webbles

He says the 8 witnesses didn't actually see the plates. They saw it with "spiritual eyes" through a sheet. He quotes the Stephen Burnett letter and a statement from John Whitmer for his reasoning.

I don't believe tinplate shingles were common. The book that he references can be read at https://inspectapedia.com/exterior/Metals-in-Historic-Buildings-NPS.pdf. It says that it was used mostly in cities and public buildings. Tin was an imported product and so would be more expensive. The US didn't start producing its own tin till the late 1800s. It is probably that no house in Palmyra would have tin roofing, as the town is too rural. Or if it did, there wouldn't be stacks of tin lying about. It would be a custom order as it would be shipped from overseas. Makes it a bit unlikely for Joseph to have them.

After you saw these plates, did any friends or acquaintances come up to you and ask you what you saw? Did you tell them that it was comically cheap prop? Or did you not realize it then? Because the 11 witnesses were asked about their experience multiple times by friends and critics. And yet, they kept insisting it was a real thing. In some cases, they went out of their way to correct a misunderstanding.

It actually sounds like we are mostly in agreement. You agree that Joseph had some metal plates. That's what I'm arguing for. I'm saying that the reaction to the Voree and Kinderhook plates show, to me, that Joseph had metal plates. They were real enough to convince the witnesses. The 8 witnesses weren't hoodwinked or made to "spiritually" view the plates. They actually got to touch them and found them to be real metal plates. That's all I'm arguing about. I have a hard time believing that Joseph could have made them, but I definitely believe people at the time could definitely make them. See the Kinderhook and Voree plates for an example. It would be a lot more effort, but is definitely possible. But that starts to go into the realm of a conspiracy of people making the Book of Mormon and every avenue I've tried with those theories end up with lots of issues. Some of the 8 witnesses were definitely involved earlier (Hyrum, Joseph Sr, Samuel) but most of them would have been completely new to Joseph and the Book of Mormon. The only knowledge they would have had before June 1829 is from letters from Oliver Cowdery. It would appear that all of them were interested but they weren't friends or intimate acquaintances of Joseph. They participated in the coming forth but I think you have the order backwards. They were nobodies to Joseph before he selected them to be the witnesses. He didn't do a deep evaluation of who should see it. It almost feels like he just picked the people available. If he and Oliver hadn't moved in with them, it would probably have been a different set of people.

That the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient historical record. As for why I'd love that, it is complicated and doesn't really have anything to do with the church or even Joseph Smith.

No, I'm not seeing the Voree Plates must be a hoax and Joseph's plates must be real. But it gives us an indication of the effort it would take for Joseph to create the hoax. Most attempts to explain away the plates is to say they were just a quick facsimile, like painted wood or tin with a yellow paint. But it had to have been more, since the men of the day could see that. With Voree and Kinderhoook, they could tell what material it was (both were brass). For Joseph's plates, it is "gold-like" (some say pure gold, some say an alloy, some say it has the appearance of gold). So what ever Joseph used, it wasn't a common metal that they would recognize as a fake. You've mentioned before of how Joseph showed them to close friends. I don't think we can consider the Whitmers to be close friends. Joseph first heard about David Whitmer when Oliver Cowdery showed up in April 1829. He didn't actually meet him till end of May 1829. He met the whole Whitmer family by the beginning of June 1829. And he showed them the plates by the end of June 1829. That's a really short time to be friends and trust them into this fraud. I believe Joseph had something. It was similar to the Voree plates and the Kinderhook plates but was larger, more extensive, and with different material. Why Joseph went through this process just to not use it, I don't know. How he could have done that at his age and situation, I don't know. I can't figure out a naturalistic theory that makes sense for what Joseph did. He was both stupid (spend all this time to create a supposedly ancient artifact that he would never use) and smart (show them to witnesses and then make them disappear). I've tried and keep trying. I'd love for it to be naturalistic. But I just can't find one that makes sense to me.

Thanks for pointing that out. I keep forgetting he had two sets of plates. I think it still shows that Joseph had something that could convince the 8 that it was real and ancient. It wasn't painted wood or thinly painted tin. It was something that the witnesses could see was gold-like and ancient.

The 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the 4 witnesses of the Voree Plates are really similar (the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon are in a completely different category). The two groups just testify that they physically interacted with "ancient" artifacts. I don't think anyone doubts that the Voree plates exists (whether or not they are ancient is another matter). So if we compare the two, that should mean we shouldn't doubt that the 8 witnesses saw something that they physically handled. And this something was well built enough to convince them, just like the Voree plates were able to convince the 4 witnesses (and others that looked at it later). It wasn't just a thinly painted set of tin plates. Or it wasn't something with a sheet covering it that Joseph then convinced the 8 men to "spiritually" see them. It was something they actually handled and was convincing enough to make them believe it was made out of golden materials. So, if we compare the two artifacts and assume both are fabricated, I think it makes it less plausible for Joseph to have fabricated it. The Voree plates are only 3 plates with engravings on both sides. Supposedly the unsealed portion of the Golden Plates were quit a bit more (I've seen estimates from 12 plates to 300 plates). The Voree plates are much, much smaller than the Golden Plates, so a single Golden Plate by itself contains almost all 6 of the Voree Plates. And Strang would be in his 30s when he fabricated them while Joseph would be in his teens when he fabricated them. To fabricate several dozen plates, with writings on all of them, in a manner that men of that time would believe, that feels like a stretch for Joseph to have done. Since Strang only did 3 very small plates, it could be a point showing how hard it is to fabricate lots of plates even with more resources. The Kinderhook plates is another good example of the difficulty in fabricating lots of plates. The Kinderhook plates only had 6 plates (double the Voree plates) and about twice as big as the Voree plates. But still almost half the size of the Golden Plates. And this is someone who is purposely fabricating the plates. I think this shows how hard it is to actually fabricate decent plates that people of the time would believe. Which makes it harder to accept that Joseph fabricated 12+ plates with the intention to only show to a very few set of people. That's a lot of effort that all other known fabricators didn't attempt to do.

We believe that the only priesthood authority on Earth is found in the Church. But we don't believe that we are the only ones with faith/belief or that our faith/belief is somehow stronger just because we have priesthood authority. There are other Christians who are much better than current members. We don't have a monopoly on good people. Nor do we have a monopoly on miracles. Nor do we have a monopoly on revelations/inspirations. You seem to be focusing on the here and now. Just because I'm baptized by someone with priesthood authority doesn't mean I have an automatic "get-in Celestial Kingdom card". And just because someone hasn't been baptized by authority doesn't mean they have an automatic "left-out-of Celestial Kingdom card". We are a fairly universalist church. We believe that everyone will have the chance. So you (I'm assuming you are not a member) could be in the Celestial Kingdom and I could not. It depends on each person. Yes, we believe you have to be baptized by authority but we are doing that by proxy for everyone so no one misses out on that requirement.

The Church never bought the Salamander letter. Every time Hoffman attempted to sell it to the church, they declined. They didn't find it valuable enough or worth the cost. It was Steven F. Christensen who bought it, then had it authenticated, and then donated it to the church. And even in the statement about it, the church was really wishy-washy but just said that they trust the experts who say it was authenticate. Honestly, it is the Blessing of Joseph Smith III document that you should have brought up. That episode looks more like the church trying to hide the document and it was also forged. That would fit your argument better.

It says "popes and priests". So it isn't just focused on the Catholic church. And that reference in the temple isn't talking about the abominable church. It is talking about ways that Satan can influence us. Were there popes that did bad things? Yes, even Catholics acknowledge that. Who are you referring to as "including the newest member"? And I know that it was taught. I remember discussing this with my Catholic friend when I was less than 10.. I'm saying that it wasn't doctrine and anytime it reached wide spread (such as Mormon Doctrine) it was pushed back.

Is 3 Nephi the main place this shift occurs? Or are the other shifts that happen in earlier/later books? And does he shift only one way (non-archaic -> archaic) or does he shift both directions?

The 1st edition of Mormon Doctrine said that and was practically banned by the leadership (McConkie was not an apostle at the time). It was not allowed to be printed past the first printing. McConkie did somehow get permission to do a 2nd edition with massive changes. Basically everything about the Catholic church being the abominable church was stripped out of it. So, yes there are people who believe and teach that the Catholic church is the abominable church but it is definitely not doctrine.

Where does it say the Brass Plates had rings in it? I don't recall any description in the Book of Mormon about what they look like.

I think those that talk at youth conferences probably have more impact than the General Young Men's Presidencies. At least for me as a kid, I knew about those speakers more than I knew about the presidencies. Wilcox is a mix of both. He spoke at Especially for Youth conferences and similar and then was called to be a counselor in the Young Men's Presidency. It would be like if Bytheway was called to the Young Men's presidency. I also asked my sons if they knew who the Young Men's General Presidency and they weren't even aware they existed. They knew of the ward presidency and the stake presidency but did not know anything about the general presidency. I bet they might have heard some things from those men but nothing that stood out to them.

I went to that link about Holy Week and I don't see it discussing Holy Week in the traditional sense. It feels like you are trying to make mockery of what Holy Week is to traditional Christians. It is a big week with things every day. we don't do that. We only do things on Sunday and barely that. Our Easter Sunday meeting is nothing compared to services in other denominations. We don't observe Holy Week.

I know of a few Latter-day saints who have done the more traditional Christian observations for Holy Week (Ash Wednesday, Lent, etc) buy they are rare. Buy I don't see the conflict you see. We don't observe Holy Week in the traditional sense of Lent, Good Friday, Ash Wednsday and the rest. Calling it Holy Week is not the same as traditionally observing it. There is quite a bit to the traditional observances which we don't do.

The Articles of Faith were written in 1842. That is long after Joseph Smith completed his revision of Isaiah. And you probably have noticed that he didn't use the Book of Mormon to do that. So, no, the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon weren't intended to show that they were translated better than the KJV. Joseph never indicated that. And he apparently didn't even think they were the best translation since he later revised the KJV differently. I don't believe there is anything in the Book of Mormon that says it uses 7 day weeks, lunar months, or solar years. There is mention of Sabbath and end of year, but I don't recall anything that says how many days are in the week, how many days are in a month, or how many days/months are in a year. Can chatgpt find any indication of what calendaring system is mentioned in the Book of Mormon? That would be an interesting question for chatgpt. Does it see any evolution? How does that compare to other ancient religions? How much would the effect be on this idea when we take into account a single abridger who maybe forcing his beliefs onto the account (similar to how much of the 5 books of Moses are modified to fit the ideas of later compilers)? After reading histories that have been compiled by early modern Europeans, I've started to wonder how much of what is in the Book of Mormon is what actually happened vs what Mormon read into the history. If he really existed, how many texts would he really have and how faithful would he actually follow it. Ancient historians (even barely pre-modern historians) were very comfortable with rewriting history to fit what they want.

I noticed that it didn't look at all the witness statements. It only looked at the 2 published documents. I wonder what it would say if it included all the various statements from the witnesses over the years.

Just saw this news - https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/02/23/fairview-texas-temple-begins-construction-grounbreaking/. The temple is officially under construction. I guess all the lawsuits have been resolved.

That's not the rule. I think it was clearer in the pre-1990 endowment when it explicitly stated that the Law of Chastity was that women should only have sex with their husbands and that men should only have sex with their wives (I have a printed copy made by the Tanners that I inherited from my grandfather). The 1990 change made it sound more like "no sex without marriage", but the current law of chastity in the temple is closer to what it was in pre-1990 since it also refers to opposite-gendered marriages.

So you just don't think they will ever pick a black or brown? I guess I'm trying to understand what you would think if an apostle was black or brown. Say the next apostle picked is Elder Edward Dube (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/edward-dube?lang=eng). How would that affect your view of the leaders?

If the next apostle does happen to be brown or black, how would you explain that based on your belief of how they act? Would this be a token apostle? Or have they changed their minds? Or what? Just curious because you seem to be fairly adamant that the current leadership doesn't like the idea of black or brown apostles. Also, how do you deal with the idea of 70s who are black and brown? Or that there is a Presidency of the Seventy who is black?

It has nothing to do whether the church is willing or not. That is just bad reporting. The church could have been willing, but the perpetrator can prevent it. If the perpetrator allowed it, then I doubt the bishop would be needed to testify since that means the perpetrator is already willing to confess. And what law would Rytting be violating? Most privilege is only around court room testimony. Outside of that, the privilege usually isn't valid. Let's use the clergy/penitent privilege as an example. Say a bishop hears a confession from a perpetrator. He is not legally required to tell the officials in most of the states. He is required, by the church's handbook, to keep it confidential. And the perpetrator has clergy/penitent privilege to prevent the bishop from testifying. Even with all of that, the bishop is legally allowed to go to the police and tell them what he learned. The church might discipline him for going against the handbook, but that isn't a legal issue. And the clergy/penitent privilege can't stop the bishop from going to the police. But, if the police can not find any other evidence and all they have is the testimony of the bishop, then they have no case. Because if they charge the perpetrator with a crime, all of the bishop's testimony MUST be ignored. They can't use it as evidence. They can't have him sit in the witness stand. The bishop can't do anything. Because the perpetrator has the clergy/penitent privilege and can prevent the bishop from saying anything about what was confessed. This is the situation in pretty much every state (even the states that make bishops be mandatory reporters without any loopholes). If the police do find evidence (say they talk to the victim who is willing to testify, or the talk to another witness, or they find a recording, etc), then the police can charge the perpetrator. Even if the source of the original information is from the bishop. Now, the guy could sue the bishop for going to the police. But in most (and maybe all) states, reporting child abuse is usually given immunity from those type of suits. There was a case in Oregon where a wife of a perpetrator sued the church for turning in her husband to the police. It was dismissed after several months https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/08/turner-woman-mormon-lds-church-child-sex-abuse-lawsuit-oregon/2832368001/ and https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16799523/johnson-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of/

That is advocating killing the white man. It isn't advocating killing the child or the black woman.