Location of Book of Mormon events: evidence from Joseph Smith Papers

[_Daniel Peterson]

That some things might have been revealed doesn't clearly seem to entail that all things have been revealed.

So Joseph Smith was wrong.

About some things, yes.

Not believing him to have been inerrant means that we don't believe him to have been inerrant.

And what does that mean? That he was capable of error.

No biggie.

Precisely. Not on the big issues.

He was right about everything else, certainly

Certainly?

Constructing straw men is fun, I suppose.

because his fundamentalist Protestant background only colored his understanding of trivial matters like Native American origins.

To the extent that his presuppositions were uncorrected by revelation, they were as likely to be right or wrong as anybody else's. Which means that, like any other dated and placed human being, his understanding would be colored by his culture, his psychology, his personal history, his education (or lack thereof), and so on.

Such a proposition doesn't seem all that difficult to derive from the concept of a non-inerrant prophet.

If he had been wrong about the plan of salvation or the priesthood, we would surely know about it by now.

Constructing straw men is fun, I suppose.

But you're brighter than this.

[_The Dude]

To the extent that his presuppositions were uncorrected by revelation, they were as likely to be right or wrong as anybody else's.

How sure are you that revelations managed to correct his presuppositions? Three visits from Moroni and he still had the wrong idea. How many other things did he screw up?

On the whole, he was just as likely to be right or wrong as anyone else.

[_Daniel Peterson]

How sure are you that revelations managed to correct his presuppositions? Three visits from Moroni and he still had the wrong idea.

About what?

How many other things did he screw up?

Eighteen. Possibly nineteen.

On the whole, he was just as likely to be right or wrong as anyone else.

"You have your religion, and I have my religion" (Qur’an 109:6).

[_Who Knows]

Joseph Smith's words on what the wentworth letter is:

At the request of Mr. John Wentworth, Editor and Proprietor of the Chicago Democrat, I have written the following sketch of the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-day Saints, of which I have the honor, under God, of being the founder. Mr. Wentworth says that he wishes to furnish Mr. [George] Barstow, a friend of his, who is writing the history of New Hampshire, with this document. As Mr. Barstow has taken the proper steps to obtain correct information, all that I shall ask at his hands, is, that he publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation.

For the prophet of the church to want to provide "correct information" as the "founder" of the Mormon church "under god", you'd think he wouldn't just be spouting off his own random, personal ideas that god did not inspire him to write. And then for the church to publish this same letter in a document that was "a way for Church leaders to communicate with the Saints, publish revelations and important discourses, and share news of the Church.", but only really put Joseph Smith's own personal, uninspired thoughts and ideas - seems a bit silly...

And then the modern LDS church does exactly the opposite of what Joseph Smith explicitly told wentworth to do "publish the account entire, ungarnished..." woopsies. lol.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It always surprises me how many critics, even fairly sophisticated ones, seem to have expected infallibility from the Church and its leaders.

It reminds me of the old saw that Roman Catholics say that the pope is infallible, but don't really believe it, while Mormons say that their leaders aren't infallible, but don't really believe it.

For my general thoughts on the broader topic, see Daniel C. Peterson, “Notes on Historicity and Inerrancy," in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 197-215. I don't believe that it's on line.

[_krose]

I don't think you get to extend the meaning of "this country" to all of North America, but rather to the USA as it existed in 1823.

[_The Dude]

It always surprises me how many critics, even fairly sophisticated ones, seem to have expected infallibility from the Church and its leaders.

No, I just stopped seeing a huge difference between fallible and "just as likely to be right or wrong as anyone else."

The difference is _____?

[_Who Knows]

It always surprises me how many critics, even fairly sophisticated ones, seem to have expected infallibility from the Church and its leaders.

Come on man - the guy claimed to have ancient gold plates. He claimed to be able to 'translate' them when they weren't even in the same room as him.

So then he officially publishes an account of the origins of the church, in a publication the LDS church developed for the purposes of the leaders of the church communicating with the members (and publish revelations), and you don't expect it to be 'revealed'? You're ok with him just passing off his own personal, uninspired ideas like this?

Now that is what surprises me.

by the way, the wentworth letter was also Joseph Smith's first publication of his first vision. Was that just his own personal, uninspired thoughts as well?

[_cinepro]

It always surprises me how many critics, even fairly sophisticated ones, seem to have expected infallibility from the Church and its leaders.

It reminds me of the old saw that Roman Catholics say that the pope is infallible, but don't really believe it, while Mormons say that their leaders aren't infallible, but don't really believe it.

For my general thoughts on the broader topic, see Daniel C. Peterson, “Notes on Historicity and Inerrancy," in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 197-215. I don't believe that it's on line.

I think the problem with the Wentworth letter (for apologists) is that even if it isn't clear whether Joseph was speaking as a "prophet" or an "uneducated farm-boy", it really doesn't matter.

The Wentworth letter isn't presented as a revelation; it's informative and historical in nature ("Mormonism for Dummies" circa 1842). But it's written by the only eyewitness to the foundational events of Mormonism. So it isn't Jospeh's role of "prophet" that makes the Wentworth Letter so interesting; it is Joseph's role as eyewitness.

So the issue isn't one of "fallibility"; it's "what did Joseph know, and when did he know it?" If the Wentworth Letter isn't a reliable record of what happened to Joseph and what he learned and from whom, then we are faced with something more worrisome than a fallible prophet: We are faced with the uncomfortable reality that our understanding of the foundational events of the Restoration is based on the recollections of an unreliable witness.

Does any LDS scholar want to take a stab at sorting out which details of the canonized and traditional origin stories of the Church are overembellished, misremembered, overly influenced by the culture of the times, or just made up?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

For the prophet of the church to want to provide "correct information" as the "founder" of the Mormon church "under god", you'd think he wouldn't just be spouting off his own random, personal ideas that god did not inspire him to write. And then for the church to publish this same letter in a document that was "a way for Church leaders to communicate with the Saints, publish revelations and important discourses, and share news of the Church.", but only really put Joseph Smith's own personal, uninspired thoughts and ideas - seems a bit silly...

And then the modern LDS church does exactly the opposite of what Joseph Smith explicitly told wentworth to do "publish the account entire, ungarnished..." woopsies. lol.

I find it interesting that some FARMSboys and other apologists believe Joseph received "brief" or very little instruction from the Angel Moroni, when in fact it appears Moroni tutored Joseph for the several years in between his first seeing the plates and finally getting them. For example, Lucy Mack Smith wrote in her bio of Joseph about how he described the Nephites, etc. (and this was before he got the plates, so the only source for the information could have been Moroni, the Nephite) (emphasis mine):

From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same…. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

(pp. 82-83).

I don't think Joseph was mistaken in anything he wrote or spoke about Book of Mormon peoples, etc. He got it directly from "the source" (i.e., the Nephite Moroni). For apologists to now downplay the Wentworth Letter is absurd, in my opinion.