Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 25

    ^^If you can read what Jesus had to say about the rebellious and the afterlife and come away with the notion that they will be cool, without the assistance of serious drugs, I will concede your point in this instance.

Obviously I've been very tied up.  Can't respond to everything.  But instead of just giving Tobar links, I will try to take the time to give good answers here for him and all to read that would clarify a commonly misportrayed aspect of the Book of Mormon.  Just in the short term, you'd be amazed at how often the Lamanites are portrayed as the better of the two major peoples, how often Lamanites are promised great blessings, how the book says it specifically is addressed to them, how frequently the book asserts that all are alike unto God regardless of race.  I will give citations when I can.

thejediknighthusezni said:

    ^^If you can read what Jesus had to say about the rebellious and the afterlife and come away with the notion that they will be cool, without the assistance of serious drugs, I will concede your point in this instance.

Others already have -- a number of whom almost certainly have better theological training than you -- so why in Heaven or Hell should I accept your interpretation as right and theirs as wrong, especially when 99+% of everything you say is heavily biased, agenda-driven, conspiracy theorist BS?

Never mind....

Perhaps, but not at all news, and in fact recently brought up in this discussion (not in relation to that article, however).

Tobar said:

You know what I find hurtful. That once my ancestors were millions strong across the land. That children are taught they were a primitive people when in fact they were an advanced culture with large cities. That tamed the land and created corn. That over 90% were wiped out by european diseases. That they were slowly subjugated and segregated to reservations. That whenever the question of who discovered America is brought up, the answer is either a sadistic psychopath or a viking and never the people WHO WERE ALREADY HERE.

That your prophet wrote that to have white skin was a blessing and that those with dark skin were cursed. That your church didn't bother to renounce this until last December! That's what I find hurtful.

My avatar was my attempt to try and humor myself when contemplating on these things.

 I appreciate you changing your avatar, as the attempt at humor appeared to be more of an attempt to paint me a racist.  My part Peruvian (and thus part Native American) wife would be very hurt if she found out.

Since I never seem to have time to really sit down and type all references or find all the citations I'd always hope to use, I can refer you to this article.  It is far easier to read than what I had linked to before, and it offers plenty of citation.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-the-charge-of-racism-in-the-book-of-mormon

Just bear in mind that The Book of Mormon speaks very highly of the Lamanites throughout its pages, and you cannot judge the attitudes of its authors (or its author, since almost everyone who reads this thread assumes only one) to be racist in nature based on a few passages.  When read in broader context, it's clearly quite favorable towards the Lamanites.

This is evidenced especially by the fact that the fastest growing racial/ethnic demographic group within my church is among the Latin American crowd, the majority of whom have Native American blood, and those who accept the Book of Mormon see themselves as descendants of the Lamanites.  Hope this helps and offers a better view of my Church, of Joseph Smith, and of me.

timdiggerm said:

I should be better at reading this thread. Sorry guys.

 What Ric said.  But no problem.  I certainly don't expect everyone to read every page of my thread.

thejediknighthusezni said:

    ^^If you can read what Jesus had to say about the rebellious and the afterlife and come away with the notion that they will be cool, without the assistance of serious drugs, I will concede your point in this instance.

 I'm already taking too much time on this site today, as I have a lot to do this morning (slept for 14 hours straight after sleeping only one hour in 48 or so).  Not everyone who doesn't fully accept Christ's gospel is rebellious.  Is the Chinese pauper who has never heard of Jesus Christ, yet lived a noble life deserving of heaven?  Is the Protestant who simply did not let LDS missionaries through his door rebellious(remember, this is assuming my church is true)?  If I know God, I know he loves his children and wants to give as many an opportunity as possible.

Or did Christ simply preach to those in prison as an opportunity to brag?

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-19.htm

Mrebo said:

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

Ultimately, one does just gotta have faith when it comes to religion. The outstanding question for me is always: okay, well why should I have faith in this or that particular set of beliefs?

When it comes to something like the Garden of Eden being in America, such assertions will not make sense to the many of us who are not Mormons. But it is useful to recognize that every religion has such faith-bound elements that are not supported (and sometimes even contradicted by) known facts. I suspect such a critique of Mormonism might be more pronounced because it is a newer religion with an unusually America-centric slant that many construe as a corruption of Christianity, or as you say "weird."

My question is why have you chosen to put your faith into Mormonism?

 I was indeed born into this Church.  On my mission, however, I had a great challenge and had to decide if I was willing to believe what I'd been taught or if I was wasting my time.  This was in large part where I gained much of my interest in Church history, the critiques of my church which were quite popular in Atlanta, GA, and the faith supporting research that was taking place.  As you've said, all religions take a certain amount of faith in spite of what may not seem logical.  As mortals, we often forget that our understanding is limited, and we are often surprised when what was once thought impossible is in fact inevitable.  Sometimes you have to suspend what you don't understand at the present till an answer comes along later.

It often feels like there is a Catch-22 when it comes to discussing religion. When a person goes scratching below the surface from a logical but non-believing viewpoint, he may find all kinds of apparent problems. It's not that the religion can't offer an answer, but the answer is unsatisfying in the absence of faith. Or the non-believer can say, "but what about secular facts A, B, C, and D?" Maybe those facts aren't all relevant or maybe the religious person believes that they're not all facts. And then there is only argument (much of it stupid, tbh).

Alternatively, one might express an honest interest from a more or less academic viewpoint, wishing to understand another's beliefs and weigh them silently. If he ends up being persuaded, fine, but he isn't really engaging or trying to believe, as he may not be dissuaded accepting at least the possibility of certain secular facts. And then, is that person merely humoring the believer?

 Humor me all you like.  Most posters here probably do that a bit.  But I wanted this to be a pretty candid thread, and I only ask for respect.  I'm pretty keen when posters here are actually trying to be clever and underhanded, but I don't worry about those who might clumsily step on toes.  I want honest inquiry, and those who offer it don't have to worry about offending me.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Yes, it does, though it is definitely different in nature.

And I figured out why I thought you were Catholic: because you'd followed the voting for the new Pope so closely and listed the names (now canonized and beatified where appropriate!) that I must have made the assumption and tucked it in the back of my brain.

 Although I am not Catholic, the Catholic church does interest me.   It has a long history and legacy and was and still is influential over much of Europe and the world.  Not to the meant it's list of Popes goes all the way back to Peter the disciple.  Also remember that the Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church, so our histories are linked.

I also did a list of the Kings and Queens of England/UK.   But that doesn't make me a citizen of the UK.

 A bit snarky reply, don't you think?  It just led me to assume.  I didn't say it should have made you one.  Forgive a man for having a mortal memory.

darth_ender said:

RicOlie_2 said:

darth_ender said:

RicOlie_2 said:

AntcuFaalb said:

What's your opinion on this, d_e? http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

I came across it on Reddit recently.

 Ender, could you elaborate on your thoughts about the following specific points outlined in the letter (or whatever it is) that AntcuFaalb linked to?:

• Why were there multiple, contradictory accounts of Joseph's first vision? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing one would forget enough to contradict oneself on (p. 23 in the PDF);

Have you read the accounts?

No, I have not read the accounts themselves. Certain details seemed to be mutually exclusive when I read the letter's summary of them (I don't feel like opening up the PDF again just to check for sure), but I can easily believe that critics exaggerate the differences (and they tend to exaggerate similarities when it suits their purpose).

• There is, of course, the issue of Joseph translating Egyptian artifacts which were later translated yielding a completely different result. I believe you've explained this before in this thread, but if I recall correctly, you simply (I don't mean to imply that you're a simpleton here, just that you don't have complicated beliefs on the subject :)) believe that the Egyptian texts have a dual meaning, and I'm curious why you believe that (pp. 25-30);

It's one of several possibilities posed by apologists.  What I believe the texts to be are ancient Egyptian texts, exactly as most interpret[...].

I think that makes sense and that's the first time I've heard a reasonable rationalization of those data.

• Joseph Smith was shown to be unreliable with his denial of his polygamy, so it seems quite possible, if not likely, that he was unreliable in general. If he got thirty-one witnesses to sign in testimony against Joseph's polygamical practices, should one consider the testimony of the witnesses to the golden plates any more reliable? If Joseph Smith was known to lie, and used his leadership to pressure numerous women and girls to marry him, while forbidding polygamy to all other Mormons, how can anything else he said and claimed be trusted ? (p. 34);

While being unreliable does cast a person's character in doubt, it does not invalidate all that a person says[...]

As for his witnesses, different events, the extent of their witness, who the witnesses are (i.e. one being a poor witness for something does not invalidate another's witness for something else), once again the social conventions and circumstnces, etc.  It would be a fallacy to discredit Book of Mormon witnesses because of the affidavit of the witnesses of Joseph's marriages.

I agree with that. My point was just that if he could find such a large number of people to testify to his monogamy when he was practicing polygamy, it seems he could have had people testify to the truth of the golden plates without them being true. My focus on the witnesses is in part due to a vague recollection from reading through this thread that the witnesses to the plates was a significant factor in your acceptance of Mormonism as the truth.

Those who testified of his monogamy probably knew not of his polygamy and were not lying.  The witnesses of the plates actually claimed to have seen and handled them.  Quite different testimonies, don't you think, and not at all useful in a comparison?

[...]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Template:PolygamyPortal

Fair enough, though I don't find all fairmormon.org's arguments more convincing than the author of the PDF's. I can put that down to lack of in-depth reading from the Mormon side of things.

Probably.  What issues are you getting hung up on again?

• Some of the witnesses were apparently unreliable (I forget what you wrote previously about the witnesses, so perhaps the others make up for the following): 

 

Martin Harris had mortgaged his farm to finance the Book of Mormon, and thus would not be an unbiased witness (and not to the golden plates themselves, but a cloth-covered object supposed to be the plates), not to mention that he had belonged to five other denominations previously, testifying to the truth of all of them at various times, and Mormonism wasn't the last (pp. 52-53);

There is no such thing as an unbiased witness.  However, if he did not see what he says he saw, don't you think he'd be more likely to actually take a stand against it?  "You mean I wasted my money on this phony book?!"  And most of his faith was indeed devoted to schisms of Mormonism.  Only his interest in the Shakers followed.

Note that this is incomplete but i won't be able to post till tomorrow probably. 

 Indeed, there is no such thing as an unbiased witness, but a person can be an unbiased (or almost so) witness for a certain thing. I don't agree he'd be more likely to take a stance against it, but I won't argue my thoughts on it, since that isn't the purpose of the thread. The letter/PDF states that Martin Harris was a member of five previous religious organizations, some of which he testified for. Is that inaccurate? Even so, if he testified for one, that seems to effectively nullify the validity of his later testimony. Again, as you say, the unreliability of one witness doesn't mean they were all unreliable, but I think it's safe to say that this one wasn't.

A person can only be unbiased on something on which he has no information (in which case he is a pretty useless witness).  David Whitmer became hostile towards Joseph Smith, yet remained firm in his witness till the end.  Oliver Cowdery too became hostile and was estranged from the Church, but more because of his accusations of polygamy and other reasons believe Joseph was a fallen prophet.  He was not so financially invested in the Church or the Book of Mormon, but as the primary scribe and man of second highest authority for most of his early membership, you'd think he had an ax to grind once removed from authority.  Indeed, he continued to criticize Joseph Smith after his fall from grace, but he never, ever denied his testimony.

Maybe I used this link before, but here are Martin Harris's five churches following his departure from the Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Harris_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Strangite.2C_Whitmerite.2C_Gladdenite.2C_Williamite.2C_Shaker

Note that four of the five are Mormon split offs; only the Shakers were not.  That intrigues me, as the Doctrine and Covenants specifically addresses Shaker doctrine as false.

But the instability of Martin Harris himself makes his stable testimony of one particular thing especially interesting.  Not that I believe he was truly unstable if faith, but sought for the supernatural and was ready to accept many things.

But you must bear several things in mind: the author of that pdf believes my church is wrong and is anxious to prove so.  When a person believes something, he/she is determined to maintain that belief.  If that belief is forcibly changed by seemingly overwhelming evidence (and it takes more than is ever requisite to truly change a mind, simply because of that tendency), the new worldview the person accepts makes it even more difficult to accept that the former view may have actually been right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

In other words, you are more likely to accept evidence that sustain Catholicism as true, while dismissing evidence that it is not.  Same for me and Mormonism, same for Puggo and atheism.  Some, like Jaitea and CP3S, have actually had their opinions more forcibly changed, so their acceptance of their current view is even stronger now.

That said, when you read through the pdf, you must bear the author's POV in mind.  He's not just some ex-Mormon.  He's obviously a bit hostile and hurt.  "The church I clung to as a child was all al lie!  I must expose it for what it is."  But have you read the citations of his pdf?  Now I'm just guessing because you've read that pdf more thoroughly than I (though I've read plenty of anti-Mormon literature in my time, covering more topics than he has included I'm sure) that the evidence he is using is not all friendly.  For instance, those stories about Martin Harris's strange behavior...were they from all friendly sources, hostile sources, or neutral sources?  Just as a Mormon might be more willing to tell a fib in order to strengthen others' faith, a hostile non-Mormon, or an ex-Mormon perhaps, would actually be likely to tell a little white lie in order to keep others away from those Mormon devils.  Think of how often this happens today, and consider that in the 1800s when absolute historical accuracy wasn't as important as the core message how much more prevalent such practice was.

Let me give an example within the pdf.  Martin Harris served as scribe for some time with Joseph Smith.  Joseph's wife Emma also served as scribe briefly, but Oliver Cowdery served for the majority of the translation.  Not one of them describes the "looking at the stone in the hat" scenario.  But David Whitmer did, though no other source corroborates his having been present during the translation.  So we actually have various methods of translation described, including the possibility of one that looks a little weird.

http://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation

But the one that looks weirdest is the one that the pdf author latches onto, whether true or not (and it may be) as the genuine and only method of translation, while all others are disregarded.  The author's confirmation bias leads him to accept evidence against the church he once loved rather than accept all evidence with equal validity.  The fact that he is promoting his opposition means that even if does accept the other methods as possibly true, he will promote the one that he feels will cause the most damage, just like he accuses my church of promoting the more publicly acceptable methods.  Note that the above link is actually a link to my church's website because, though my church does promote the untarnished image as much as possible, we do not avoid the less glamorous aspects.

Back to Martin Harris and his reliability.  Opponents have attacked him most because they claim some of his comments were less authentic sounding, as he used phrases like having seen the plates with a "spiritual eye."  I invite you to read here.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/%22Eye_of_Faith%22_and_%22Spiritual_Eye%22_statements_by_Martin_Harris

RicOlie_2 said:

David Whitmer later testified that he had been instructed by God to split off from the main LDS Church, so one must either pick and choose among his testimonies or join his sect (p. 54);

You have done this elsewhere, but here I will point out that you are succumbing to the either/or fallacy: either I must accept everything David Whitmer said was true, or I must accept none of it.  Have you ever told a falsehood?  So should I doubt everything you've ever said?  David Whitmer was a man known to be of extremely good character, and when a periodical published late in his life that he had denied the Book of Mormon, he went to great lengths to rebut that claim and maintain his testimony, having numerous locals affirm his honesty.  He continued, long after his membership in the main branch of the church had ended and until his dying day, that the Book of Mormon was true and that the plates from which they were translated were real.  All his sense experienced the Book of Mormon.  His split from the Church was likely based on a feeling he felt was from God rather than any kind of angelic witness, which is what his testimony of the plates included.  He too felt Joseph was a fallen prophet for various reasons, I believe including polygamy as well as a failed financial institution called the Kirtland Safety Society.

Oliver Cowdery has a stronger case, but he was still a scribe and co-founder of Mormonism, so he could have easily been in cahoots with Joseph Smith in fabricating the Book of Mormon (p. 55);

In cahoots, even long after he had been excommunicated and bitter with Joseph?  Not likely.  Don't you think all these folks would have told somebody that they were lying?

Bear in mind, a further eight witnesses, most of whom left the Church, saw the plates, and not even with an "eye of faith," but rather simply, handling the plates physically.

Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, saw them wrapped in cloth, but never opened it, as she knew she wasn't supposed to.  There was something wrapped there.

And David Whitmer's mother also claimed to have seen the plates by the hand of an angel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses#Another_witness

• James Strang split from the LDS Church, and though I don't know much about the history of that, it seems that most of the witnesses followed him. If they were duped by James, why not by Joseph (pp. 57-60)?;

James Strang's movement is surprisingly unknown among most members of my church.  Sad because I find his movement very fascinating, more than any other splinter group.  I have a few books on his church, including all scripture he ever published.  

The witnesses left Joseph largely for his involvement in polygamy.  The witnesses and others knew that Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles, who succeeded Joseph immediately as a whole quorum, also practiced polygamy, and this was known among those who vocally opposed it.  James Strang in his revelations denounced polygamy, and his prophethood was similar to Joseph's including translating plates and such.  James later engaged in the practice himself, and had revelations and commentary that justified it, while removing that which denounced it.

• There exists no extant copy of the testimony of witnesses of the golden plates (in the oldest copy of it, the "signatures" are all written by the same hand), so there seems to be no conclusive evidence that the testimony was actually signed and agreed upon (p. 60);

Would they not have pointed that out themselves at some point if they felt the testimonies were not valid?

• The Testimony of Three Witnesses, which included Martin Harris, stated that they had beheld the plates and the engravings thereon, yet Martin Harris stated multiple other times that he had only seen them when covered with a cloth, and also that he had seen them with a spiritual eye. All three of those are very different things, and he seems not to have remembered what he saw. It appears he was making things up, and though he never retracted his statements, as far as I am aware (and from what I understand, left Joseph's church for James'), so it seems quite plausible that all the eyewitnesses were making it up (pp. 60-61);

Read Martin's own words rather than the pdf's author's and you'll see the great consistency, and not get hung up on phrases like "eye of faith," which match numerous other statements I've read in our scripture.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.11?lang=eng

James was literally very low on the totem pole until Joseph died, at which point he made his claims.  Martin didn't feel he was leaving Joseph's church for James'; he felt he had already been kicked out of Joseph's church, and was rejoining under Joseph's valid successor.  We believe Brigham Young was the true successor, and ultimately, so did Martin Harris.  The succession question caused great difficulty for some time after the martyrof Joseph, and many did not know who the true successor would be for some time.  Most ultimately did decide on Brigham.

• On the witnesses never retracting their eyewitness statements, see page 60 (although I take issue with the fact that he says none of the Marian apparitions were true ;));

Marian apparitions???

Read the link I provided earlier with Martin's words and you will see the consistency I am describing.  Instead of reading those words with anti-Mormon's providing context for our behalf (how nice of them), reading them on one's own actually paints a pretty clear picture.

And pg. 60 includes one second hand account, which already calls it into question, and one a supposed direct quote from an anti-Mormon of the period, stating it was under a cloth.  How does one know these men are the truthful ones, while the words of the leaders of my church are always brought into question by the author of that pdf?  He seems to take all opponents at face value, and all Mormon quotes as automatically suspicious.  Do you see the poor methodology?

• The summary in the conclusion about the eyewitnesses is also something I'd like you to address, if you don't cover it in your answer to the above.

 Oh, is that all you hope for :P

Jeremy T Runnells (I finally looked up his name again) said:

Conclusion:

1. “The Witnesses never recanted or denied their testimonies”:

? Neither did James Strang’s witnesses; even after they were excommunicated 

from the church and estranged from Strang.

Untrue.  One of Strang's witnesses did deny his testimony, and I believe admitted to helping fabricate James' plates.

Neither did dozens of Joseph 

Smith’s neighbors and peers who swore and signed affidavits on Joseph and 

his family’s characters.

Not sure what character attributes Runnells is bringing into question, but they were known to be good people.

Neither did many of the Shaker witnesses who signed 

affidavits that they saw an angel on the roof top holding the “Sacred Roll and 

Book” written by founder Ann Lee.

Does this make the witnesses to the Book of Mormon untrue?  No.  Is it possible one group is telling the truth and another not?  Is it possible both have true messages, had true visitations, even if not all their belief systems are compatible?  At this point I'm not well informed on this book or those testimonies, but I'm curious what those witnesses said and if it is as impressive.

Same goes with the thousands of people 

over the centuries who claimed their entire lives to have seen the Virgin Mary 

and pointing to their experience as evidence that Catholicism is true.

So is he saying they're lying as well?  Do you believe those people are lying?  Does seeing spiritual things make other spiritual things untrue?

There are also thousands of witnesses who never recanted their testimonies of 

seeing UFO’s, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Abominable Snowman, 

Aliens, and so on.

These are not spiritual in nature and not good comparisons.

It doesn’t mean anything. People can believe in false things their entire lives 

and never recant. Just because they never denied or recanted does not follow 

that their experience and claims are true or that reality matches to what their 

perceived experience was.

This statement is true.  However, if they saw the same thing at the same time, it makes it a lot harder to refute.

2. Problems:

? In discussing the witnesses, we should not overlook the primary accounts of 

the events they testified to. The official statements published in the Book of 

Mormon are not dated, signed (we have no record with their signatures

except for Oliver’s), nor is a specific location given for where the events 

occurred. These are not eleven legally sworn affidavits but rather simple 

statements pre-written by Joseph Smith with claims of having been signed by 

three men and another by eight. 

No one said it had to be a legal document.  Clearly the witnesses accepted it as their valid testimonies.  "Pre-written"?  This is not known at all, but merely an assumption.  And if we don't have the original testimonies, how do we know that they were not signed by the original witnesses?  The earliest copy is the printer's manuscript, the first copy of the original manuscript, written by Oliver Cowdery to be given to the printer for publishing.  He signed it as he signed for the other witnesses.  At least his testimony has the original signature, as if this somehow makes a spiritual thing binding on the US government or something.

? All of the Book of Mormon witnesses, excepting Martin Harris, were related 

by blood or marriage either with the Smiths or Whitmers.

Oliver Cowdery

(married to Elizabeth Ann Whitmer and cousin to Joseph Smith), Hiram Page

(married to Catherine Whitmer), and the five Whitmers were related by 

marriage. Of course, Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, and Joseph Smith Sr. were 

Joseph’s brothers and father.

Mark Twain made light of this obvious problem:

“…I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had 

testified.” – Roughing It, p.107-115

And?  The Whitmers weren't related to Joseph, so what does a relation to David Whitmer matter?  Others who were not related also witnessed and related other miracles.  This does not prove anything, although if one casts enough reason to doubt (i.e. implying there must be some bias), eventually it will stick.

? Within eight years, all of the Three Witnesses were excommunicated from the 

Church. This is what Joseph Smith said about them in 1838:

“Such characters as…John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, 

and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to 

have forgotten them.” – History of the Church Vol. 3, Ch. 15, p. 232

This is what First Counselor of the First Presidency and once close associate 

Sidney Rigdon had to say about Oliver Cowdery:

“…a lying, thieving, counterfeiting man who was ‘united with a 

gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest 

dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property, 

by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent…” 

– February 15, 1841 Letter and Testimony, p.6-963

What does it say about the witnesses and their characters if even the Prophet

and his counselor in the First Presidency thought they were questionable?

Gosh, I don't think I have time to address everything, especially since I don't know everything, but clearly there were hurt feelings.  Yet neither side denounced the honesty of the other in the matter of the Book of Mormon.

? As mentioned in the above “Polygamy/Polyandry” section, Joseph was able 

to influence and convince many of the 31 witnesses to lie and perjure in a 

sworn affidavit that Joseph was not a polygamist. Is it outside the realm of 

possibility that Joseph was also able to influence or manipulate the 

experiences of his own magical thinking treasure digging family and friends 

as witnesses? Mormon men who already believed in second sight and who

already believed that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?

Poor comparisons, as I pointed out earlier to you.  If I were having an affair but appeared honest, I could easily convince my friends to sign an affidavit for me.  But the witnesses to the plates actually claim to be witnesses, not just merely testaments of character.

? If the Prophet Joseph Smith could get duped with the Kinderhook Plates 

thinking that the 19th century fake plates were a legitimate record of a 

“descendent of Ham,” how is having gullible guys like Martin Harris handling

the covered gold plates going to prove anything?

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith actually thought anything of those plates.  William Clayton, who was Joseph Smith's secretary, recorded that Joseph had in the first person, but Joseph never made any claim or publication himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates#Smith.27s_response

Is it possible that he was recording what Joseph actually said?  Possibly.  However, I refer you to the following:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates

? James Strang’s claims and Voree Plates Witnesses are distinctive and more 

impressive compared to the Book of Mormon Witnesses: 

? All of Strang’s witnesses were not related to one another through blood 

or marriage like the Book of Mormon Witnesses were.

? Some of the witnesses were not members of Strang’s church.

? The Voree Plates were displayed in a museum for both members and 

non-members to view and examine.

? Strang provided 4 witnesses who testified that on his instructions, they 

actually dug the plates up for Strang while he waited for them to do 

so. They confirmed that the ground looked previously undisturbed.

? The Shakers and Ann Lee:

The Shakers felt that "Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a 

chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as 64

our Blessed Mother in the work of redemption" (Sacred Roll and Book, p.358). The 

Shakers, of course, did not believe in the Book of Mormon, but they had a 

book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of 

Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth. 

More than 60 individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which 

was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, 

some of them tell of many angels visiting them. One woman told of eight 

different visions.

Here is the testimony statement:

We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing 

upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the 

Roll and Book.

Betsey Boothe.

Louisa Chamberlain.

Caty De Witt.

Laura Ann Jacobs.

Sarah Maria Lewis.

Sarah Ann Spencer.

Lucinda McDoniels.

Maria Hedrick.

Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The 

Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw 

angels and the Sacred Roll and Book. There are over a hundred pages of 

testimony from "Living Witnesses." The evidence seems to show that Martin 

Harris accepted the Sacred Roll and Book as a divine revelation. Clark 

Braden stated: "Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for 

a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon" (The Braden and Kelly Debate, 

p.173).

Why should we believe the Book of Mormon witnesses but not the Shakers 

witnesses? What are we to make of the reported Martin Harris comment that 

he had as much evidence for the Shaker book he had as for the Book of 

Mormon?

In light of the James Strang/Voree Plates witnesses, the fact that all of the Book of Mormon 

Witnesses – except Martin Harris – were related to either Joseph Smith or David Whitmer,

along with the fact that all of the witnesses were treasure hunters who believed in second sight,

and in light of their superstitions and reputations…why would anyone gamble with their lives in 

believing in a book based on anything these men said or claimed or what’s written on the 

testimonies of the Witnesses page in the Book of Mormon? 65

The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon 

Witnesses as empirical, rational, nineteenth-century men instead of the nineteenth-century 

magical thinking, superstitious, and treasure digging men they were. They have ignored the 

peculiarities of their worldview, and by so doing, they misunderstand their experiences as 

witnesses.

Ric_Olie2 said:

Take your time answering me, and don't feel like you have to answer me all at once. I expect that some things you have a ready answer or set of links for, but I can wait for anything you want to spend a bit more time explaining. If you already explained something earlier in the thread, and I've forgotten about it, then link me to your post to save you some time.

I look forward to your responses.

 I don't have time to answer the whole conclusion section, nor would it do much good.  Obviously the author is a critic and latches onto information that supports his bias, while I latch onto information that is not.  However, his methods are very flawed in many cases, and I wouldn't place my trust in much of what he says.  But as I said before, if you cast enough doubt, some of it will stick.

Thank you for taking the time to give such a lengthy response. I appreciate the effort, and you've answered quite a few things satisfactorily. Assuming fairmormon.org is reliable, the author of the PDF seems to have been quite dishonest.

darth_ender said:

Probably.  What issues are you getting hung up on again?

You've directly answered some of them and I found the answers to others through links you posted in your second post, so I'm happy for now.

Maybe I used this link before, but here are Martin Harris's five churches following his departure from the Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Harris_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Strangite.2C_Whitmerite.2C_Gladdenite.2C_Williamite.2C_Shaker

Note that four of the five are Mormon split offs; only the Shakers were not.  That intrigues me, as the Doctrine and Covenants specifically addresses Shaker doctrine as false.

I know wish I had checked out the Wikipedia article earlier, as I probably would have saved you a lot of time. It appears that the author of our PDF used Wikipedia as his sole source for his info on Martin Harris, down to using quotations from Wikipedia's citations in the same order as presented on Wikipedia. That seems like a bad method to follow.

You answered my questions well in your second post. It seems that fairmormon has already addressed the letter here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

To which the author of the letter responded here:

http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/

Fairmormon again responded here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Debunking_FairMormon

I do not find some of fairmormon's responses satisfactory (e.g. its explanations for the KJV errors in the Book of Mormon), but I spent the better part of my afternoon going through fairmormon.org and cesletter.com, and have found that much of Jeremy Runnells' methodology seems flawed (some of it I would not have noticed without you pointing it out). I think that I would have found him less convincing if I had been more knowledgeable about Mormonism to start with.

As time goes on, I'm seeing patterns on both sides of the debate between Christians and critics. Christians often have a tendency to dismiss good arguments from the other side rather than responding to them, while critics tend to exaggerate, and find parallels where there are none (e.g., the place names in the Book of Mormon compared to real or Biblical names, or in a more obscure example, comparing Jesus of Nazareth with Jesus ben Ananias (I think that's the name) in Josephus, and drawing out the parallels with sneaky wording. Reading the passage in Josephus about him makes if fairly clear that they're different stories).

darth_ender said:

RicOlie_2 said:

David Whitmer later testified that he had been instructed by God to split off from the main LDS Church, so one must either pick and choose among his testimonies or join his sect (p. 54);

You have done this elsewhere, but here I will point out that you are succumbing to the either/or fallacy: either I must accept everything David Whitmer said was true, or I must accept none of it.  Have you ever told a falsehood?  So should I doubt everything you've ever said?  David Whitmer was a man known to be of extremely good character, and when a periodical published late in his life that he had denied the Book of Mormon, he went to great lengths to rebut that claim and maintain his testimony, having numerous locals affirm his honesty.  He continued, long after his membership in the main branch of the church had ended and until his dying day, that the Book of Mormon was true and that the plates from which they were translated were real.  All his sense experienced the Book of Mormon.  His split from the Church was likely based on a feeling he felt was from God rather than any kind of angelic witness, which is what his testimony of the plates included.  He too felt Joseph was a fallen prophet for various reasons, I believe including polygamy as well as a failed financial institution called the Kirtland Safety Society.

Oliver Cowdery has a stronger case, but he was still a scribe and co-founder of Mormonism, so he could have easily been in cahoots with Joseph Smith in fabricating the Book of Mormon (p. 55);

In cahoots, even long after he had been excommunicated and bitter with Joseph?  Not likely.  Don't you think all these folks would have told somebody that they were lying?

Bear in mind, a further eight witnesses, most of whom left the Church, saw the plates, and not even with an "eye of faith," but rather simply, handling the plates physically.

Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, saw them wrapped in cloth, but never opened it, as she knew she wasn't supposed to.  There was something wrapped there.

And David Whitmer's mother also claimed to have seen the plates by the hand of an angel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses#Another_witness

• James Strang split from the LDS Church, and though I don't know much about the history of that, it seems that most of the witnesses followed him. If they were duped by James, why not by Joseph (pp. 57-60)?;

James Strang's movement is surprisingly unknown among most members of my church.  Sad because I find his movement very fascinating, more than any other splinter group.  I have a few books on his church, including all scripture he ever published.  

The witnesses left Joseph largely for his involvement in polygamy.  The witnesses and others knew that Brigham Young and the Twelve Apostles, who succeeded Joseph immediately as a whole quorum, also practiced polygamy, and this was known among those who vocally opposed it.  James Strang in his revelations denounced polygamy, and his prophethood was similar to Joseph's including translating plates and such.  James later engaged in the practice himself, and had revelations and commentary that justified it, while removing that which denounced it.

• There exists no extant copy of the testimony of witnesses of the golden plates (in the oldest copy of it, the "signatures" are all written by the same hand), so there seems to be no conclusive evidence that the testimony was actually signed and agreed upon (p. 60);

Would they not have pointed that out themselves at some point if they felt the testimonies were not valid?

• The Testimony of Three Witnesses, which included Martin Harris, stated that they had beheld the plates and the engravings thereon, yet Martin Harris stated multiple other times that he had only seen them when covered with a cloth, and also that he had seen them with a spiritual eye. All three of those are very different things, and he seems not to have remembered what he saw. It appears he was making things up, and though he never retracted his statements, as far as I am aware (and from what I understand, left Joseph's church for James'), so it seems quite plausible that all the eyewitnesses were making it up (pp. 60-61);

Read Martin's own words rather than the pdf's author's and you'll see the great consistency, and not get hung up on phrases like "eye of faith," which match numerous other statements I've read in our scripture.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.11?lang=eng

James was literally very low on the totem pole until Joseph died, at which point he made his claims.  Martin didn't feel he was leaving Joseph's church for James'; he felt he had already been kicked out of Joseph's church, and was rejoining under Joseph's valid successor.  We believe Brigham Young was the true successor, and ultimately, so did Martin Harris.  The succession question caused great difficulty for some time after the martyrof Joseph, and many did not know who the true successor would be for some time.  Most ultimately did decide on Brigham.

• On the witnesses never retracting their eyewitness statements, see page 60 (although I take issue with the fact that he says none of the Marian apparitions were true ;));

Marian apparitions???

Read the link I provided earlier with Martin's words and you will see the consistency I am describing.  Instead of reading those words with anti-Mormon's providing context for our behalf (how nice of them), reading them on one's own actually paints a pretty clear picture.

And pg. 60 includes one second hand account, which already calls it into question, and one a supposed direct quote from an anti-Mormon of the period, stating it was under a cloth.  How does one know these men are the truthful ones, while the words of the leaders of my church are always brought into question by the author of that pdf?  He seems to take all opponents at face value, and all Mormon quotes as automatically suspicious.  Do you see the poor methodology?

• The summary in the conclusion about the eyewitnesses is also something I'd like you to address, if you don't cover it in your answer to the above.

 Oh, is that all you hope for :P

Jeremy T Runnells (I finally looked up his name again) said:

Conclusion:

1. “The Witnesses never recanted or denied their testimonies”:

? Neither did James Strang’s witnesses; even after they were excommunicated 

from the church and estranged from Strang.

Untrue.  One of Strang's witnesses did deny his testimony, and I believe admitted to helping fabricate James' plates.

Neither did dozens of Joseph 

Smith’s neighbors and peers who swore and signed affidavits on Joseph and 

his family’s characters.

Not sure what character attributes Runnells is bringing into question, but they were known to be good people.

Neither did many of the Shaker witnesses who signed 

affidavits that they saw an angel on the roof top holding the “Sacred Roll and 

Book” written by founder Ann Lee.

Does this make the witnesses to the Book of Mormon untrue?  No.  Is it possible one group is telling the truth and another not?  Is it possible both have true messages, had true visitations, even if not all their belief systems are compatible?  At this point I'm not well informed on this book or those testimonies, but I'm curious what those witnesses said and if it is as impressive.

Same goes with the thousands of people 

over the centuries who claimed their entire lives to have seen the Virgin Mary 

and pointing to their experience as evidence that Catholicism is true.

So is he saying they're lying as well?  Do you believe those people are lying?  Does seeing spiritual things make other spiritual things untrue?

There are also thousands of witnesses who never recanted their testimonies of 

seeing UFO’s, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, Abominable Snowman, 

Aliens, and so on.

These are not spiritual in nature and not good comparisons.

It doesn’t mean anything. People can believe in false things their entire lives 

and never recant. Just because they never denied or recanted does not follow 

that their experience and claims are true or that reality matches to what their 

perceived experience was.

This statement is true.  However, if they saw the same thing at the same time, it makes it a lot harder to refute.

2. Problems:

? In discussing the witnesses, we should not overlook the primary accounts of 

the events they testified to. The official statements published in the Book of 

Mormon are not dated, signed (we have no record with their signatures

except for Oliver’s), nor is a specific location given for where the events 

occurred. These are not eleven legally sworn affidavits but rather simple 

statements pre-written by Joseph Smith with claims of having been signed by 

three men and another by eight. 

No one said it had to be a legal document.  Clearly the witnesses accepted it as their valid testimonies.  "Pre-written"?  This is not known at all, but merely an assumption.  And if we don't have the original testimonies, how do we know that they were not signed by the original witnesses?  The earliest copy is the printer's manuscript, the first copy of the original manuscript, written by Oliver Cowdery to be given to the printer for publishing.  He signed it as he signed for the other witnesses.  At least his testimony has the original signature, as if this somehow makes a spiritual thing binding on the US government or something.

? All of the Book of Mormon witnesses, excepting Martin Harris, were related 

by blood or marriage either with the Smiths or Whitmers.

Oliver Cowdery

(married to Elizabeth Ann Whitmer and cousin to Joseph Smith), Hiram Page

(married to Catherine Whitmer), and the five Whitmers were related by 

marriage. Of course, Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith, and Joseph Smith Sr. were 

Joseph’s brothers and father.

Mark Twain made light of this obvious problem:

“…I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had 

testified.” – Roughing It, p.107-115

And?  The Whitmers weren't related to Joseph, so what does a relation to David Whitmer matter?  Others who were not related also witnessed and related other miracles.  This does not prove anything, although if one casts enough reason to doubt (i.e. implying there must be some bias), eventually it will stick.

? Within eight years, all of the Three Witnesses were excommunicated from the 

Church. This is what Joseph Smith said about them in 1838:

“Such characters as…John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, 

and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to 

have forgotten them.” – History of the Church Vol. 3, Ch. 15, p. 232

This is what First Counselor of the First Presidency and once close associate 

Sidney Rigdon had to say about Oliver Cowdery:

“…a lying, thieving, counterfeiting man who was ‘united with a 

gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest 

dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property, 

by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent…” 

– February 15, 1841 Letter and Testimony, p.6-963

What does it say about the witnesses and their characters if even the Prophet

and his counselor in the First Presidency thought they were questionable?

Gosh, I don't think I have time to address everything, especially since I don't know everything, but clearly there were hurt feelings.  Yet neither side denounced the honesty of the other in the matter of the Book of Mormon.

? As mentioned in the above “Polygamy/Polyandry” section, Joseph was able 

to influence and convince many of the 31 witnesses to lie and perjure in a 

sworn affidavit that Joseph was not a polygamist. Is it outside the realm of 

possibility that Joseph was also able to influence or manipulate the 

experiences of his own magical thinking treasure digging family and friends 

as witnesses? Mormon men who already believed in second sight and who

already believed that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God?

Poor comparisons, as I pointed out earlier to you.  If I were having an affair but appeared honest, I could easily convince my friends to sign an affidavit for me.  But the witnesses to the plates actually claim to be witnesses, not just merely testaments of character.

? If the Prophet Joseph Smith could get duped with the Kinderhook Plates 

thinking that the 19th century fake plates were a legitimate record of a 

“descendent of Ham,” how is having gullible guys like Martin Harris handling

the covered gold plates going to prove anything?

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith actually thought anything of those plates.  William Clayton, who was Joseph Smith's secretary, recorded that Joseph had in the first person, but Joseph never made any claim or publication himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates#Smith.27s_response

Is it possible that he was recording what Joseph actually said?  Possibly.  However, I refer you to the following:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates

? James Strang’s claims and Voree Plates Witnesses are distinctive and more 

impressive compared to the Book of Mormon Witnesses: 

? All of Strang’s witnesses were not related to one another through blood 

or marriage like the Book of Mormon Witnesses were.

? Some of the witnesses were not members of Strang’s church.

? The Voree Plates were displayed in a museum for both members and 

non-members to view and examine.

? Strang provided 4 witnesses who testified that on his instructions, they 

actually dug the plates up for Strang while he waited for them to do 

so. They confirmed that the ground looked previously undisturbed.

? The Shakers and Ann Lee:

The Shakers felt that "Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a 

chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as 64

our Blessed Mother in the work of redemption" (Sacred Roll and Book, p.358). The 

Shakers, of course, did not believe in the Book of Mormon, but they had a 

book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of 

Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth. 

More than 60 individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which 

was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, 

some of them tell of many angels visiting them. One woman told of eight 

different visions.

Here is the testimony statement:

We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing 

upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the 

Roll and Book.

Betsey Boothe.

Louisa Chamberlain.

Caty De Witt.

Laura Ann Jacobs.

Sarah Maria Lewis.

Sarah Ann Spencer.

Lucinda McDoniels.

Maria Hedrick.

Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The 

Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw 

angels and the Sacred Roll and Book. There are over a hundred pages of 

testimony from "Living Witnesses." The evidence seems to show that Martin 

Harris accepted the Sacred Roll and Book as a divine revelation. Clark 

Braden stated: "Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for 

a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon" (The Braden and Kelly Debate, 

p.173).

Why should we believe the Book of Mormon witnesses but not the Shakers 

witnesses? What are we to make of the reported Martin Harris comment that 

he had as much evidence for the Shaker book he had as for the Book of 

Mormon?

In light of the James Strang/Voree Plates witnesses, the fact that all of the Book of Mormon 

Witnesses – except Martin Harris – were related to either Joseph Smith or David Whitmer,

along with the fact that all of the witnesses were treasure hunters who believed in second sight,

and in light of their superstitions and reputations…why would anyone gamble with their lives in 

believing in a book based on anything these men said or claimed or what’s written on the 

testimonies of the Witnesses page in the Book of Mormon? 65

The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon 

Witnesses as empirical, rational, nineteenth-century men instead of the nineteenth-century 

magical thinking, superstitious, and treasure digging men they were. They have ignored the 

peculiarities of their worldview, and by so doing, they misunderstand their experiences as 

witnesses.

Ric_Olie2 said:

Take your time answering me, and don't feel like you have to answer me all at once. I expect that some things you have a ready answer or set of links for, but I can wait for anything you want to spend a bit more time explaining. If you already explained something earlier in the thread, and I've forgotten about it, then link me to your post to save you some time.

I look forward to your responses.

 I don't have time to answer the whole conclusion section, nor would it do much good.  Obviously the author is a critic and latches onto information that supports his bias, while I latch onto information that is not.  However, his methods are very flawed in many cases, and I wouldn't place my trust in much of what he says.  But as I said before, if you cast enough doubt, some of it will stick.

 Urge to skyscraper rising...

darth_ender said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

    ^^If you can read what Jesus had to say about the rebellious and the afterlife and come away with the notion that they will be cool, without the assistance of serious drugs, I will concede your point in this instance.

 I'm already taking too much time on this site today, as I have a lot to do this morning (slept for 14 hours straight after sleeping only one hour in 48 or so).  Not everyone who doesn't fully accept Christ's gospel is rebellious.  Is the Chinese pauper who has never heard of Jesus Christ, yet lived a noble life deserving of heaven?  Is the Protestant who simply did not let LDS missionaries through his door rebellious(remember, this is assuming my church is true)?  If I know God, I know he loves his children and wants to give as many an opportunity as possible.

Or did Christ simply preach to those in prison as an opportunity to brag?

http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-19.htm

         "...in prison...." carries a connotation of being restrained UNDESERVEDLY.

         The people who died before the time of Christ had no opportunity to rebel against the NT. It is possible to be righteous without having an opportunity to hear or read the Gospel. Such people are obedient to the Law and Logos under especially difficult circumstances. Law And Logos are part of the definition of Jesus the Son. These people manage to believe in Jesus without the benefit of Inspired Scripture.

          People in Tajikastan or China may be righteous and decent today without having a reasonable opportunity to become "proper" Bible believing Christians. If Jesus doesn't come soon, they will die in their righteousness and decency. Is Jesus finished going down there?

          Jesus would have had, and has, every right and reason to brag.

Thanks for essentially agreeing with my point.

That can't feel good.

       Well, maybe I should clarify.

       I believe the Bible is inerrant in the sense of having come to us in the form that our creator intended.

       Some things might be taken literally or might be metaphor, figurative, allegorical....

      If I love chocolate caramel sundeas, and someone gives me the best sundea I have ever eaten, I might be so pleased and exultant that I run outside and shout to the hills and the sky about how wonderful it is.

      It doesn't mean that I expect the hills and sky to be able to hear me.

      God tells Cain that his brother's blood cries out from the ground. This doesn't mean that actual sound waves came up.

      I doubt that anyone of the dead senses anything before resurrection. 

Sundea lol.

Wow, I left a lot unanswered.  I didn't address much of what thejediknighthusezni asked, but I really don't care that much.  I find it funny that he talks about the Luciferian order (aka Freemasonry) as if I didn't know.  Apparently he has not followed this thread long or he'd understand that I didn't open this thread for discussion while remaining unread on the subject.

But alas, I shall not offer any further response, for I am bumping this thread to refer to the following article and glean readers' reactions to it.

http://news.yahoo.com/mormon-leaders-gay-rights-religious-rights-must-joined-172041843.html