More and more evidence is accumulating that shows Joseph Smith’s translations are actually a cobbling together of contemporary sources.
Faithful LDS scholars try to account for this by bending the word “translation” into a thousand fantastic shapes.
This is their story.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
This is why “pious fraud” does not fit for JS. When you backdate anything much less change actual doctrine that was supposed to be originally from God, you are a fraud.
My favorite doctrine to pick on is Jesus being the Firstborn to a heavenly Mother and Father and that same father “sires” his earthly body with Mary. (Those mormon men get it coming and going while women give birth here, there and everywhere.) Theologically immature and not thought through. It cracks me up when I hear anyone talk about the “depth” and ” richness” of mormon doctrine. Rich and deep is what Smith really was about: he wanted to be rich and you can choose which definition suits you on the meaning of deep.
Mormon words are slowly be re-defined. “Prophet” “Seer” “Revelator” “Revelation” “Translating gold plates” all being redefined.
What Joseph Smith thought was of God in his mind, including Poligamy, right?
You see, that’s the secret. Let everyone believe one way, when you think in a totally different way.
It does set you above the rest of your followers. Sort of like treasure digging. The treasure is getting swallowed up by the earth when all the time you never really thought it was there only that it was possible that it might have been.
Well, it makes sense, to iron out the past, make revisions to earlier revelations and let the whole story to look as it had always been straight forward from the beginning.
Try imagining Christianity or even Mormonism without the benefit of modern day technology and communication. In a couple of centuries Joseph Smith would have reached the status of sainthood just as our Catholic counterparts. Whether it was Christ hand or of Joseph as one of his servants it is the same thing before the eyes of the Lord.
Bravo! This podcast should be shouted from the mountain tops over Salt Lake City.
I really enjoyed this particular podcast discussing bricolage and rfm giving the more blatant explanation but it’s the same thing.
Something that is not mentioned in a podcast that I can add to the bricolage so to speak is the scripture, scriptures I guess as in 2, One thatRFM didn’t mention that comes to mind no matter the scripture that says my thoughts are not your thoughts… well apparently that is not exactly correct can be contradictory by with the scripture which says whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same.
What do you think rfm? Goodness you giving me some subversive ideas. And does this add to your bricolage enough for you to comment on this idea? Because in my book what this really means is significant.
See, the Mormon scriptures really do give leadership in the church, including originally and especially Smith himself, excuse to say that what he thinks and believes really is the word of God. While at the same time being able to say for non-members or critics their thoughts aren’t. In a phrase, they can have their cake and eat it too.
Where does it indicate that what Moroni was recorded as saying was revised? The “for good and for evil” part?
I understand that the record that includes that phrase is in Joseph Smith—History 1:33. What record does not have it included?