I believe many LDS and Non-LDS academics love the idea that Joseph was an ignorant farm boy. It allows them to bring up ideas that seem more intellectual than Joseph, as they sometimes show our Prophets weaknesses in order to allow their theories to be more plausible. Joseph Smith was taught by angels many times, and I believe I will take his words over any of the intellects of today.
How Many Personages Visited Joseph?
It is not unrealistic to believe that Joseph Smith was visited over 50, maybe 75 times by special witnesses from God. The list here shows over 35 different visits. I am fairly sure that Joseph had to be taught with Spiritual Eyes, and in a non physical way perhaps. I am confident that when Spirit teaches Spirit, it is far more effective than Spirit teaching flesh. Joseph had to be one of the most intelligent beings in the history of the World. He was literally taught by Gods and Angels.
God the Father (1,2,3,?)
Jesus Christ (Many)
Moroni 20+
John the Baptist
Peter
James
John
Moses
Elias
Elijah
Adam (Michael)
Noah (Gabriel)
Raphael
Lehi
Nephi
Mormon
“Divers angels”
See a more complete chart of visits and historical references and many other details at my blog called “Moroni, Tutor of Joseph Smith”
“It is impossible to determine the number of “interviews” Joseph had with Moroni, but twenty-two visits are often identified.” “Moroni—Joseph Smith’s Tutor” By H. Donl Peterson
It is not unrealistic to believe that Joseph Smith was visited over 50, maybe 75 times by special witnesses from God. The list here shows over 35 different visits. I am fairly sure that Joseph had to be taught with Spiritual Eyes, and in a non physical way perhaps. I am confident that when Spirit teaches Spirit, it is far more effective than Spirit teaching flesh. Joseph had to be one of the most intelligent beings in the history of the World. He was literally taught by Gods and Angels.
Joseph’s Mistaken Folk View?
What amazed me is the often found idea from many Mesoamerican Theorists and BYU Professors they describe Joseph Smith as Sorensen does below regarding Joseph’s knowledge of specific geography of the Book of Mormon by saying, “[Joseph Smith] he did not understand or was ambiguous.”
I am however confident that John Sorensen and the other intellects I speak about are good and faithful members of the Church, I just don’t agree with some of their teachings. What disrespect in my opinion.
Mr. Sorensen also said, “What may startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said or implied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history.
Until he encountered the Stephens’s book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with a distinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas. Even with Stephens’s material in mind, he made no more than a passing attempt to relate the Book of Mormon’s story to the newly-found ruins. And in the long run, the little blip on the Latter-day Saints’ mental screen caused by the explorer’s book faded as the mistaken folk view reasserted its dominance.” John Sorenson Mormon’s Codex
Jonathan Neville said, “Here, Brother Sorenson characterizes the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah as a “mistaken folk view.” This degree of derision for the prophets definitely “may startle some” members of the Church who accept what the prophets teach.”
You can see many of the available Newspapers in the Palmyra, Ontario County, Geneva, Lyons and other cities close to where the Prophet lived. He had access to may papers and he was known to go weekly to Palmyra to get books and papers for his father. The Book of Mormon was definitely influenced by the learning and reading of the Prophet Joseph Smith.” Jonathan Neville
Disrespect of Joseph?
In Hannah and James Stoddard’s Faith Crisis Volume 1 Book in a section titled, Hofmann: Magic & Treasure Digging, I quote them below:
“Richard L. Bushman, progressive historian and author of Rough Stone Rolling, would later echo this argument, adding that Joseph was “involved in magic,” had “treasure-seeking greed,” and that magic was a “preparatory gospel” in training the young man as a prophet of God. However, Bushman argued that “all sorts of treasure seekers were also serious Christians,” so to him, it just wasn’t a big deal:
‘It was no more scandalous than say gambling, playing poker today. A little bit discredited and slightly morally disreputable but not really evil. And when it was found that all sorts of treasure seekers were also serious Christians, why not the Smiths too? So, instead of being a puzzle or a contradiction, it was just one aspect of Smith family culture and not really anything to be worried about.’ Richard Bushman
Stoddard’s continue, “Contrary to Bushman’s claims, when Mormonism Unvailed was published in 1834, accusing the Smith family of involvement in magic, treasure digging, etc. the public was incensed! The First Presidency reported that Hurlbut’s claims “fired the minds of the people with much indignation” against Joseph Smith and the Church. No good Christian in Joseph Smith’s day heard Hurlbut and thought, “Those Smiths are kind of weird but no big deal.”
The accusations of magic and treasure digging Hurlbut & Howe conjured up carried grave implications for early 19th century Americans, and they published them with the specific intent of destroying Joseph Smith’s character. Just as his enemies had hoped, the publication resulted in increased and intense persecution. When “serious Christians” in Joseph Smith’s day—and this is true as well for serious Christians in our day—heard that Joseph Smith was “expert in the arts of necromancy” and that he had spent his boyhood “digging into the hills and mountains” searching for gold, the slanders destroyed his credibility and impeded interest in the ongoing work of the Restoration of the Gospel. Viewed as “blots” on the character of the young Prophet, most of the persecution leveled against the Church in 1834 was rooted firmly in these scandalous tales.” James and Hannah Stoddard
Was Joseph a Money Digger? NO!
“In an attempt to amalgamate Joseph’s religious interests and his occasional dig, Ronald Walker created the term “village seer” to describe him. He hoped that this term would represent Joseph as something more than just a scryer or diviner and also develop a role that was more likely to naturally transition into a Judeo-Christian prophet. He depicted Joseph as growing to understand his divine role as he matured. Richard Bushman accepted Joseph as a money digger, arguing that the gold plates were originally seen as treasure by Joseph, which required the angel Moroni to reorient him in a more religious manner. From this perspective, Joseph then transitioned away from magic culture to become a prophet. However, it is clear that in this transition, Joseph did not leave the seer stones and the supernatural behind but rather molded these tools to fit his Christian religion.” Joseph Smith’s Seer Stones/ Michael Hubbard MacKay and Nicholas J. Frederick. BYU Religious Studies Center, 2016.
Once again I have a difficult time listening to people like John Sorensen, Richard Bushman and many others, especially BYU and Church Education Teachers, who speak at times so unfavorably about Joseph Smith.
Elder Packer sums it up best by saying, “Some of our scholars establish for themselves a posture of neutrality. They call it “sympathetic detachment.” Historians are particularly wont to do that. If they make a complimentary statement about the Church, they seem to have to counter it with something that is uncomplimentary.
Some of them, since they are members of the Church, are quite embarrassed with the thought that they might be accused of being partial. They care very much what the world thinks and are very careful to include in their writings criticism of the Church leaders of the past.” The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer
I Have a Question!
Some scholars have implied that the Book of Mormon and LDS theology are products of Joseph Smith’s environment. To what extent did Joseph Smith’s environment influence the theological developments of the Church?
Answer by Larry C. Porter, professor of Church history and doctrine, Brigham Young University. It is true that some critics of the Book of Mormon have claimed that Joseph Smith used historical, philosophical, literary, and religious ideas circulating during his lifetime to create the Book of Mormon—making it merely a reflection of western New York culture in the early nineteenth century.
By examining the various ideas that supposedly influenced the Book of Mormon, however, we can see that many of these ideas weren’t readily available to Joseph Smith and many others were only superficially similar to LDS theology and scripture. Still others simply involved topics of universal concern to all men and women, not only in Joseph Smith’s time but in our own as well. Since the Book of Mormon is directed to all of God’s children, we would expect to find these concerns addressed in that sacred volume.” Larry C. Porter
The Indian Influence
“Some critics argue that various publications dealing with the Indians and their Israelite-like origins were available to Joseph Smith and influenced his work on the Book of Mormon. A wide variety of books, periodicals, and newspaper articles describing aspects of Native American life did circulate during Joseph Smith’s era. Of particular interest were the prospective origins and customs of the mound-builders of northeastern America. Their style of burial sometimes included stone boxes; their fortifications might have been picketed; and they used metal implements. This information was available to the public.
Theoretically, Joseph Smith would have had access to such publications if they were available in the local libraries in Palmyra and Manchester or among the private libraries of individuals he knew. From 1825 to 1829, he frequented the environs of Susquehanna, Broome, Chenango, and Seneca counties, and conceivably could have been exposed to materials in those localities as well. He also would have been exposed to the local folklore concerning the Indian habitation in the region.
But although a multiplicity of sources on Indian lore existed in the eastern United States during Joseph Smith’s era, it does not necessarily mean that local repositories had any or all of these resources among their holdings. Nor does it mean that Joseph even read them. His education was restricted because of demands placed on his time by farm work. There is no reason to question Joseph’s declaration that his only resource for translating the Book of Mormon was “the gift and power of God.”
Philosophical and Historical Influences
Some writers have attempted to draw parallels between teachings of the Book of Mormon and philosophical and historical ideas extant in Joseph’s day. The idea that America was a destined and promised land was a popular one in the early nineteenth century. It is an idea taught many places in the Book of Mormon as well. Critics point to Nephi’s vision in 1 Nephi 11–14 and claim that Joseph Smith simply reiterated events that had already transpired to appeal to his fellow Americans’ sense of destiny. Historical sequences such as the coming of Columbus, the arrival of the early colonists, the Revolutionary War, and the introduction of the Bible among the Indians are all recognizable themes in the Book of Mormon.
To such an argument we have the convincing testimony of the Spirit that the Book of Mormon is what it declares itself to be—a revelation to an ancient prophet of future events in America. The Lord obviously knew that such information would be of value to readers of the book in modern times. Moroni plainly said of contemporary civilizations, “Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.” (Morm. 8:35.) President Ezra Taft Benson has reiterated that “the Book of Mormon was written for us today.”
Through the Book of Mormon, the Lord offers inspired direction on key subjects of import not only in Joseph Smith’s time, but in our time. It is relevant to current issues of many decades, and obviously touches on some of the concerns of the early nineteenth century, as well as on our concerns today.
Literary Influences
At one time, it was popular among critics to contend that a literary work of Joseph Smith’s day, a manuscript authored by the Reverend Solomon Spalding (also spelled Spaulding), influenced the plot of the Book of Mormon. Spalding died in 1816, but his manuscript survived and was used by Eber D. Howe to advance a “Spalding theory” in the first anti-Mormon work of note, Mormonism Unvailed, (Painesville: E. D. Howe, 1834; original spelling preserved.) Howe held that Sidney Rigdon had been responsible for taking Spalding’s manuscript from a printing establishment in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and later making it available for publication through Joseph Smith.
Examination of the only Spalding manuscript known to exist shows it to have little resemblance to the Book of Mormon. It proves to be a narrative history of a band of Romans living in the time of Constantine. They are blown off course while on a voyage to “Britain” and reach the eastern coast of North America. The manuscript bears such little resemblance to the Book of Mormon in themes, episodes, or characters that some have insisted that a second manuscript, which did correspond to the Book of Mormon, must have existed. Such a manuscript has never been found, and the whole theory is generally discounted.
Oliver Cowdery responded to accusations of outside authorship by bearing a solemn witness: “[The Book of Mormon] is true. Sidney Rigdon did not write it. Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the prophet.”
The Influence of Contemporary Religious Thought
Some have questioned why various religious doctrines debated during Joseph Smith’s era appear (though clarified) in the Book of Mormon. The answer is quite simple. The Book of Mormon itself declares that one of its purposes is to verify and clarify the teachings of the Bible. Doctrines like the Fall and the Atonement, repentance, infant baptism, the first and second comings of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the gifts of the Spirit were all biblical doctrines debated by various sectarian bodies in Joseph’s time. But that was nothing new. These and other issues had been problematical for Christians for generations. It is only natural that some of the same questions that had stirred religious controversy for centuries would be addressed in the Book of Mormon, which was a book prepared for our time.
Through the pages of the Book of Mormon, the Lord sought to rectify erroneous concepts and to restore certain standard truths from ancient Christianity that had been lost.
The Influence of the Holy Ghost
Ultimately, the only convincing answer to charges made by critics of the Book of Mormon is the witness of the Holy Ghost. Those who want to know the truth about the Book of Mormon can obtain it from no other source.
President Benson has said, “We are not required to prove that the Book of Mormon is true or is an authentic record through external evidences—though there are many. … God has built in his own proof system of the Book of Mormon as found in Moroni, chapter 10 [Moro. 10], and in the testimonies of the Three and the Eight Witnesses and in various sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. We each need to get our own testimony of the Book of Mormon through the Holy Ghost.”
God continues to administer to his children through the distinctive means of revelation to his authorized servants. This fundamental, identifying feature of Mormonism allowed Joseph Smith to restore new truths long withheld from men on earth. The Book of Mormon and other contemporary scriptures were an integral part of that revelatory process.” Larry C. Porter, Professor of Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University. Full Article Here:
Not Divine Dictation
I have studied and prayed mightily about how Joseph Smith’s method of translation transpired. It is important to me. I don’t believe Joseph used a rock in a hat, as I don’t believe Joseph simply quoted text from the rock, and gave it to his scribe without even looking at the plates. This is the theory of many of the intellectuals I have spoken about in this blog. Here is a quote I like a lot from two BYU educators.
“According to David Whitmer’s account of how the Book of Mormon was translated, Joseph Smith was the instrument of transmission, while translation rested solely with the Lord. This is simply a reflection of the notion of divine dictation, which holds that every word of scripture comes from God himself. If David Whitmer’s account is to be accepted, revelation also includes spelling and punctuation. This notion is at odds with the explanation found in Doctrine and Covenants 8 and 9, which details how revelation comes. In this respect, Richard Anderson observed that Whitmer “after decades of reflection outside of the Church, concluded that no modification could possibly be made in any revelation. This highly rigid view of these revelations matched his highly rigid view of the origin of the Book of Mormon” (“By the Gift and Power of God,” 84).” The Process of Translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Fielding McConkie (Professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU) and Craig J. Ostler (Assistant Professor of Church History and Doctrine, BYU)
Early Modern English by Jonathan Neville
“I’m among those few remaining Latter-day Saints who still believe Joseph Smith translated the Nephite plates with the Urim and Thummim. Some claim that makes me a “fundamentalist” or even a heretic, but I think there is strong extrinsic evidence to support what Joseph and Oliver claimed.
Nevertheless, the trend in the Church is toward embracing the new narrative that Joseph Smith didn’t translate the Book of Mormon.
For example, this week Dan the Interpreter is going to interview Stanford Carmack. Carmack and Royal Skousen have worked together to create the “Early Modern English theory,” or EMET.
I don’t know how many ordinary people are interested in this topic, but it’s not as difficult or complex as it is made out to be. Because it has important implications, I think Church members need to become familiar with EMET.
You can read the announcement here:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2020/05/bad-grammar-and-early-modern-english-on-the-radio.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Latter-day+Saint&utm_content=366
We have great respect for scholars such as Stanford, Royal, Dan, etc., even though they promote M2C, SITH, EMET, etc. They are all fine people, faithful Church members, etc. They make important contributions in many ways. But that doesn’t mean we agree with everything they teach.” Jonathan Neville Blog Here
