Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Uncle Ed]

He was very young, and later admitted that at this time in his life he fell into error as the youthful will, but did not commit any big sins.

On January 12, 1838, faced with a warrant for his arrest on a charge of illegal banking, Smith fled with Rigdon to Clay County, Missouri...

Kirtland Safety Society

HERE in section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants are the rules set down by way of commandment from God governing the practice of polygamy. You'd agree that disobeying a direct commandment from God is a pretty big sin, right?
So tell, us....how does the way Joseph practiced polygamy compare with the rules God laid down?

The Kirtland banking fiasco, like the rest of Joseph Smith's endeavors, is controversial. He evidently announced months ahead of time that he disagreed with the speculation spirit that had entered into it and was withdrawing his money from it. He "prophesied" that it would not prosper with the spirit of speculation that had entered into it. The banking disaster that swept the Union caught the Kirtland bank and it collapsed. Joseph Smith was then blamed for everything, rational argument was not possible, his life was threatened and he fled. How cowardly of him!

"Plurality of wives" doctrine has facets. Joseph Smith was living by some (the more pleasurable ones) and had not implemented some, and was in violation of one, engaging in it without his first wife's permission and counsel. How big a sin and how enduring is not possible to say. I've already defended Joseph Smith's temporary situation as, well, temporary; he intended to get the whole structure of plurality of wives up and running. He also intended to finish the Nauvoo temple, prepare to move out west, campaign for the presidency of the USA, establish the New Jerusalem (as commanded), and a raft of other unfinished business. Life ran him down like a steamroller. He had lived enough for two lifetimes and he wasn't even forty yet. "Sin" is a relative concept, colored by circumstances....

[_Molok]

Is that what you want to see in print? Oh, alright: Joseph Smith lied.

It was a little lie, a "whopper" digging in the fields of superstition.

He repented. Are you saying he didn't? There is no evidence of recidivism back to money digging....

Defrauding people : A minor thing. Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone!

[_Always Changing]

Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone!

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. They didn't give the legal system time enough to convict him of that.

[_Bazooka]

"Plurality of wives" doctrine has facets. Joseph Smith was living by some (the more pleasurable ones) and had not implemented some, and was in violation of one, engaging in it without his first wife's permission and counsel. How big a sin and how enduring is not possible to say. I've already defended Joseph Smith's temporary situation as, well, temporary; he intended to get the whole structure of plurality of wives up and running. He also intended to finish the Nauvoo temple, prepare to move out west, campaign for the presidency of the USA, establish the New Jerusalem (as commanded), and a raft of other unfinished business. Life ran him down like a steamroller. He had lived enough for two lifetimes and he wasn't even forty yet. "Sin" is a relative concept, colored by circumstances....

Can you quote from Section 132 the rules governing polygamy that Joseph actually complied with?

[_Bazooka]

The Kirtland banking fiasco, like the rest of Joseph Smith's endeavors, is controversial. He evidently announced months ahead of time that he disagreed with the speculation spirit that had entered into it and was withdrawing his money from it. He "prophesied" that it would not prosper with the spirit of speculation that had entered into it. The banking disaster that swept the Union caught the Kirtland bank and it collapsed. Joseph Smith was then blamed for everything, rational argument was not possible, his life was threatened and he fled. How cowardly of him!.

CFR

[_Nevo]

Defrauding people : A minor thing. Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone!

Hopefully not.

(However there is this: https://dcms.LDS.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=FL2185653&dps_func=stream)

[_Blixa]

Defrauding people : A minor thing. Hey, at least he didn't kill anyone!

Hopefully not.

(However there is this: https://dcms.LDS.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=FL2185653&dps_func=stream)

I can't make out that signature, Nevo. Little help?

[Anonymous]

I can't make out that signature, Nevo. Little help?

It's "Hinkle" (George M. Hinkle).

The name is clearer here: http://eadview.LDS.org/digitalAsset/image/full/FL2185655

[_Runtu]

I can't make out that signature, Nevo. Little help?

It's "Hinkle" (George M. Hinkle).

That's what I think, too.

[_Chap]

I have not seen anything in these findings that would render the Book of Mormon a text unworthy of scriptural status, or incapable of being viewed as divinely inspired.

Seriously, is there any objective evidence that could ever do that for you? I don't ask that sarcastically. If I felt that the 'Lord of the Rings' was worthy of scriptural status and capable of being viewed as divinely inspired, what could you do to stop me? I might even feel the same way about Dianetics. Scriptural status is (is it not?) conferred on a text by social means, especially childhood socialization into certain religious habits. It is not inherent in the text in any objectively verifiable way.

Hey, Chap. If scriptural status is granted by a community, then it is the job of the community to justify such status to its own satisfaction. I doubt we disagree on this.

Oh, I do agree. That's why I think it is both pointless and misleading to say things like

I have not seen anything in these findings that would render the Book of Mormon a text unworthy of scriptural status, or incapable of being viewed as divinely inspired.

Because nothing in any 'findings' could ever render any text, including 'The Cat in the Hat' "unworthy of scriptural status, or incapable of being viewed as divinely inspired".

So, I have never seen this in terms of a "silver bullet" to kill Mormonism ...

If your Mormonism is flexible enough, it can dodge a whole stream of dum-dum diamond-tipped platinum bullets.

But people who just believed that what the missionaries told them was true? It should do damage to a lot of that kind of Mormonism, I would think.

That is the reason I wrote the last quarter of my post. Sure, if you cultivate a naïve understanding in people, then it is no wonder that they will fly apart when that simplistic view is challenged.

I think the difference between the two of us is that you and I place a much different value on the more nuanced or mature view of religion.

"Nuanced or mature": what's not to like? I mean, how can one ever imagine anyone not thinking that their own point of view on a religious matter was not "nuanced and mature"? Those adjectives tell us nothing except that the person who uses them is describing their own religious beliefs.

People who actually believe in the doctrines currently taught to converts by the CoJCoLDS are, it seems "naïve" and "simplistic". I find that attitude deeply patronizing and superior, and would prefer to confer on them the dignity of just being plain wrong.