists).

I'm just not a gambler. YMMV.

Don't misunderstand me, Lucy. I think that it is right and proper that all people have their beliefs. I just don't think that people "know" these things.

I don't know either. I just value truth (a hard thing to know) over conjecture. Bill Moyers once asked Joseph Campbell what his faith was. He famously said that he didn't need faith. That's where I am. I'm happy to not pretend to know. As you said, I will find out eventually.

If, when I die and I find myself standing before God, I think I may get extra credit for leading a good life and loving truth. If there is no life after death then it won't matter and I will be blissfully unaware.