I have already ordered my copy of the first volume. I can't wait to start studying it. Those who distort and lie about Joseph Smith and his life are going to have a more difficult time getting away with it now.

Thanks to all the Church, the scholars and Larry Miller for what they're doing. Does anyone know if the TV documentary series about this is going to be available on DVD? I hope so.

P.S. I wish Larry all the best and hope he gets well soon.

I think at this point, it begs to ask, what is not going to published? Will it be boring statistics, or are there some things that must always be hidden?
If it's all out in the open then fine, but if not then expect the skeptics and critics to continue to question the validity of the author of the BOM. Looking forward to the first volumn.

I agree, but only if ALL the documents are released. Including letters written to the women he married, who were already married, for instance. I mean really, no one is making up alot of the stuff you don't like. It does exist, the letters, diaries, etc. The things you (and I) don't like to see are there, the events did take place. Now maybe the can be "spun" a different way, but we (I) are not making stuff up. JS is like any other historical figure. He has some good things he did and said and there are some things that really don't look so good that he said and did. We have really only, until recently, been exposed to the good. Seeing the "whole" picture will allow everyone to make an informed choice about what they want to do.

Joseph Smith was NOT the author of the Book of Mormon. a statistical word print study has proved multiple authorship of the Book of Mormon. The study was so striking in its findings that it was published in the American professional statistical journal. The Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be.

I just thought I would contribute that piece of information for those who weren't aware of it.

With all the past church mis-information and cover ups how can any inelligent person have confidence or trust in what church related projects make public. There needs to be a third unbiased party over sight and review.

I agree that a lot of the things he did may not look good to a critic of the 21st century, but at the time many things he did were seen as normal.

For example, critics always bring up "money digging" as a way to discredit Joseph, but in the early 1800s it was no less crazy as gambling is today.

When Joseph was 16, the "Palmyra Herald" published this:

"digging for money hid in the earth is a very common thing and in this state it is even considered as honorable and profitable employment".

Also, it has been an unsettled argument that Joseph married underage women. In those days, it was very common for very young marriages.

Joseph has been accused of having a "magic rock" and being superstitious. The fact is that the world Joseph lived in was superstitious. Here's an example:

Willard Chase, a Methodist leader, heard about Joseph's Golden Plates and "sent sixty or seventy miles for a certain conjurer to come and divine the place where the plates were secreted".

When viewed through the lense of 19th century ideology, many "bad" things today are not considered bad at all.

I wish the treasure seeking for the extent of it. Really. But it is not. Very few people in the 1820s were convicted of "glass looking". The court transcript exists and can be viewed on line. I think it was 1827 or thereabouts. He was convicted of using a stone to locate buried treasure. This was something that bothered his father in law (Isaac Hale?) enough that he did not think Joseph was fit to marry his daughter. Joseph promised not to do it anymore. Anyway, that is just a little tidbit, certainly not the worst there is. Yes, looking at things from our perspective presents problems, but some types of behaviour are timeless in their inappropriatness.

Those are good points, but they are not the issue. The issue is authenticity of the results and not necassarily the method. If the BOM is not authentic then it is mythology, if God didn't command polygmy then it is man's politics of lust, if there was not a general apostasy then there is no resoration and again it is man's doings and not of God.

You refer to the 1826 Looking Glass "Trial" of Joseph Smith?

First of all it is debated whether this trial even took place because of the lunacy in the charge. Secondly, you have the facts wrong about the charges. Several have claimed to know the "charges" brought on Smith, as noted below:

Benton (1831): a disorderly person
Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
Judge Neely: a misdemeanor

You say he was "convicted of 'glass looking'". What kind of real court would convict you on carrying around a magic stone?

People say it is essential to judge historical figures by the standards of their day, but one question that has always troubled me is "When, in the entire history of America, has it ever been considered normal and okay for a religious leader to marry the wives and daughters of his followers?"

I don't think it is right for Warren Jeffs now, and I don't think it was right for Joseph Smith in the past. Please someone help me understand. Thank you.

I can't think of another American example, but polygamy and under-age marriage was not illegal during Joseph Smith's time.

Therefore there was nothing "civically" wrong with it at the time.

I can think of many examples of Prophets having plural marriages from the Bible. If prophets from the Bible practiced it, I can only assume that God did not object to it.

Therefore there is nothing "morally" wrong with it.

Can men have evil motives with plural marriages? Of course, but that's not to say it is inherently wrong when God has commanded it.

To reject polygamy as "ungodly" is to reject many parts of the Bible. The LDS church, however, does obey the law of the land. When polygamy became illegal, the church stopped the practice.

I eagerly await volume one. It's funny how people are already on here "interpreting" history before the books are even out.

I hope I'll live long enough to see them all published. I'm younger than Esplin, but you never know, do you.

Actually, Re, the Church didn't obey the law when polygamy became illegal. That's why so many Church leaders spent time in prison. The Church also didn't stop practicing polygamy or performing new plural marriages in 1890 when the Manifesto was issued. The plural marriages stopped when Joseph F. Smith made them an offense for which a person could be excommunicated.

And as for the JS Papers including everything, well, I'll believe that when the minutes of the Council of Fifty meetings are published. I'm not holding my breath.