Don't be afraid of Gospel Questions. Build a shelf.

[_canpakes]

I cannot put myself into your shoes to comprehend what makes a fabrication scenario uncomfortable, when every option related to it seems so easily accomplished.

This is not just fabrication. Many/most key players left the church, but still believed the translation account of the Book of Mormon. You cannot just create a hoax and get that kind of result.

Did they believe the translation account, or did they simply state that they believed it?

It seems unusual that if someone actually believed in a religion - something larger than life itself - that they would then choose to leave it while maintaining as factual or believable a translation of documents that forms that religion's point of origin.

It seems far more probable that a different dynamic is in play - perhaps shame, or ego, or self-preservation, or similar issues. In other words, it is easy to understand an individual's decision to leave a religion that he knows is not true because he also knows that the translation process was not what it was presented as being. But, it may be far more difficult for a person in that same situation to admit that they were duped or perhaps even involved in the fabrication. Doing so is to admit to others that he may be a liar, or in on the scam, etc.. This is simple self-preservation, and it could keep someone in that situation from admitting any problem with the 'translation' while quietly abandoning the religion behind the story, given that they know that there are no eternal ramifications for abandoning something that isn't true... while acknowledging that there could be some very significant ramifications to be suffered while living for being part of the ruse, should others discover the truth.

The only comparable instances I can think of have to do with religion, and even most of those don't have defectors still believing wholeheartedly.

This is not the same as you stated above. 'Defectors who believe' are still invested in the religion or doctrine to some degree, as opposed to the key players that you point out that left the early LDS Church - abandoning their religion while saving themselves the public shame of admitting that they may have been duped, or been part of the fabrication.

[_I have a question]

There have been lots of con-artist that have dupes lots of smart people, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Bernie Madoff, etc.

These hoaxes are of a lesser category, right? When people in each of these cases made it to the outside, they saw the lie for what it was. In Mormonism's case, many of the key people who made it to the outside still believed that everything they saw was absolutely true.

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/20/178063471 ... ll-believe

The Survivors

Clive Doyle, a 72-year-old Australian-Texan, still lives in Waco and still has Bible study every Saturday with another survivor, Sheila Martin. Doyle has become the Davidians' unofficial historian and spokesman. He says they are still waiting on the resurrection of Koresh.

"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."

Today, all nine Davidian survivors who were convicted for various offenses related to the initial ATF raid have been released from federal prison. Paul Fatta, who spent nearly 13 years in prison on weapons charges, was released two years early for good behavior. Now 55 years old, he lives in San Diego where he manages his family's Hawaiian restaurant. Fatta, too, still believes.

"I would like to see some divine intervention, for God to vindicate his people," he says, "all those that have suffered over the years for truth, who've been misunderstood, have been mocked, ridiculed [and] thrown in prison."

Now what?

[_DarkHelmet]

This is not just fabrication. Many/most key players left the church, but still believed the translation account of the Book of Mormon. You cannot just create a hoax and get that kind of result.

Did they believe the translation account, or did they simply state that they believed it?

It seems unusual that if someone actually believed in a religion - something larger than life itself - that they would then choose to leave it while maintaining as factual or believable a translation of documents that forms that religion's point of origin.

[_DarkHelmet]

canpakes wrote "And we aren't even considering that whatever Joseph 'translated' does not necessarily have to be whatever was eventually presented to the printer. There is no verifiable chain of custody of any transcript. A substitution is the easiest scenario of all to set up."

This is a really important point here. This is such a huge assumption that even many non-believers can be guilty of making this assumption. I did for sometime.

This would then put it in category two that I listed above (Certainly Oliver would have recognized major differences between what he wrote and what made it into the Book of Mormon). You run into the problem of the witnesses being in on the hoax but still 'preaching' that what they saw was true even when faced with negative consequences.

Was Oliver a Chain of Custody official, completely impartial, with no ties to the Book of Mormon? Maybe he was in on the scam? Or, if he wasn't, perhaps Joseph could say "Hey, Oliver, God came to me and told me to make some changes to the transcript, so don't freak out if it seems a little different than what I dictated." When you read about the witnesses, it's clear Joseph Smith was manipulating everything. Martin Harris admitted he "saw" the plates with his spiritual eyes. Who do you think convinced him that he was seeing plates with his spiritual eyes? It's interesting that all these witnesses left the church and found other religions. The church likes to claim they never denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon, but when you leave the church and join a different religion, you've denied the Book of Mormon. Actions speak louder than words. Martin Harris said that his testimony of Shakerism was stronger than it was for Mormonism. David Whitmer said the same God who told him the Book of Mormon was true later told him to leave the church. That helps put into perspective how reliable the Book of Mormon witnesses were.

[_Gorman]

David Whitmer said the same God who told him the Book of Mormon was true later told him to leave the church. That helps put into perspective how reliable the Book of Mormon witnesses were.

The witnesses do not stand as a witness of Mormonism. They stand as a witness of the Book of Mormon. They all thought (at one time or another) that Joseph Smith was way off, but none of them denied that he was a prophet initially and that he translated the Book of Mormon by divine help.

[_Gorman]

The Survivors

Clive Doyle, a 72-year-old Australian-Texan, still lives in Waco and still has Bible study every Saturday with another survivor, Sheila Martin. Doyle has become the Davidians' unofficial historian and spokesman. He says they are still waiting on the resurrection of Koresh.

"We survivors of 1993 are looking for David and all those that died either in the shootout or in the fire," Doyle says. "We believe that God will resurrect this special group."

Today, all nine Davidian survivors who were convicted for various offenses related to the initial ATF raid have been released from federal prison. Paul Fatta, who spent nearly 13 years in prison on weapons charges, was released two years early for good behavior. Now 55 years old, he lives in San Diego where he manages his family's Hawaiian restaurant. Fatta, too, still believes.

"I would like to see some divine intervention, for God to vindicate his people," he says, "all those that have suffered over the years for truth, who've been misunderstood, have been mocked, ridiculed [and] thrown in prison."

Now what?

Cool. I didn't know that. It looks like the Branch Davidians could potentially fall into a similar category. I wonder if it has to do with the martyr aspect. Maybe a religious figure getting killed cements the whole thing in the minds of his/her followers better?

[_Gorman]

Did they believe the translation account, or did they simply state that they believed it?

It seems unusual that if someone actually believed in a religion - something larger than life itself - that they would then choose to leave it while maintaining as factual or believable a translation of documents that forms that religion's point of origin.

It seems far more probable that a different dynamic is in play . . .

This is exactly why the three witnesses hold a stronger position than normal. It would seem improbable for them to leave while maintaining as factual their experience regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon.

That is why in order to dismiss their witness, you have to begin with a list of assumptions. A long list of assumptions is often an uncomfortable place to be.

[_Gorman]

Fence Sitter,

Have you ever tried to memorize a long monologue (7 pages) and then dictate it slow enough for someone to write it down (longhand) without looking at what the scribe is writing? I'm not saying it is impossible, but that it is quite difficult. This would be especially true if Smith is memorizing these things daily. He would have to have a savant-like ability at memorization. I personally think the manuscript assumption is the stronger argument, but I understand how some might still hold to dictation.

[_Gorman]

It looks like I'm not getting very far here. My initial position was that there are arguments both for and against Mormonism that are weak arguments. I personally think that dismissing the three witnesses without much thought is an untenable position, but apparently many here have comfortably done just that. I guess we all have different thresholds depending on our experiences.

[_Fence Sitter]

Fence Sitter,

Have you ever tried to memorize a long monologue (7 pages) and then dictate it slow enough for someone to write it down (longhand) without looking at what the scribe is writing? I'm not saying it is impossible, but that it is quite difficult. This would be especially true if Smith is memorizing these things daily. He would have to have a savant-like ability at memorization. I personally think the manuscript assumption is the stronger argument, but I understand how some might still hold to dictation.

In the LTM each night we would try and commit to memory as much as possible of a discussion. This was about a 3 hour block of study time. The next day we would recite to each other what we had memorized the day before. If I recall correctly we were getting almost 5 pages a day toward the end of the two months. So, to answer your question , yes I have and in a foreign language with material that was completely unfamiliar. And I don't find the other person writing it down as relevant one way or another. At any time he could stop and ask OC what he had written and just pick up there, pretending to correct him if needed for effect.

Look, I don't think he had a script from which he was memorizing the night before, already written down, and was pretending to recite it to OC as if it were coming to him while he had his face stuck in the hat. I find it much more likely that OC was in on it and they were creating it from material already prepared from a variety of sources. But, if the argument is that it is not possible to commit to memory the amount of text alleged he dictated each day (I find the time frame another very suspect claim by the way) then those people are simply not familiar with what can be done by someone motivated to learn by rote a few pages. Actors do it all the time, I did it in the LTM, along with many others. It is simply not that difficult for a young person with a good memory to do, and made so much more less difficult given the descriptions we have of Joseph Smith reciting similar stories to his families in the years leading up to the creation of the Book of Mormon. He was very familiar with the material. It would be very easy for him to pretend to be reading it off the stone word for word just to fool OC.
I mean if we are going to buy these silly stories like Martin Harris trying to fool Joseph Smith by switching seer stones, how much more is there to believing Joseph Smith was simply doing what he did best when he "translated" the Book of Mormon? He was putting on a show for the rubes, just like he did when setting up his treasure hunting scenes, insisting on strict silence, silver rods in a circle in the ground, a black animal sacrifice and so on.