What If Polygamy Never Happened

[Yme]

Do you grant that they actually saw an Angel and heard the voice of God? Or, did they make that part up?

T-Shirt

I don't know. Maybe they did maybe they did not. I've been to a F & T meeting once or twice and witnessed some very emotional displays. Some I thought were genuine, others not. But in the end, it really doesn't matter or impact my conclusions. I think testimonies are more important to the one bearing them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why would anyone really care to? I am sure there are many compelling reasons for some to believe that these witnesses actually saw what they say they saw. But they did not see the City of Zarahemla or any of the people, places or cultures mentioned in the BOM. These witnesses may have a purpose in the promotion of your faith. But they are truely IRRELEVANT to the history claim in the BOM. If the history ever existed it would have done so whether theses witnesses saw the plates or not!

And the fact that no one has yet found a pottery shard with "Made in Zarahemla" inscribed on it has little bearing on whether the history ever existed.

Have you heard the adage "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Meanwhile, it is simplistic indeed to dismiss the testimony of the witnesses as irrelevant. Did they conspire to concoct a lie? Are they unreliable in terms of character, sanity, whatever? If not, how do you explain their experience? If the experience is genuine, why wouldn't it be evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?

I don't know. Maybe they did maybe they did not. I've been to a F & T meeting once or twice and witnessed some very emotional displays. Some I thought were genuine, others not. But in the end, it really doesn't matter or impact my conclusions. I think testimonies are more important to the one bearing them.

You're sidestepping the question. Or perhaps you don't understand it. Each of the three witnesses attested again and again about having seen the plates and about the miraculous events attendant to their seeing the plates. Were they lying? Insane? Was there some form of mass hallucination going on?

What is becoming clear is that you've never bothered to give the matter much thought.

[Yme]

Meanwhile, it is simplistic indeed to dismiss the testimony of the witnesses as irrelevant. Did they conspire to concoct a lie? Are they unreliable in terms of character, sanity, whatever? If not, how do you explain their experience? If the experience is genuine, why wouldn't it be evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?

Look, I even think Mr. Peterson (here) would agree with me that the witnesses are irrelevant to the existence of the history. The may be relevant to the existence of some plates. But the existence of some plates does not mean the history claimed ever existed. Your logic is seriously flawed here.

If you found a treasure map, would you immediately be able to sell it for a 70% discount to the treasure it said existed? No. It would be investigated, examined, look at for reasonableness and plusability. The mere existence of the map in and of itself would mean nothing. Do the places on the map even exist, let alone the treasure.

Same thing with the supposed plates.

But don't take my word on it, go ask Lds scholars who have issued or published works on the history claim of the BOM and ask them if any of it has been accepted by the secualr academic or scholarly community. While I'm not sure, I can't think of any greater claim of an existence of history and civilations that has been more ignored by the academic and scholarly community?

You're sidestepping the question. Or perhaps you don't understand it. Each of the three witnesses attested again and again about having seen the plates and about the miraculous events attendant to their seeing the plates. Were they lying? Insane. Was there some form of mass hallucination going on?

Seeing plates does not establish history. Why is that so hard to understand???

What is becoming clear is that you've never bothered to give the matter much thought.

Sorry, but I think I have.

[jadams_4242]

What If Polygamy Never Happened, wouldnt the Lds Church be better off?

We wouldnt have as many members?

[Scott Lloyd]

Seeing plates does not establish history. Why is that so hard to understand???

So three men of impeccable character testify that an angel appears to them and corroborates Joseph Smith's account of the emergence of the Book of Mormon. And this doesn't count for anything?

[Yme]

So three men of impeccable character testify that an angel appears to them and corroborates Joseph Smith's account of the emergence of the Book of Mormon. And this doesn't count for anything?

Obviously not to our academic and scholarly community responsible for teaching "history" in our accredited instututions. I'd even bet that BYU does not have a "history" class/course devoted to the people, places and cultures in the BOM. (I'm sure they have religion courses on this, but I dare say they would lose their accredidation if they taught it as part of a "History Program"!)

Beginning to get the picture yet?

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously not to our academic and scholarly community responsible for teaching "history" in our accredited instututions. I'd even bet that BYU does not have a "history" class/course devoted to the people, places and cultures in the BOM. (I'm sure they have religion courses on this, but I dare say they would lose their accredidation if they taught it as part of a "History Program"!)

Beginning to get the picture yet?

The Book of Mormon, like the Bible, is presented as holy scripture, not as a history textbook. That fact does not argue against against its historicity. The experience of the witnesses, attested to again and again and never denied, argues in favor of its purported origins.

But we've drifted away from your thread topic, haven't we? A topic based on a premise, by the way, that you have failed to establish.