Peterson the historical skeptic

[Everybody Wang Chung]

There were conflicts. You’ve read the Clayton Journal? There was apparently some wheeling and dealing that went on between Joseph and Emma.

Regards,
MG

Sounds like true love built on a solid foundation of trust and mutual respect.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m not so sure that the idea, “Joseph loved Emma, therefore, the Book of Mormon is true” has enough going for it.

Joseph loved Emma?
Joseph stole Emma from her family, coercing her to elope with him.
Joseph banged his teenage servant in the barn.
He seduced two sisters who were placed in his household for him to act as their guardian.
He married women behind Emma’s back.
He mentally abused Emma by pretending God wanted him to take multiple wives, that God wanted Emma to STFU about it, and that Emma was to remain monogamous.
Amongst other abuses.

Joseph loved Emma? Don’t make me laugh. Ignore what he said and wrote and consider what he actually did, his actions. Emma was the victim of an abusive husband. Joseph Smith was a serial predator and misogynist. The only person he loved was himself.

Good luck convincing an oafish donkey that this has any bearing on reality whatsoever.

- Doc

[doubtingthomas]

The question is whether or not Joseph could have pulled off the ‘long con’ with the knowledge/abilities he had at his disposal without some kind of direction/help. ,

But you have to take into account false memory. Most accounts about the translation process were written many years after. Memory implantation was very common in the 19th century, it still is.

[MG 2.0]

The fact is, which I think is indisputable, Joseph loved Emma.

I’m not so sure that the idea, “Joseph loved Emma, therefore, the Book of Mormon is true” has enough going for it.

Well, it’s not quite THAT simple, but it is true that we need to look at this period of Joseph’s life and his relationships at the time in order to then sort out why he did what he did. Or at least try and make some sense out of what the facts at our disposal seem to point to.

At this juncture it might be helpful to refer to Joseph Knight and his family. They were intimately involved during the time of translation of the Book of Mormon even to the point of supplying paper for the scribe to write on.

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... -of-Mormon

What an elaborate scheme! Joseph and Emma having to move to protect the plates. Joseph leaving a sick wife to check on the status of the manuscript. The Knight family stepping up to help with the necessities requires during the early translation period. We can keep going…

And all of this coming out of the experience of a young farmboy who was seeking truth from his maker in regards to his acceptance/forgiveness of the Lord in regards to his sins. I asked malkie when he thought Joseph turned to the ‘dark side’ and came up with the elaborate scheme of writing a book such as he did. Malkie said, First Vision. But that doesn’t hold water. After the vision one would think that Joseph would want to seek the Lord’s will, then do it.

By all accounts SOMETHING happened in the grove when Joseph went to pray. It changed his life trajectory.

There is just TOO much going on during Joseph’s early life that would give one pause at pointing fingers at him and calling him a fraud. Sure, he and his family were treasure seers/seekers. Yes, they dabbled into what we would refer to as the occult. I would suggest that some here go back and read Bushman’s book again, or for the first time, to get a well laid out picture of what was going on at the time rather than relying on short little pieces of poop put out there by folks such as Doc and his oh so cute small letter big letter creations of silliness.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

There were conflicts. You’ve read the Clayton Journal? There was apparently some wheeling and dealing that went on between Joseph and Emma.

Regards,
MG

Sounds like true love built on a solid foundation of trust and mutual respect.

No question that things got much more complicated between Joseph and Emma in Nauvoo. But within the context of this discussion we’re talking about the time leading up to Book of Mormon translation and publication and the extreme amount of work/sacrifice that went into it on the part of Joseph and Emma.

Why go to ALL that effort? Go back and read my posts on this thread to see where I’m coming from in greater detail. I don’t want to repeat myself.

As with others, you want to push everything ahead another decade or more.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...There is just TOO much going on during Joseph’s early life that would give one pause at pointing fingers at him and calling him a fraud. Sure, he and his family were treasure seers/seekers. Yes, they dabbled into what we would refer to as the occult....

The utter lack of logic here is stunning. The early behavior of Smith is exactly what supports later opinions of fraud. To turn it around like this is perverse and illogical. When mentalgymnastic conclusions HAVE to be supported at all costs, comments like this are the result.

[MG 2.0]

...There is just TOO much going on during Joseph’s early life that would give one pause at pointing fingers at him and calling him a fraud. Sure, he and his family were treasure seers/seekers. Yes, they dabbled into what we would refer to as the occult....

The utter lack of logic here is stunning. The early behavior of Smith is exactly what supports later opinions of fraud. To turn it around like this is perverse and illogical. When mentalgymnastic conclusions HAVE to be supported at all costs, comments like this are the result.

You are obviously looking at all this with a predetermined point of view/perspective. And it’s the ‘right’ one, of course.

Short little snippets of expertise and knowledge all wrapped up in a tidy little package. Cool.

Judge, jury and executioner. Jump in, take a crap, and jump out. Nice work.

That’s what happens when you don’t have an original thought of your own.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Just curious, MG.

Who doesn't have a predetermined point of view/perspective?

Who doesn't present short little snippets of expertise and knowledge all wrapped up in a tidy little package?

Who doesn't jump in, and jump out? Like anyone with other things to do, for example.

From your perspective, who here does have an original thought?

Are these are the only people you feel are worth your time?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Just curious, MG.

Who doesn't have a predetermined point of view/perspective?

Who doesn't present short little snippets of expertise and knowledge all wrapped up in a tidy little package?

Who doesn't jump in, and jump out? Like anyone with other things to do, for example.

From your perspective, who here does have an original thought?

Are these are the only people you feel are worth your time?

Clearly MG spent as much time studying Guru Nanak’s contribution to the Guru Granth Sahib, Sikhism's holy scripture. The True and Everlasting Guru is a collection of 1430 Ang (a respectful term for pages), containing 3,384 poetic hymns, or shabads, including swayas, sloks, and vars, or ballads, composed by 43 authors in 31 raags of in the melodious hue of classical Indian music.

If he hasn’t he’s just being lazy defaulting to his family’s faith. He’s not open-minded if he hasn’t read the Guru Granth Sahib, pondered its poetry, and tried to live by its divine wisdom? What man could’ve just invented this out of whole cloth?

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Back to the discussion?

Marcus’s post was more or less a derail from the discussion. I rather bluntly said as much.

Carry on?

Honestly, I haven’t seen a rebuttal to my arguments/questions that would cause me, and possibly other thinking people, to do a double take on the subject at hand.

There are just too many ‘one liners’ and the like, made with the intent to do a quick ‘take down’. But in my humble opinion many of them are fluff. No depth, no breadth.

But that’s what happens when there may not be a cogent argument to be made. And then we end up going off on a likely derail from the topic being discussed.

So if we’re done…at least with the train of thought I introduced…fine. I’ll wait to see whether or not we stay focused or move towards the usual default of one liners and psychobabble.

As one poster mentioned a few pages ago, “Interesting thread”. I doubt they were referring to posts such as the one Marcus made and I was responding to. Or the silliness of Doc’s rather crude posts.

My guess is we’re heading towards a wrap up.

My arguments/questions stand, at least as far as I’m concerned. No surprise there, right?

There are reasons to think that there is more to the original story of Book of Mormon translation/publication…that points to the traditional story Joseph and others gave as being likely…than alternative narratives given by critics.

Nuff said? You can still go your way and I’ll go mine. No hard feelings.

Regards,
MG