russ@dadla-b.UUCP (08/11/83)
John White has expressed disappointment at my last response. I will say that I had originally planned to be more complete. But as I reviewed the situations that he raised I realized that it is easy to make a claim and even to support it with some affidavits, but to refute that along with the affidavits takes a great deal of time. I not only have to present what I think is a reasonable answer, but I have to satisfy the most critical sceptic. It could take whole books to adequately cover some of the questions. Take for instance the affidavits that were gathered in Palmyra by Hurlburt. I can quote from anti-Mormon writers that tend to discredit them, but many on the net would find that insufficient. I could show contradictions with other non-Mormon writers, but that also would not be enough. The only acceptable approach for this critical audience would be to go through a complete evaluation of all statements least I overlook someones favorite statement. I would like to complete a subset of that but even that will take a while. I should mention that I feel the same frustration as John White does. I also feel that John has been ignoring many of the points I have been making. I knew that to completely open the discussion of the origin of Mormonism would be a question that could not be adequately covered in this limited form without a great deal of time. I therefor have only attempted to show the Book of Mormon could not have been written by Joseph Smith. I think that information presently available allows this subject to be adequately discussed in an objective manner. I don't mean to offend anyone by ignoring their comments. I feel like comments like, "I think the fact that major portions of the Book appear to have been plagiarized from popular novels of the era speaks for itself" made by Andrew Klossner ar indicative. What fact is he talking about? Do the readers of the net accept statements like this? Should I respond even to these? Even John White started out his case by saying that "it can fairly easily be shown that the creation of the Mormon church and all of its 'divinely inspired' scriptures were a part of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Joseph Smith and a couple of accomplices." Does just the stating of this idea make it a fact for future discussion? Why not explain what the elaborate hoax is? Why not at least identify the accomplices? These statements totally ignore the proofs I had been presenting as a basis for discussion. I come back to the statement I made before that a new theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon must fit the available information. I get the feeling that if I challenge the statements or information of people like Walter Martin, I just must not understand. I can't possibly know what I am talking about. I can assure you that I do know what I am talking about, but that it takes a large amount of time to fully cover the tree structure of points that develops with such a discussion. If you have a favorite question, then I don't want to ignore it but I don't think this net wants to here the full question discussed. Let me pick one that we haven't been able to agree on for now. Question: Did Joseph Smith's mother refute his claim that he was not a money digger? First let me quote from Joseph's history. "In the year 1824 my father's family met with a great affliction by the death of my eldest brother, Alvin. In the month of October, 1825, I hired with an old gentleman by the name of Josiah Stoal, who lived in Chenango county, State of New York. He had heard something of a silver mine having been opened by the Spaniards in Harmony, Sequehanna county, State of Pennsylvania; and had, previous to my hiring to him, been digging, in order, if possible, to discover the mine. After I went to live with him, he took me, with the rest of his hands, to dig for the silver mine, at which I continued to work for nearly a month, without success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. Hence arose the very prevalent story of my having been a money-digger." And Joseph's mother Lucy Mack was quoted by John White that she said Mr. Stoal "came for Joseph on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye." Now where is the refutation? They seem to be telling the same story to me. Why do you say that "Joseph was trying to deny that he had ever been a money digger?" I have never read a statement by him to that affect. I noticed that you added that the keys which joys had were peep stones which the original account does not say at all. He did have a peep stone but I don't think his mother was referring to it at this time. John, you go on to state that "This is nothing short of a bald-faced lie in view of the historical record." And yet you have never presented what "this" is. You say that Joseph said something and then refute it without every actually quoting from him. You say that "If Mr. Stoal heard that Joseph was a user of a peep stone," and yet you have no basis that he did hear that. All the quote says it that he "heard that he possessed certain keys by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye." By that time in Joseph's life he had been visited by several heavenly beings and by the way Joseph was shown the location of the plates in 1823 not 1827 as you initially stated. I would think that just the information about having found some gold plates would have been enough to have interested Josiah Stole in Joseph Smith. This brings up one of the real problems of a discussion of this type. Since most readers on the net do not have very much information of a historical nature about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we can not draw from a stable knowledge base. I have to present both arguments and the documents verifying the arguments, as well as the information to give a setting.
russ@dadla-b.UUCP (08/11/83)
Please forgive the obvious spelling a proofreading (or lack of it) errors.
jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (08/11/83)
Okay, Russ. I realize that this is probably going to be a complete waste of time, but here goes. I agree that a thorough discussion of the history of the Smiths and the true origin of the Book of Mormon would involve time-consuming analysis of many historical documents. That is why I did not rest my case on such evidence. The scientific and archeological evidence that I cited in my original article are enough to brand the Book of Mormon as fraudulent. Now for some further discussion on whether Joseph was a peep stone enthusiast and money digger. First of all, I have long labored under the misunderstanding that the Mormons claim Joseph had never been a money digger, and your long quote from Joseph seems to bear me out. He tells a story about how he hired on with an old silver miner, in order to make ends meet. After two months of fruitless digging, he prevailed on the old man to give it up. He sums up his story with "Hence arose the prevalent story of my having been a money-digger." If that's not denying that he was never a money digger, I don't know what is. Russ, you admit that Joseph "did have a peep stone," but claim that his mother was not referring to it when she said "he possessed keys by which he could discern thing invisible to the natural eye." Just what, pray tell, was young Joseph using a peep stone for anyway? (Remember, this is before he translated the golden plates.) And just what did Joseph's mother mean by "keys," if not peep stones? Now, Russ, would you mind addressing some of the other evidence against the Book of Mormon presented in my original article? Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore P.S. I stated that Joseph was GIVEN the gold plates in 1827 -- I'm well aware that the actual location had been revealed to him earlier.