Question About Joseph Smith

[LogGrad98]

You guys made it down to Munich ok? The heat wave was intense yesterday (and today already).

Tell me about it. NO AC! I'm ready to murdilate someone. Our hotel room was 84 at 3 in the morning last night. Ugh. I actual went out to the car and sat in the AC for a half-hour to stop sweating. Lol

 

[colton]

Using the urim and thumim to find buried treasure?

Joseph's seer stones were separate from the Urim and Thummim. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone_(Latter_Day_Saints)

 

[Beer]

So you're not familiar with the accusations of money digging?

Like I really don't know anything here, but anytime I've looked into it I've heard about the money digging.

Hard working farm boy? Yeah, I'm not talking about the version the church sells, I'm talking about what non-LDS people think and hear about Joseph Smith.

My guess is he would fall right between the LDS version of JS and the version you've heard about. Like most things the truth generally lies in the middle.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Yes, there are 4 or 5 different accounts that he wrote. I've read them all, and I've also read several accounts by people that related what he told them orally. They all agree in the fundamentals, but disagree on details. For example, in the canonical account (what we have in the Pearl of Great Price) he said that two personages appeared to him, God and Jesus. In some accounts he just said that God appeared to him and didn't mention Jesus. That type of thing doesn't really bother me; if I were to describe an experience that happened to me to different people and at different times I'd probably emphasize different aspects of the experience and maybe get some of the minor details mixed up.



I agree. In fact, I remember reading an interview with one of his neighbors where the lady said something like "He was such a nice, hardworking, honest boy. It's a shame that he went off the deep end." (She didn't that colloquialism but that was the sentiment.) In other words, if he had never had mentioned visions/Book of Mormon/etc., she would have described him as a nice, hardworking, honest boy.

And some of the details they disagree on are pretty significant (e.g., how many personages appeared to him, which strikes me as a difficult detail to forget or on which to get muddled).

I'm curious, if you, or anyone else, sat on a jury and the lead witness for the prosecution in the case changed the details of his/her story repeatedly, even leaving the broad stokes more or less consistent, how credible would you find his witness? Would you vote to convict based on this witness' testimony (all else equal)?

This is a rather clear cut case in which believers will apply a different, laxer evidentiary standard to their own beliefs than they do to other persons' beliefs, or more generally in other realms of their lives (e.g., how they assess the credibility of someone who repeatedly changes his/her story in other contexts).

I'd bet my bottom dollar that we won't (as a general but rather consistent rule) find them going to such lengths to rationalize away and excuse other cases in which someone can't get his/her story straight in other contexts and will have difficulty finding this person credible.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Yes, there are 4 or 5 different accounts that he wrote. I've read them all, and I've also read several accounts by people that related what he told them orally. They all agree in the fundamentals, but disagree on details. For example, in the canonical account (what we have in the Pearl of Great Price) he said that two personages appeared to him, God and Jesus. In some accounts he just said that God appeared to him and didn't mention Jesus. That type of thing doesn't really bother me; if I were to describe an experience that happened to me to different people and at different times I'd probably emphasize different aspects of the experience and maybe get some of the minor details mixed up.



I agree. In fact, I remember reading an interview with one of his neighbors where the lady said something like "He was such a nice, hardworking, honest boy. It's a shame that he went off the deep end." (She didn't that colloquialism but that was the sentiment.) In other words, if he had never had mentioned visions/Book of Mormon/etc., she would have described him as a nice, hardworking, honest boy.

Yikes.

 

[colton]

And some of the details they disagree on are pretty significant (e.g., how many personages appeared to him, which strikes me as a difficult detail to forget or on which to get muddled).

Forgetting and/or getting muddled are of course not the only options here. That's a false dichotomy. There's also the simple possibility of emphasizing different things for different audiences.

I'm curious, if you, or anyone else, sat on a jury and the lead witness for the prosecution in the case changed the details of his/her story repeatedly, even leaving the broad stokes more or less consistent, how credible would you find his witness? Would you vote to convict based on this witness' testimony (all else equal)?

In this case I find it natural to have slightly different versions when the accounts are related years apart to different audiences under different circumstances. I would find it much more suspicious, actually, if the accounts were all identical.

This is a rather clear cut case in which believers will apply a different, laxer evidentiary standard to their own beliefs than they do to other persons' beliefs, or more generally in other realms of their lives (e.g., how they assess the credibility of someone who repeatedly changes his/her story in other contexts).

He didn't repeatedly change his story. It's not like he said "Only God showed up. Jesus wasn't there." in one account and "Both God and Jesus were present" in another account.

 

[colton]

For example, in the canonical account (what we have in the Pearl of Great Price) he said that two personages appeared to him, God and Jesus. In some accounts he just said that God appeared to him and didn't mention Jesus.

Oops, speaking of getting mixed up, I mixed that up. In the one account that he didn't mention both personages, he said that "the Lord" appeared to him, which from the context is apparent he meant Jesus.

 

[colton]

Yikes.

Seriously? Is this because you've read the various accounts and feel the differences are significant? Or is it because you're reading WAY more into what I wrote than I intended?

Tell you what, here's the best site that I know of that compares what he did and didn't say in the various versions: https://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm. If you read through that and still feel that this is a significant issue, then I'll respect your opinion on this matter. As it is, I don't.

 

[colton]

I'm curious, if you, or anyone else, sat on a jury and the lead witness for the prosecution in the case changed the details of his/her story repeatedly, even leaving the broad stokes more or less consistent, how credible would you find his witness? Would you vote to convict based on this witness' testimony (all else equal)?

This is a rather clear cut case in which believers will apply a different, laxer evidentiary standard to their own beliefs than they do to other persons' beliefs, or more generally in other realms of their lives (e.g., how they assess the credibility of someone who repeatedly changes his/her story in other contexts).

I'd bet my bottom dollar that we won't (as a general but rather consistent rule) find them going to such lengths to rationalize away and excuse other cases in which someone can't get his/her story straight in other contexts and will have difficulty finding this person credible.

Let me refer you to the same site I just mentioned to PKM Jones: https://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm.

What specifically with regards to the different accounts do you feel would not pass legal muster?

 

[Dr. Jones]

Seriously? Is this because you've read the various accounts and feel the differences are significant? Or is it because you're reading WAY more into what I wrote than I intended?

Tell you what, here's the best site that I know of that compares what he did and didn't say in the various versions: https://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm. If you read through that and still feel that this is a significant issue, then I'll respect your opinion on this matter. As it is, I don't.

It was said in jest. I know you didn't mean to imply Jesus is a small detail... just as some know the difference between there and their but get called out anyway. I didn't get th impression that you're too thin-skinned to make that joke. If so; my sincere apologies

 

[colton]

It was said in jest. I know you didn't mean to imply Jesus is a small detail... just as some know the difference between there and their but get called out anyway. I didn't get th impression that you're too thin-skinned to make that joke. If so; my sincere apologies

Oh, sorry, I totally mis-read your post.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Oh, sorry, I totally mis-read your post.