Book Of Mormon Translation - Rock In The Hat.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 14 2004, 12:01 PM

1) Why did some of the eight witnesses, who were supposed to be "physical" witnesses of the plates, claimed the event was based on the supernatural. For example, John Whitmer as you quoted claimed that "they were shown to me by a supernatural power".

2) Why does the church now extol the witnesses when Joseph Smith condemned them? (Doctrine and Covenants 3:12-13) ("Such characters as McLellin, 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, p. 232) (In History of the Church, Vol. 3, page 228 Joseph Smith calls David Whitmer a "dumb ######".)

3) What sort of objectivity can the witnesses offer when all (except Martin Harris--who had a financial interest) were related to Joseph Smith or David Whitmer?

4) Why did Joseph Smith say before they viewed the plates they were told, "it is by your faith that you shall view them"? If the plates are physical, there would be no need for faith to see them.

Hey AS,

Why do you want us to do all your work for you. Answer your own questions. You have answers don't you?

That some of the witnesses were totally out of favor with the Church and had big personal issues with Joseph Smith, and even condemned him as a fallen prophet, as still didn't renouce their testimony, is a great testament to their experience with the BoM. Take Oliver, some 30 years out of the Church, angry about many things and believing that JS was a fallen prophet - never changed his story, never denied, never wavered.

I think that those men had been called to one primary purpose in life and that was to bear witness of the BoM and no matter how disaffected they later became, God had revealed to them what eternal damnation would await them should they violate their calling - and they never did.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Maureen@Feb 13 2004, 10:49 AM

These are some excerpts from the book The Prophet Puzzle. Personally I see JS as a very complex personality. He may have had little schooling but nevertheless was quite intelligent and creative.

The Prophet Puzzle - Interpretive Essays on Joseph Smith

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

To some degree, Joseph Smith used ambiguity—especially regarding his own life—in similar ways. Taking into consideration the "deeply suspicious world" into which the Mormon prophet "introduced his Adamic restoration," writes Paul Johnson, "we must conclude that Joseph Smith expected to arouse accusations of fraud" by leaving many details about his story unanswered. Throughout his life Smith said very little, for example, about the translation process that resulted in the Book of Mormon, and he offered multiple versions of his "first vision" experience.(5) Indeed, Smith at some points knowingly fostered an "aura of ambiguity" around himself: such a cloak of secrecy made possible the institution in Illinois of rituals designed to protect the political and sexual peculiarities being introduced by Smith and others. Smith's legacy, Johnson concludes, is a "game," an "enigma that demands (as is demanded of no other major American religious figure) that we guess at the authenticity or fraudulence of the founder and the visionary," even a century and a half after his death.(6) In Bercovitch's terms, Smith uses ambiguity to demand "faith" in an "ideal prospect that impels us toward an ever-larger truth"—the truth of his own prophetic calling.

10. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS GENIUS: JOSEPH SMITH AND THE ORIGINS OF NEW RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS

Lawrence Foster

…Religious genius, especially the prophetic leadership of founders of new religious movements, has proven even more difficult to evaluate with any degree of openness and objectivity. Adherents to new faiths often accept at face value prophetic claims to having had direct communication with the divine, while naive critics and apostates in equally one-dimensional fashion tend to see nothing but fraud and delusion in such claims. Neither approach begins to do justice to complexities that characterize the classic foundational phenomena that noted American psychologist William James explored so convincingly in his still unsurpassed analysis of the psychology of religious genius, The Varieties of Religious Experience.(1)

This essay focuses on one particularly well-documented case of religious genius—that of Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, founder of a rapidly-growing religious movement that now numbers more than 10 million members worldwide. Joseph Smith's motivation and the psychological dynamics that made possible both his successes and failures have proven highly controversial, both in his own time and today. Critics of Smith such as Fawn Brodie have often found him opaque and disingenuous. They have speculated that his was a highly conflicted personality with enormous powers to rationalize his own impulses as being the will of God. Devout Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, have often ignored whole areas of Smith's personality and actions, creating an almost unbelievable paragon who could do nothing wrong as he consistently attempted to do God's will. Despite the apparent polarization of opinion, recent scholarship increasingly has seen Smith as a complex figure who nevertheless creatively attempted to come to terms with and fuse seemingly conflicting elements within his personality and his world into a new synthesis.(2)

The analysis that follows is an admittedly speculative personal reflection on elements that need to be kept in mind in understanding the psychological dynamics of Joseph Smith's creativity…..

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/pro....htm#psychology

M.

Interesting. Thanks.

[Guest antishock82003]

I think that when JS was finishing the BoM he realized that someone else besides him had to see the plates or there would be a credibility problem. Boom. Revelation. God said he would grant a vision of the plates to three and no more. JS told Martin Harris that the Lord had said, "Martin Harris shall say, 'I have seen them, shown unto me by the power of God"', and if he doesn't, "he is condemned." In intensive prayer sessions with Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all three were eventually bullied into "seeing" the plates by the power of suggestion. Cowdery and Whitmer claimed they'd seen the plates in a vision "revealed by the power of God", same thing with Harris. All three "witnesses" told different versions of their visions at different times, versions not consistent with each other or with themselves. But the most important thing to notice is that no one actually saw the plates in the normal physical sense. They were seen with their "spiritual eyes". Of course there's a contradiction. Sometimes they'd say they saw the plates with their real eyes, and other times they'd say that they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes. It's hard to keep track of the lies.

Oliver Cowdery was ex'd after accusing Joseph Smith of adultery. He came to believe that the translation was entirely JS's work, and not a revelation from God. David Whitmer was also excommunicated and Martin Harris left the faith. But the testimony of all three men is still reprinted in every Book of Mormon it attesting to the existence of the golden plates they'd never actually seen. And despite Smith's "revelation" that the vision would be granted to "three and no more", eight witnesses were later added, and their testimony is printed below that of the original three. Interesting how God keeps changing his mind (you'd think he was a woman ).

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 15 2004, 03:46 PM

I think that when JS was finishing the BoM he realized that someone else besides him had to see the plates or there would be a credibility problem. Of course there's a contradiction. Sometimes they'd say they saw the plates with their real eyes, and other times they'd say that they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes. It's hard to keep track of the lies.

And I think that I am the Queen of Sheeba. Thanks for sharing what you think.

. In intensive prayer sessions with Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all three were eventually bullied into "seeing" the plates by the power of suggestion.

Oh yeah, sure, the bullied-into-mass-hallucination theory. Say, are to the Prince of Sheeba?

But the most important thing to notice is that no one actually saw the plates in the normal physical sense. They were seen with their "spiritual eyes".

I understand that you think that if you only say it enough times, that it will become true. For the rest of us, however, prove it.

Oliver Cowdery was ex'd after accusing Joseph Smith of adultery. He came to believe that the translation was entirely JS's work, and not a revelation from God.

How desperate are you that you have to invent things that are just plain lies? Can't you find enough honest criticism?

[Guest antishock82003]

Didn't your god say that there were to be only 3 witnesses?

OC wasn't ex'd?

[Snow]

Don't know, and

not that part. Cowdery never denied the divinity of the BoM

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 15 2004, 03:46 PM

I think that when JS was finishing the BoM he realized that someone else besides him had to see the plates or there would be a credibility problem. Boom.  Revelation.  God said he would grant a vision of the plates to three and no more. JS told Martin Harris that the Lord had said, "Martin Harris shall say, 'I have seen them, shown unto me by the power of God"', and if he doesn't, "he is condemned." In intensive prayer sessions with Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all three were eventually bullied into "seeing" the plates by the power of suggestion. Cowdery and Whitmer claimed they'd seen the plates in a vision "revealed by the power of God", same thing with Harris. All three "witnesses" told different versions of their visions at different times, versions not consistent with each other or with themselves. But the most important thing to notice is that no one actually saw the plates in the normal physical sense. They were seen with their "spiritual eyes".  Of course there's a contradiction.  Sometimes they'd say they saw the plates with their real eyes, and other times they'd say that they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes.  It's hard to keep track of the lies.

Oliver Cowdery was ex'd after accusing Joseph Smith of adultery. He came to believe that the translation was entirely JS's work, and not a revelation from God. David Whitmer was also excommunicated and Martin Harris left the faith. But the testimony of all three men is still reprinted in every Book of Mormon it attesting to the existence of the golden plates they'd never actually seen. And despite Smith's "revelation" that the vision would be granted to "three and no more", eight witnesses were later added, and their testimony is printed below that of the original three.  Interesting how God keeps changing his mind (you'd think he was a woman   ).

First, none of the official witness ever denied their seeing the plates...secondly, there were a lot more who saw the plates and the angel Moroni than are written in the BofM. The three that are there are only the official ones.

Mary Whittmer was one who had a visitation from the angel Moroni and was shone the plates....as was Emma Smith.

There were at least 16 in all who were visited by Moroni and shone the plates...

[Jenda]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 14 2004, 09:49 AM

Why does the church teach that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim device to “translate” the golden plates, when witnesses testify that he buried his face in his hat, which contained a chocolate-colored stone, and dictated in this fashion, all the while the plates were supposedly hidden out in the woods (see David Whitmer: Address to All Believers in Christ, and James E. Lancaster, By the Gift and Power of God: The Method of Translation of The Book of Mormon, in The Saints Herald, November 15, 1962, p. 17, and Millenial Star 43:423, and Richard Van Wagoner & Steve Walker, “Joseph Smith: ‘The Gift of Seeing’,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 15:2, Summer 1982, p. 53)

Witnesses testify that he used both. Emma Smith testifies:

"Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color." (Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, 27 March, 1870, Emma Smith Papers, RLDS Church Library-Archives, Independence, Missouri. Published in The Return, (July 1894), Vol.4:2.)

Oliver Cowdrey's testimony:

These were days never to be forgotten-to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven...Day after day I continued uninterrupted to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, 'Interpreters,' the history or record, called 'The Book of Mormon'. ( Messenger and Advocate, October, 1834, Vol.1:14.)

Lucy Mack Smith and Martin Harris described the "interpreters" Joseph used in the beginning (which were also talked about in Mosiah 12:18 RLDS (Mosiah 28:13 LDS)And now he translated them by the means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.)

Lucy's description: And upon examination, found that it consisted of two smooth three cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows, which were connected with each other in much the same way as old-fashioned spectacles. (Joseph Smith The Prophet and His Progenitors, Lucy Mack Smith, (1912, Lamoni, Ed.) p. 116.)(Also printed by the LDS church as The History of Joseph Smith by his mother, Lucy Mack Smith.)

Martin Harris' description: The two stones set in a bow of silver were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eights of an inch thick at the centre; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow. They were joined by a round bar of silver, about three-eights of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which, with the two stones, would make eight inches. The stones were white, like polished marble, with a few grey streaks." (Martin Harris Interview, Tiffany's Monthly, 1859, p.164-5, Reproduced in Early Mormon Documents, (Vogel, Signature Books, 1998) Vol. 2:.305)

I think that there are ample testimonies of the "interpreters", the name Urim and Thummim did not become attached to the "interpreters" till 1833 when the name was used by WWPhelps in an article in the Evening and Morning Star. He writes that "the plates were translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)." (Evening and Morning Star 1st Ed.1:8 (January, 1833) p. 58:b.)

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Snow@Feb 15 2004, 05:37 PM

Don't know, and

not that part. Cowdery never denied the divinity of the BoM

Well, I'm just telling you what I think.

Please, in the future, if you're going to accuse me of lying, be specific, otherwise some of the sheep will assume you're referencing the entire post instead of a portion; so when their Thought Terminating Cliche reflex kicks in they'll only TTC part of my post instead of the entire thing.

One of the problems with relying on the Witnesses for the authenticity of Mormonism is the testimony of David Whitmer given later in life. Whitmer declared, "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions."

His quote creates a problem. If one accepts Whitmer's testimony regarding his experience with the angel and the gold plates, then must not one also accept his testimony that God also declared the current Mormon church is in a fallen state? To disavow the revelation he received stating that the Mormon church since 1838 has "gone deep into error and blindness" means we must hold as suspect his testimony to the Book of Mormon.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Feb 15 2004, 07:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Feb 15 2004, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Feb 15 2004, 05:37 PM

Don't know, and

not that part. Cowdery never denied the divinity of the BoM

Well, I'm just telling you what I think.

Please, in the future, if you're going to accuse me of lying, be specific, otherwise some of the sheep will assume you're referencing the entire post instead of a portion; so when their Thought Terminating Cliche reflex kicks in they'll only TTC part of my post instead of the entire thing.

One of the problems with relying on the Witnesses for the authenticity of Mormonism is the testimony of David Whitmer given later in life. Whitmer declared, "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions."

His quote creates a problem. If one accepts Whitmer's testimony regarding his experience with the angel and the gold plates, then must not one also accept his testimony that God also declared the current Mormon church is in a fallen state? To disavow the revelation he received stating that the Mormon church since 1838 has "gone deep into error and blindness" means we must hold as suspect his testimony to the Book of Mormon.

Doesn't create a problem for me since it is, more or less, what the RLDS church has proclaimed all along.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Feb 15 2004, 07:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Feb 15 2004, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Feb 15 2004, 05:37 PM

Don't know, and

not that part. Cowdery never denied the divinity of the BoM

Well, I'm just telling you what I think.

Lying is such a harsh word. Let's just say that you fabricated a wholesale falsehood.

...and for heaven's sake, if you are going to use exmormon.org as the source of your material and hence your neatly packaged opinion, then reference them.

[Guest Starsky]

His quote creates a problem. If one accepts Whitmer's testimony regarding his experience with the angel and the gold plates, then must not one also accept his testimony that God also declared the current Mormon church is in a fallen state? To disavow the revelation he received stating that the Mormon church since 1838 has "gone deep into error and blindness" means we must hold as suspect his testimony to the Book of Mormon.

Not necessarily. The testimony of the BofM was done in conjunction with other men...it wasn't just him that said it.

The 'gone deep into error and blindness' statement is what you all keep saying...and you are an apostate.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Snow+Feb 15 2004, 09:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 15 2004, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -antishock82003@Feb 15 2004, 07:39 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Feb 15 2004, 05:37 PM

Don't know, and

not that part. Cowdery never denied the divinity of the BoM

Well, I'm just telling you what I think.

Lying is such a harsh word. Let's just say that you fabricated a wholesale falsehood.

...and for heaven's sake, if you are going to use exmormon.org as the source of your material and hence your neatly packaged opinion, then reference them.

No. I didn't use www.exmormon.org for any of my material. In fact, I'm not sure where I got it...just a quick google, read, summary, and post. You know the deal. You're the king.]

Well. At least you can't really refute what's been said. And that's good. Well, you can refute it, but it'd just be your typical snobfuscations. At least you're not doing that, and I have to respect that. You are resorting to the old, "It's a lie!" stand-by, which which is the second most used Thought Terminating Cliche next to "It's anti-Mormon."

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 15 2004, 11:40 PM

His quote creates a problem. If one accepts Whitmer's testimony regarding his experience with the angel and the gold plates, then must not one also accept his testimony that God also declared the current Mormon church is in a fallen state? To disavow the revelation he received stating that the Mormon church since 1838 has "gone deep into error and blindness" means we must hold as suspect his testimony to the Book of Mormon.

Not necessarily. The testimony of the BofM was done in conjunction with other men...it wasn't just him that said it.

The 'gone deep into error and blindness' statement is what you all keep saying...and you are an apostate.

I was just saying that we have to hold suspect HIS testimonkey. He even said himself that if you believe what he said about the BoM then you'll believe what he's saying about the Church being in apostasy.

BTW, did you just know, according to Siemens and Scmeigels Internet Data and Statics Services the "You're an Apostate" is the 3rd most used Thought Terminating Cliche used by Mormons behind #2's "It's a Lie" and #1's "It's anti-Mormon"?

[elinz]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this because I'm not really that

"experienced" in the church, but isn't everyone ultimately

supposed to make up their own testimony?

There are lots of doctrines. Some you might learn from

others you might wish to set aside. It's only when you

actively seek out to destroy doctrine that gets you into

trouble.

What's wrong with having "surplus" doctrines laying around?

Are you some sort of obsessive compulsive freak or something?

So what if there are errors. It's all education in the end isn't it?

Knowledge is the goal. True knowledge, which is hard to

learn directly. You need to read between the lines to really

grasp anything significant anyway.

Or are you clueless as well? Clue - less, it's a clue, not

the actual thing. The teaching is only the "clue" you need

to provide the rest.

Am I making any sense here?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Feb 16 2004, 05:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Feb 16 2004, 05:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 15 2004, 11:40 PM

His quote creates a problem. If one accepts Whitmer's testimony regarding his experience with the angel and the gold plates, then must not one also accept his testimony that God also declared the current Mormon church is in a fallen state? To disavow the revelation he received stating that the Mormon church since 1838 has "gone deep into error and blindness" means we must hold as suspect his testimony to the Book of Mormon.

Not necessarily. The testimony of the BofM was done in conjunction with other men...it wasn't just him that said it.

The 'gone deep into error and blindness' statement is what you all keep saying...and you are an apostate.

I was just saying that we have to hold suspect HIS testimonkey. He even said himself that if you believe what he said about the BoM then you'll believe what he's saying about the Church being in apostasy.

BTW, did you just know, according to Siemens and Scmeigels Internet Data and Statics Services the "You're an Apostate" is the 3rd most used Thought Terminating Cliche used by Mormons behind #2's "It's a Lie" and #1's "It's anti-Mormon"?

What a surprise....since most of all Xmos are apostate! LOL Surprise, surprise...we call a spade a spade! LOL

Anti...you are getting old or something...you keep saying the same things over and over again.

Our next door neighbor is gone now, but he got so old that he just kept telling us about how tall the buffalo were....over and over and over again...and we just kept saying....wow, wow, wow....LOL

So maybe when the anti's quit stating the same old same old, we will quit using the same old same old apostate recognition statements as well. :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by srm@Feb 13 2004, 09:14 AM

It is well documented that he, from a young age, had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion. His mother recalls in her diary of how he, as a young man, would keep the family spell bound for hours telling tales of the native american indians.

This old chestnut has been hashed and rehashed. You seem to be a very intelligent man. You must know that Lucy was not saying that Joseph was a great story teller. She was saying that he was sharing information that he receive via revelation. Not that he , "...had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion." rather that he received the info from the Lord. BTW...it isn't from her diary.

srm--wrong about the story telling--this comment was from Lucy Mack Smith's diary and was refering to a time BEFORE JS claimed to have the BoM or visitations from Moroni.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 16 2004, 09:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 16 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Feb 13 2004, 09:14 AM

It is well documented that he, from a young age, had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion. His mother recalls in her diary of how he, as a young man, would keep the family spell bound for hours telling tales of the native american indians.

This old chestnut has been hashed and rehashed. You seem to be a very intelligent man. You must know that Lucy was not saying that Joseph was a great story teller. She was saying that he was sharing information that he receive via revelation. Not that he , "...had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion." rather that he received the info from the Lord. BTW...it isn't from her diary.

srm--wrong about the story telling--this comment was from Lucy Mack Smith's diary and was refering to a time BEFORE JS claimed to have the BoM or visitations from Moroni.

So what you are saying is, that because God gave a prophet, who was going to have to understand how to translate a book containing many many stories, a talent for telling a story...that the bofm is fake? and JS is a fake? LOL

That BofM is mostly heavy duty, deep deep, doctrine....that a talent for story telling just couldn't come up with.

Together with his talent for telling a story and the power to translate some absolutely awe inspiring sermons....we have a winner...we have a man doing the marvelous work and wonder through the Lord. Yes oh yes!

[Cal]

Peace--As usual you miss the point! Some of you have made the claim that JS COULD'NT have come up with the stories in the BoM BECAUSE he did not possess the education or talent. What I have shown is that JS did INDEED have a creative talent and imagination for story telling INDEPENDENT of the BoM.

YOur comment does nothing to refute the observation that JS could indeed have come up with the BoM story line on his own. That you think his story telling ability was God given is simply circular reasoning; you are assuming the truth of what you are trying to prove! That is, that JS was inspired by God in the first place!

You have said nothing to disprove the fact that JS DID have story telling talent which could account for the BoM as a purely man-made document. Your statement simply ASSERTS your personal belief about it, but does nothing to substantiate it.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 16 2004, 09:56 AM

Peace--As usual you miss the point! Some of you have made the claim that JS COULD'NT have come up with the stories in the BoM BECAUSE he did not possess the education or talent. What I have shown is that JS did INDEED have a creative talent and imagination for story telling INDEPENDENT of the BoM.

YOur comment does nothing to refute the observation that JS could indeed have come up with the BoM story line on his own. That you think his story telling ability was God given is simply circular reasoning; you are assuming the truth of what you are trying to prove! That is, that JS was inspired by God in the first place!

You have said nothing to disprove the fact that JS DID have story telling talent which could account for the BoM as a purely man-made document. Your statement simply ASSERTS your personal belief about it, but does nothing to substantiate it.

Cal, I'm sorry, did you state something that disproved JS's claim and I missed it? Your assertion that he was a good storyteller is just your opinion and nothing more.

There are just too many ifs and maybes in the antis claims. I have read everything that you have written many, many times before, and it is just not convincing. Maybe it is to some who don't have faith, but to those who have faith, it is baseless. There are just as many positive proofs as there are negative ones. It all depends on whether you choose to have faith in God or not. JMHO.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 16 2004, 09:56 AM

Peace--As usual you miss the point! Some of you have made the claim that JS COULD'NT have come up with the stories in the BoM BECAUSE he did not possess the education or talent. What I have shown is that JS did INDEED have a creative talent and imagination for story telling INDEPENDENT of the BoM.

YOur comment does nothing to refute the observation that JS could indeed have come up with the BoM story line on his own. That you think his story telling ability was God given is simply circular reasoning; you are assuming the truth of what you are trying to prove! That is, that JS was inspired by God in the first place!

You have said nothing to disprove the fact that JS DID have story telling talent which could account for the BoM as a purely man-made document. Your statement simply ASSERTS your personal belief about it, but does nothing to substantiate it.

Why should I try and disprove or prove anything to you? You have PROVEN to all of us that you don't want to know anything and will refuse everything we give you...even absolutely unrefutable reasoning, and physical evidence.

Why should we toil with you any longer? Answer that one!

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 16 2004, 05:23 AM

No. I didn't use www.exmormon.org for any of my material. In fact, I'm not sure where I got it...just a quick google, read, summary, and post. You know the deal. You're the king.]

Do a google on "One of the problems with relying on the Witnesses for the authenticity of Mormonism is the testimony of David Whitmer given later in life...." and it comes up as a verbatim hit on exmormon, meaning that it is all likely dishonest claptrap.

Well.  At least you can't really refute what's been said.  And that's good.  Well, you can refute it, but it'd just be your typical snobfuscations.  At least you're not doing that, and I have to respect that.  You are resorting to the old, "It's a lie!" stand-by, which which is the second most used Thought Terminating Cliche next to "It's anti-Mormon."

Of course I can refute it. It is patently false. Cowdery did not recant his testimony about the divinity of the Book of Mormon. I just wonder how far out on a limb you are willing to commit before I saw it off. I know that it doesn't really matter to you though. You don't believe or don't not believe that Oliver lost his testimony of the BoM. It is not important to you or your purposes. Your intention is to thow as much crapola on the board as possible trying to proselytize for your cause. True or untrue is unimportant. Sowing seeds of doubt is what important.

I have to laugh everytime some unsuspecting rube tries to engage you in a serious debate on stuff like this - like you have a vested interest in being right - you don't. That's pretty accurate, isn't it AS?

[Guest antishock82003]

Ah. I see. I googled something like three witnesses book of mormon and got-> http://www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonques...ions.shtml#BOM7, and then clicked on the 'witnesses' link and got-> http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm *shrug*

Didn't some Church periodical purport that OC said something to the effect that JS made it all up? Oh yeah...in 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Times and Seasons, Vol 2, p482. Even if this allegation in ode was never substantiated why would the Church consider it good enough to print? OC was good enough to slander in 1841, but now has to be held up as a reliable witness? Give me a break.

Let's see...OC was ex'd. JS essentially called him worthless. OC joined other churches. OC said that the Church should discard the D&C. And the Church printed a poem in which it was alleged that OC denied the BoM. BUT NOW...OC is the bomb witness for the BoM. Yeah. Got it. Helluva character y'got there to "witness" for the gold plates.

'Course what do I know? Did he ever sign a personal account? He signed an account written for him, signed by the other two "witnesses" (who coincidentally had other "visions" at other times...so how could all three "witness" the same exact thing again?), and then is buttressed by second-hand testimonkey that you willingly gobble up just as eagerly as I do as long as it supports our position.

[Snow]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 16 2004, 07:25 PM

Didn't some Church periodical purport that OC said something to the effect that JS made it all up?  Oh yeah...in 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Times and Seasons, Vol 2, p482.  Even if this allegation in ode was never substantiated why would the Church consider it good enough to print?  OC was good enough to slander in 1841, but now has to be held up as a reliable witness?  Give me a break.

I knew that I would need to cut off the limb that you crawled out on. Given enough space, you'd jump off yourself.

Let's see.

Your claim... that Oliver Cowdery denied the devinity of the Bom.

Your proof... a poem by J.H. Johnson

“The wise shall understand.” Daniel.

        Amazed with wonder! I look round

To see most people of our day,

        Reject the glorious gospel sound,

Because the simple turn away.

        Or does it prove there is no time,

Because some watches will not go?

        But does it prove there is no crime

Because not punished here below?

        ...Or prove that Christ was not the Lord

Because that Peter cursed and swore?

        Or Book of Mormon not his word

Because denied, by Oliver? (Times and Seasons, Vol.2, p.482.)

At least no one ever claimed that exmormons were critical thinkers. How hard do you think this will be to rebutt?

What did JH mean by denied? Did he mean deny like Peter denied Christ (not denying Christ's divinity but denying his association with Him)? Did he mean that OC abandoned his calling to preach the BoM? Did he mean that after being excommunicated, OC hung out and worshiped with the Methodist while he was waiting to return to fellowship?

Who knows. It doesn't matter. Even if he meant "deny" in the way you want him to have meant "deny, Johnson was in Kirtland at the time of OC's Missouri excommunication and his opinion is, at best, perpetuation of a rumor and has no evidential value. Big deal.

On the other hand, here is what OC said publically 7 years after Johnson's little ditty, while OC was still a non-member:

“I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God..I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high.”

Later, after Oliver had rejoined the Church, was preparing to move to Utah and fell ill with tuberculosis, his half -sister Lucy reportsL

“Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, ‘Lay me down and let me fall asleep.’ A few moments later he died without a struggle.”

You were doing good with the Jaredites and barges argument. You should try that again.

[Guest Starsky]

Let's see.

Your claim... that Oliver Cowdery denied the devinity of the Bom.

Your proof... a poem by J.H. Johnson

“The wise shall understand.” Daniel.

        Amazed with wonder! I look round

To see most people of our day,

        Reject the glorious gospel sound,

Because the simple turn away.

        Or does it prove there is no time,

Because some watches will not go?

        But does it prove there is no crime

Because not punished here below?

        ...Or prove that Christ was not the Lord

Because that Peter cursed and swore?

        Or Book of Mormon not his word

Because denied, by Oliver? (Times and Seasons, Vol.2, p.482.)

At least no one ever claimed that exmormons were critical thinkers.  How hard do you think this will be to rebutt?

Thanks Snow...this was great. It shows the kind of game Anti plays...of course we have had lots of experience with his same kind of 'out of context' ramblings.