Not sure what the accusation is here. Please be more specific.
Let me draw it in the form of two narratives. The first narrative is that Smith used fake seer stones in a fraudulent manner throughout his youth, and continued this practice when he used seer stones to translate the BoM. The second narrative is that Smith used fake seer stones in his past, but the method god wanted him to use was also, by coincidence, the exact same methodology as his previous scams. Im sure you can see where one might get suspicious.
Libel is a crime; Joseph was in a position to uphold the law. Conflicted interpretation of that law and his power to enforce it led to his charges. Note that MANY jurists shared his interpretation of the law, including President John Adams (see the Alien and Sedition Act).
Ive never met that interpretation before, so thanks for the information. I do, however, maintain that seeking to destroy material critical to oneself is a narcissistic tendency. Also, I would not consider the contents to be libellous the only real accusation made in it is that Smith was practicing polygamy on a wide scale, which is widely accepted now, though the full extent is a matter of debate, leading us neatly to
Please be more specific as to how this contradicted the "code of conduct." Contradictions would be important. His actions seem perfectly in line with the Book of Mormon doctrines on polygamy, so I'd really like to hear about any contradictions with the D&C.
I dont know how much you have read concerning Smiths polygamy, but to briefly spell out the code of conduct for anyone unfamiliar, it essentially boils down to the fact that everything must be done with the approval of the primary wife (Emma Smith) and subsequent wives must be virgins and not be vowed to another man. There are instances where Smith took on wives who were already married, and there is also evidence that Emma did not know the full extent of Smiths polygamy. I recommend
No Man Knows My History and
In Sacred Lonliness on these counts.
There's actually considerable archaeological evidence FOR the Book of Mormon. The inclusion of a few anachronisms (anageolisms?) can easily be explained by one or more translation issues. Do you think the writings of Christopher Columbus would be declared fraud because they speak of lions in America? Or, for that matter...Indians?
As for archaeological evidence, Id like you to present anything from a non-LDS scholar that supports the BoM narrative.
As for translation issues, Im not sure why they would be present in a Book allegedly communicated word for word via an infallible deity, but I can accept some things might go slightly awry if thats what you want to claim. But what of steel technology? One would imagine with all the wars and battles, involving great multitudes of people, we might have stumbled upon at least a handful of examples of the swords and chariots and armour.
The church has clarified a position that had been frequently misinterpreted. Plenty of scholars and church leaders had said that the Lamanites were not the only ancestors of the Native Americans. Most mainstream members missed that memo, though, so the leaders made it clearer.
The genetic evidence is no threat to what the BoM actually says, only to the lazy-brained popular interpretations. Hugh Nibley was predicting Asiatic DNA for the modern Native Americans in 1952, and he was exactly right. How do you explain the fact that the DNA evidence supports his hypothesis?
True, it was never claimed that they were the only contributors I think the wording (which I would like to reiterate was in the introductory pages of the BoM, not some obscure footnote) referred to them as the principal ones. Good for Hugh Nibley Im pretty sure most sensible people presumed a migration via Asia. Without knowing his exact words, I would presume he didnt go so far as to say the origins would be entirely from Asia. And the fact is, the BoM describes a number of migration events from Israel, and as of yet, the genetic evidence in support of that narrative is exactly zero. Thats not lazy-brained popular interpretation thats the entire absence of positive genetic evidence for the narrative of the BoM
The direct translation of typos is meaningless; IF the document was fabricated using large amounts of plagiarism, then it would contain some typos. IF the document was translated using word choices of someone who had large passages of the Bible memorized, it would contain some typos.
I'd like to hear your answer on how Joseph Smith managed to CORRECT several typos, even as a let a few others slip by. After all, the fact that he corrected ANY is far more important than the fact that he missed a few. If I gave you a page of very complex calculus problems, the fact that you got some wrong is weak evidence of a claim that "you don't know calculus," while getting ANY of them right is strong evidence against that claim.
Again, we are talking about a book supposedly translated from an ancient record via divine intervention. These passages should contain no trace of the typos and interpretation issues that stemmed from the translation into English.
As to corrections, I dont know of any examples so I cant respond to them. Also, the most fitting analogy would be thus:
You get an essay from a student. You notice some strange grammatical/interpretation errors. You look at one of the course textbooks, and find the same errors. Not all of them are there, and the student seems to have corrected some on the material. All the same, it is clear that the textbook was the source material for the students essay. By all means, take the claim that Smith was plugging in gaps with his interpretation of the KJV of the Bible, but that is inconsistent with his alleged word for word translation process and exactly what we would expect to see if Smith was constructing a narrative from a mixture of imagination and source material.
Run along now.
