For those concerned how this occultic “Joseph Smith” could make its way into Church publications, President Ezra Taft Benson offered this advice, “Sometimes from behind the pulpit, in our classrooms, in our Council meetings and in our church publications we hear, read or witness things that do not square with the truth. . . . Now do not let this serve as an excuse for your own wrong-doing. The Lord is letting the wheat and the tares mature before he fully purges the Church. He is also testing you to see if you will be misled. The devil is trying to deceive the very elect.” Ezra Taft Benson, “Our Immediate Responsibility” (BYU Devotional, Provo, October 25, 1996), https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson_immediateresponsibility.
I have noticed some peculiar beliefs behind some very intellectual men and women that are good active members.
They believe in Christ and the Gospel (10)
They believe in the Doctrine of the Church (10)
They believe the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (10)
They believe in past Prophets and Apostles mostly. (Most likely disagreeing slightly with Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra Taft Benson, and David O. McKay. (9)
They believe members of the Quorum of the Seventies mostly and have very few different opinions. (9)
They believe their peers, and scholars but have a few different opinions. (8)
They believe The Prophet Joseph Smith very often but always try and put him down, or make him human. (7)
I realize I am generalizing, but I am trying to make a point. In my opinion it seems many historians, professors and intellectuals try and bring Joseph Smith down just a notch more often than anyone else as Elder Packer says below.
“Some historians write and speak as though the only ones to read or listen are mature, experienced historians. They write and speak to a very narrow audience. Unfortunately, many of the things they tell one another are not uplifting, go far beyond the audience they may have intended, and destroy faith. What that historian did with the reputation of the President of the Church was not worth doing. He seemed determined to convince everyone that the prophet was a man. We knew that already. All of the prophets and all of the Apostles have been men. It would have been much more worthwhile for him to have convinced us that the man was a prophet, a fact quite as true as the fact that he was a man. The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer
Quotes about Intellectual Opinions
“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false” .Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1 (Bookcraft, 1960), 188
I have come to believe that it is the tendency for many members of the Church who spend a great deal of time in academic research to begin to judge the Church, its doctrine, organization, and leadership, present and past, by the principles of their own profession. Ofttimes this is done unwittingly, and some of it, perhaps, is not harmful. The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer
This problem has affected some of those who have taught and have written about the history of the Church. These professors say of themselves that religious faith has little influence on Mormon scholars. They say this because, obviously, they are not simply Latter-day Saints but are also intellectuals trained, for the most part, in secular institutions. They would that some historians who are Latter-day Saints write history as they were taught in graduate school, rather than as Mormons. The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer
President Brigham Young admonished Karl G. Maeser not to teach even the times table without the Spirit of the Lord. How much more essential is that Spirit in the research, the writing, and the teaching of Church history. The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer
Author: John E. Clark Takes Joseph Down a Notch
Bio: “Dr. John E. Clark’s interest in archaeology began innocently at the age of six when his oldest brother helped him hunt for arrowheads around their house in Burley, Idaho. By the eighth grade his interest in artifacts eclipsed that in dinosaurs, and he decided to become an archaeologist. In high school he taught himself how to chip arrowheads and has studied and taught ancient technologies since that time. While completing BS and MA degrees in anthropology at BYU in the 1970s, he became excited about Mesoamerican mythology and archaeology, especially Maya writing and calendar systems.” Source
Quote from Dr. John Clark: “Had circumstances permitted a marked grave for the slain prophet, a fitting headstone could have read, “By Joseph Smith, Junior, Author and Proprietor.” Such an epitaph, taken from the title page of the Book of Mormon, captures the enduring bond between the man and the book, and also the controversy which coalesced around both with the book’s publication and the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830. In the ensuing and continuing “war of words” (Joseph Smith—History 1:10) and prejudice, redemption may hang on the single preposition “by.” What hand did Joseph have in producing the book?
Joseph claimed he translated by the power of God an ancient record inscribed on golden plates entrusted to him by an American angel. His account of the origin of the Book of Mormon is, to understate the obvious, outrageously incredible. One critique dubbed it “knavery on two sticks.”3 Or is it? Are Josephs claims truth or nonsense? How can one know? This question implicates classic antitheses between science and religion, reason and faith. I consider both
faith and reason here in evaluating competing explanations of the book. When confronted with the book, most people reject it because of its cover story. Sterling M. McMurrin, a former Latter-day Saint, said critically, “You don’t get books from angels and translate them by miracles.” Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins, John E. Clark Source: BYU Studies Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 4 (2005), pp. 83–104. Published by: BYU Studies
You can evaluate on your own Dr. Clark’s opinion’s above about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
Jonathan Neville Refutes John E. Clark
“Clark’s article starts on page 83. I’m not going to reproduce the whole thing here, just a few sections that I’ll comment on in red, as usual.
p. 85: Most Mormons fall into a more subtle error that also inflates Joseph’s talents; they confuse translation with authorship. They presume that Joseph Smith knew the contents of the book as if he were its real author, and they accord him perfect knowledge of the text. This presumption removes from discussion the most compelling evidence of the book’s authenticity–Joseph’s unfamiliarity with its contents. To put the matter clearly: Joseph Smith did not fully understand the Book of Mormon. I propose that he transmitted to readers an ancient book that he neither imagined nor wrote. This paragraph is full of logical fallacies and fact avoidance. Start with the idea that Mormons are falling into “a more subtle error” when they presume Joseph knew the contents of the book and had a perfect knowledge of the text. In fact, Joseph re-read the text many times, correcting it in some cases. In 1842, he re-read it again (I think because Winchester was challenging it), yet he made no corrections. During the translation, Joseph spelled out words for Oliver Cowdery. But prior to even beginning the translation, Moroni and others tutored him. Joseph wrote: “I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me.” Joseph knew far more about the cultural context than the book itself reveals. There is zero evidence that Joseph was unfamiliar with its contents; what he was unfamiliar with is the Mesoamerican setting. This is why Clark and other Mesoamerican proponents insist Joseph didn’t understand the book. It is a logical fallacy to assert that because Joseph transmitted an ancient book he neither imagined nor wrote, he therefore could not understand the book. The assertion that one can only understand a book one writes is not just nonsensical; it defies the very purpose for writing. Clark wrote an article to convey his understanding of the topic. His argument would mean that because his readers did not write his article, they cannot understand it. This argument is akin to that made by the old Catholic priests who didn’t want people having access to the Bible because they could never understand it. To see Jonathans complete article visit, The Worlds of Joseph Smith by Jonathan Neville
Intellectuals Love the Seer Stone V. Urim and Thummim. Why?
“Seer Stone v. Urim and Thummim by the Stoddard’s places the Book of Mormon translation on trial, presenting the latest research in one of the most comprehensive treatments of the translation process to date providing encouragement for Latter-day Saints who fear they have been “betrayed” by the translation history taught by the Church for over 190 years.
Did Joseph Smith study and master the Nephite language? Did the Prophet tutor some of the early Brethren in ancient Nephite characters?
Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon using a dark seer stone in a hat?
Why are progressive historians creating a new history using sources from a man who vowed to wash his hands in the blood of Joseph Smith, while boasting that he had deceived the Prophet and his God?” Joseph Smith Foundation
Below is part of one chapter of that book. This chapter will expose many Historian’s and Professors trying to take Joseph Smith down a notch in his credibility. I just think it makes Joseph look more as a Prophet of God. We only try to ruin and take down those whom we fear the most.
Indolent Treasure Digger: The Josiah Stowell Letter
“Mark Hofmann continued to forge and sell an increasingly prodigious number of documents, including a letter from Joseph Smith to his wife Emma, which he sold to Brent Ashworth for $6,000. Other documents included: a letter dated January 13, 1873, from Martin Harris to Walter Conrad, a letter dated January 23, 1829, from Lucy Mack Smith to Mary Pierce, and a letter dated April 2, 1873, from David Whitmer to Walter Conrad. Hofmann produced a half-page fragment of the book of Mosiah, a fragment from the book of Helaman, and other seemingly unimportant artifacts, such as Spanish Fork Co-Operative notes. All of these and more served to bolster Hofmann’s persona as a bona fide historical documents expert. Before the exposure of his fraud and subsequent downfall, the Church would add at least 446 Hofmann forgeries to its collection. Even then, this staggering list “represents only a fraction of the documents that passed through Hofmann’s hands.” … To read more about the Mark Hoffman forgeries read, Faith Crisis Volume 1 We We’re Not Betrayed. Stoddard’s at their Best!
A Product of the Times?
“With the eventual release of the [forged] Josiah Stowell Letter, headlines such as, “Letter Revealing Mormon Founder’s Belief in Spirits, Occult Released“ sent a shockwave through the Latter-day Saint community, leaving many members reeling. Progressive historians, authors, and journalists began weighing in on the implications and its effect on the Church. Peggy Fletcher, an editor for Sunstone, and subsequent religion writer for the Salt Lake Tribune, commented:
Mormon intellectuals “will have to revise their traditional understanding” of the origins of their church, she said, and the letter will raise questions “in some minds” about the divine inspiration of their faith.
Jan Shipps, a prominent non-Latter-day Saint New Mormon Historian, commented after the release of the Josiah Stowell Letter, that in light of Hofmann’s documents, “. . . educated Mormons who have managed to hold off their questions of the truth of their church’s origins will have to face the fact that Joseph Smith didn’t tell the whole story.”
The essence of the progressive history argument—that Joseph Smith was involved in treasure digging and ritual magic, and covered it up (essentially lying)—necessarily challenges the integrity of the Prophet Joseph Smith. In his histories, Joseph made his affiliation unambiguously clear in relation to his money digging: that he had only worked for hire, had never indulged in it as a profession, nor had he engaged in it as a hobby or for personal interest. He had merely worked for someone else, who was a treasure digger, and had done his best to persuade his employer to give up the useless venture. Suggesting that Joseph Smith was a treasure digger effectively charges the Prophet as being deceptive and misleading.
If Joseph Smith was not honest, his deceit would immediately discredit the Restoration of the Gospel, as President Joseph Fielding Smith would later teach:”
“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false . . . .” Joseph Fielding Smith
Seer Stone V. Urim and Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial continues, “The doctrinal and historical upheaval during the 1980s left many members desperately struggling with what to believe. Marvin S. Hill, former progressive American history professor at BYU, commented that: “It [the Josiah Stowell Letter] shows that Joseph was deeply into some of the money-digging techniques, and it forces a lot of historians to reevaluate the many accounts of Joseph’s money-digging activities prior to getting the Book of Mormon plates.”
As we will see later, a central theme of the New Mormon History includes a restructuring of Joseph Smith’s character. A few years prior to the publication of this work, a progressive Latter-day Saint historian informed the authors of his goal to “take Joseph Smith off of the pedestal to which he has been placed by past Presidents of the Church and manuals.” Progressive historians understand that to change the Restoration, or to change the Church, one must change its foundation—its origins.
Those who accepted the Josiah Stowell Letter as genuine history while at the same time seeking to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, faced the challenge of melding two contending worlds: Christianity and magic. Reflecting that concern, The Washington Post published an official statement justifying dowsing and magic treasure digging as “common practices of the times,” and that Joseph Smith’s practice “does not appear unusual in the context of the times”:
A statement from the church’s First Presidency in Salt Lake City appeared to play down the significance of the Smith letter — for which church officials reportedly paid $25,000 — by characterizing it as an interesting historical document reflecting common practices of the times.
“The letter speaks of a procedure that we in our time would refer to as similar to the use of a dowsing rod,” said the statement. “This does not appear unusual in the context of the times.”
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: See Blog on Bushman Here
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.
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 were published 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.” By James and Hannah Stoddard, Seer Stone V. Urim and Thummim: Book of Mormon Translation on Trial!
Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person, it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult—often impossible—to verify. The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins preached from the housetops. The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect Elder Boyd K. Packer
