Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[MG 2.0]

...if Emma wanted to shield her sons from her husband's infidelity, she'd probably also want to shield them from his falsehoods about angels and Hebrew Indians and golden plates.

But she didn't. She could have changed the whole trajectory of the Restoration Movement by coming clean. By not doing so she was playing right into the hands of Brigham Young and the SL church. I've explained why Emma might have told the truth in one instance and not the other. I think it makes sense.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

...if Emma wanted to shield her sons from her husband's infidelity, she'd probably also want to shield them from his falsehoods about angels and Hebrew Indians and golden plates.

But she didn't. She could have changed the whole trajectory of the Restoration Movement by coming clean. By not doing so she was playing right into the hands of Brigham Young and the SL church. I've explained why Emma might have told the truth in one instance and not the other. I think it makes sense.

Regards,
MG

No, she couldn’t have changed anything. You can’t really believe her word one way or the other would have made any difference. Brother Brigham already saw her as a villain. Her denouncing the Book of Mormon would only have confirmed an opinion that she was in league with the devil.

[MG 2.0]

But she didn't. She could have changed the whole trajectory of the Restoration Movement by coming clean. By not doing so she was playing right into the hands of Brigham Young and the SL church. I've explained why Emma might have told the truth in one instance and not the other. I think it makes sense.

Regards,
MG

No, she couldn’t have changed anything. You can’t really believe her word one way or the other would have made any difference. Brother Brigham already saw her as a villain. Her denouncing the Book of Mormon would only have confirmed an opinion that she was in league with the devil.

You can think that.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

No, she couldn’t have changed anything. You can’t really believe her word one way or the other would have made any difference. Brother Brigham already saw her as a villain. Her denouncing the Book of Mormon would only have confirmed an opinion that she was in league with the devil.

You can think that.

Okay. Make your case as to why Brigham Young, the man who preached in General Conference that Emma Hale was "a child of hell," who had poisoned Joseph Smith's coffee, would have reconsidered The Book of Mormon if Emma had recanted her testimony.

[MG 2.0]

You can think that.

Okay. Make your argument as to why Brigham, the man who preached in General Conference that Emma was "a child of hell" who had poisoned Joseph's coffee, would have reconsidered The Book of Mormon if Emma had recanted her testimony.

I don't think he would have had a real choice. It would have changed the whole trajectory of the Restoration. As I've already laid out, I don't think Emma had any reason to lie about the plates, translation, etc.

If you feel differently, no problem.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Okay. Make your argument as to why Brigham, the man who preached in General Conference that Emma was "a child of hell" who had poisoned Joseph's coffee, would have reconsidered The Book of Mormon if Emma had recanted her testimony.

I don't think he would have had a real choice. It would have changed the whole trajectory of the Restoration. As I've already laid out, I don't think Emma had any reason to lie about the plates, translation, etc.

Who would have been swayed by her? Make your argument.

[MG 2.0]

I don't think he would have had a real choice. It would have changed the whole trajectory of the Restoration. As I've already laid out, I don't think Emma had any reason to lie about the plates, translation, etc.

Who would have been swayed by her? Make your argument.

It would more than likely have fractured the confidence of the early followers of Joseph Smith. Her voice had weight among those still sorting truth from myth. For early Saints grappling/struggling with betrayal, schism, and theological drift and alternative views, her testimony was a tether to the sacred.

As was brought out earlier in the thread, Emma's denial of polygamy may have been a shield against the trauma she had experienced, not a deliberate deception. We cannot know the pain that she experienced. Another thing to consider along with this. Joseph Smith III was organizing a church and Emma didn't want to follow Brigham Young. Two things could be happening at the same time, denying polygamy (an untruth), and testifying of the Book of Mormon (a truth)...in order to support and help with Joseph III as he was building the Reorganized Church.

Emma wasn't just protecting a legacy, she was surviving it. Reducing her to a "liar from Hell" as Brigham was wont to do misses the very complexity that was Emma's life and legacy. In my opinion, with all that she went through, essentially and then finally, she maintained her account of the plates, tactile/physical...consistent with other witnesses.

Her voice had weight among those still sorting truth from myth, not because she was flawless (which she was not), but because she was there.

You are free to look at it otherwise.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Who would have been swayed by her? Make your argument.

It would more than likely have fractured the confidence of the early followers of Joseph Smith. Her voice had weight among those still sorting truth from myth. For early Saints grappling/struggling with betrayal, schism, and theological drift and alternative views, her testimony was a tether to the sacred.

I'll ask again. What are some of the names of those who would have been swayed by Emma's denial of the Book of Mormon? These would all have to be people who would throw out the testimony of Joseph Smith and the eight witnesses for Emma's recantation. These would also have to be folks who weren't chased away by the Kirkland Banking fiasco or Joseph marrying their wives while they were away on missions.

We've already pretty much agreed that Brigham Young wouldn't have. Maybe you can list some you think might have had second thoughts.

Heber C Kimball?
Issac Morley?
Orson Pratt?
Porter Rockwell?
John Taylor?
William Clayton?
Some of Joseph Smith's 40 widows?

I, myself, can think of no one.

You can think that.

If you feel differently, no problem.

You are free to look at it otherwise.

Ha! Thank you granting your permission.

[MG 2.0]

It would more than likely have fractured the confidence of the early followers of Joseph Smith. Her voice had weight among those still sorting truth from myth. For early Saints grappling/struggling with betrayal, schism, and theological drift and alternative views, her testimony was a tether to the sacred.

I'll ask again. What are some of the names of those who would have been swayed by Emma's denial of the Book of Mormon? These would all have to be people who would throw out the testimony of Joseph Smith and the eight witnesses for Emma's recantation. These would also have to be folks who weren't chased away by the Kirkland Banking fiasco or Joseph marrying their wives while they were away on missions.

We've already pretty much agreed that Brigham Young wouldn't have. Maybe you can list some you think might have had second thoughts.

Heber C Kimball?
Issac Morley?
Orson Pratt?
Porter Rockwell?
John Taylor?
William Clayton?
Some of Joseph Smith's 40 widows?

That's actually a hard question to answer for someone else when I wasn't there and don't know the complete contextual framework of what was going on. We do a lot of guesswork, don't we? How she answered this question had ramifications either way. Some people would have been affected/impacted no matter what.

Let's go back to your logic. You are pressing the idea...over and over again...that if Emma lied about polygamy, why trust her on the plates. And I think I've already said this, but I think you may be expecting/assuming a uniform motive across different contexts that were different from each other. Quite a bit so. As I said, the denial of polygamy and the witness/affirmation to the plates were not parallel acts, they were responses, when being questioned years later, to different situations/experiences. One was forged in the crucible of marital grief and what Emma saw as potential institutional rupture as Joseph III built a new church. The other question on the Book of Mormon was one in which she may have kept a quiet fidelity to a foundational event based on sacred memory.

The truth is, we will not be able to prove one way or the other whether or not Emma told the truth in one instance and lied in the other for reasons, at the end of the day, known only to her.

Obviously both critics and believers have reasons to either believe and/or disbelieve Emma one way or the other. Granted, yes, its's a big deal, right?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I'll ask again. What are some of the names of those who would have been swayed by Emma's denial of the Book of Mormon? These would all have to be people who would throw out the testimony of Joseph Smith and the eight witnesses for Emma's recantation. These would also have to be folks who weren't chased away by the Kirkland Banking fiasco or Joseph marrying their wives while they were away on missions.

We've already pretty much agreed that Brigham Young wouldn't have. Maybe you can list some you think might have had second thoughts.

Heber C Kimball?
Issac Morley?
Orson Pratt?
Porter Rockwell?
John Taylor?
William Clayton?
Some of Joseph Smith's 40 widows?

The truth is, we will not be able to prove one way or the other whether or not Emma told the truth in one instance and lied in the other for reasons, at the end of the day, known only to her.

I note that when MG 2.0 starts a paragraph with “The truth is…”, what follows is something other than what the truth is.

The fact is that it can be proven that Emma lied. It is also a fact that you cannot prove that Emma was telling the truth.