Dismissing History

[ttribe]

I don't know.

Does that bother you?

[John Williams]

Does that bother you?

Nope. Should it?

[ttribe]

Nope. Should it?

Well, you've reached a conclusion of significance and dismissed relevant evidence without providing a potential alternative. I guess only you can answer whether that is a problem for you.

[John Williams]

Well, you've reached a conclusion of significance and dismissed relevant evidence. I guess only you can answer whether that is a problem for you.

Again, what relevant evidence have I dismissed? Nothing in the witness statement says anything compelling and conclusive about the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

I believe they saw what they believed was an angel who told them the book was true. I don't find that compelling evidence that the book is actually true.

[ttribe]

Again, what relevant evidence have I dismissed? Nothing in the witness statement says anything compelling and conclusive about the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

I believe they saw what they believed was an angel who told them the book was true. I don't find that compelling evidence that the book is actually true.

So, let's play what-if. What if an angel appeared to you personally and told you the Book of Mormon was true and that all your conclusions about its historicity and source were in error. Would that be compelling evidence to you?

[John Williams]

So, let's play what-if. What if an angel appeared to you personally and told you the Book of Mormon was true and that all your conclusions about its historicity and source were in error. Would that be compelling evidence to you?

Sure, it would. But someone 150 years ago saying that they saw an angel is not compelling evidence to me. It obviously was to them.

[Rommelator]

Nothing in the witness statement says anything compelling and conclusive about the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

If you don't believe their words, or don't believe in divinity or God, etc. then I guess it doesn't. But if you grant the possibility that it could have happened then it makes all the difference in the world, IMO.

I believe they saw what they believed was an angel who told them the book was true. I don't find that compelling evidence that the book is actually true.

Fair enough. However, it still begs the question; why an angel in the first place?

The fact that these men throughout their lives affirmed their testimony (even after they had every opportunity to come out and admit the whole thing a fraud, or them lying, etc.) means to me that they did see something. These men said it was an angel who testified that the Book of Mormon is true.

This brings up the following issues:

1. If there was no angel, as some surmise, then what was it they saw? Did Joseph Smith "hypnotize" them as Fawn Brodie says? Did Sidney Rigdon dress up like an angel? Etc? For me to be pleased, the critics are going to have to offer a good alternative. So far, they have not.

2. The credibility of the witnesses has, IMO, been demonstrated by Richard Anderson. These men were neither gullible nor shallow minded. Heck, Martin Harris was so skeptical that he wanted scholarly verification of the characters on the plates. This, IMO, rules out any delusion or insanity for the witnesses.

3. If the Witnesses were lying, then why stay with the lie when they had everything to lose and nothing to gain by sticking with their story? The witnesses became estranged with Joseph Smith, and called him all sorts of things. But they NEVER denied their experience. Why is this if they were going along with it the whole time?

Obviously I am not as eloquent in presenting my views on this as say Richard L. Anderson or Daniel C. Peterson. They make a much stronger case for the witnesses than I ever could.

For example, Dan Peterson at the (2005?) FAIR Conference gave an impressive presentation on the witnesses entitled "A Tangible Restoration". While a transcript is not on the FAIR website, you can buy the download for a few bucks from the FAIR website. That is a very impressive speech that makes a strong case for the witnesses.

[ttribe]

Sure, it would. But someone 150 years ago saying that they saw an angel is not compelling evidence to me. It obviously was to them.

But the testimony witnesses regarding the translation process is compelling to you?

[John Williams]

If you don't believe their words, or don't believe in divinity or God, etc. then I guess it doesn't. But if you grant the possibility that it could have happened then it makes all the difference in the world, IMO.

I'll grant the possibility. Always have.

Fair enough. However, it still begs the question; why an angel in the first place?

Don't know.

The fact that these men throughout their lives affirmed their testimony (even after they had every opportunity to come out and admit the whole thing a fraud, or them lying, etc.) means to me that they did see something. These men said it was an angel who testified that the Book of Mormon is true.

Yes, they did.

This brings up the following issues:

1. If there was no angel, as some surmise, then what was it they saw? Did Joseph Smith "hypnotize" them as Fawn Brodie says? Did Sidney Rigdon dress up like an angel? Etc? For me to be pleased, the critics are going to have to offer a good alternative. So far, they have not.

As I said, I don't know. It's not my job to please you. I'm not bothered by not knowing what exactly took place.

2. The credibility of the witnesses has, IMO, been demonstrated by Richard Anderson. These men were neither gullible nor shallow minded. Heck, Martin Harris was so skeptical that he wanted scholarly verification of the characters on the plates. This, IMO, rules out any delusion or insanity for the witnesses.

It's difficult to say.

3. If the Witnesses were lying, then why stay with the lie when they had everything to lose and nothing to gain by sticking with their story? The witnesses became estranged with Joseph Smith, and called him all sorts of things. But they NEVER denied their experience. Why is this if they were going along with it the whole time?

You're asking me to read minds. Sorry.

Obviously I am not as eloquent in presenting my views on this as say Richard L. Anderson or Daniel C. Peterson. They make a much stronger case for the witnesses than I ever could.

For example, Dan Peterson at the (2005?) FAIR Conference gave an impressive presentation on the witnesses entitled "A Tangible Restoration". While a transcript is not on the FAIR website, you can buy the download for a few bucks from the FAIR website. That is a very impressive speech that makes a strong case for the witnesses.

I read Anderson's book a while back.

Again, the bottom line for me is that the evidence, at least to me, is clear and convincing that the Book of Mormon is not of ancient origin. In that case, the testimony of the witnesses is interesting but not pertinent.

[John Williams]

But the testimony witnesses regarding the translation process is compelling to you?

We've been around the block on this one.

1. I don't find the witness testimony compelling evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I do find it compelling evidence that they saw what they interpreted as being an angel who showed them plates.

2. I don't find the witness testimony compelling evidence that Joseph Smith translated the book by looking at a stone in a hat. I do find it compelling evidence that the witnesses thought he was translating in that manner.

Is that clear? Never mind, it does no one any good conversing with a deceptive and dishonest person.

[ttribe]

We've been around the block on this one.

1. I don't find the witness testimony compelling evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I do find it compelling evidence that they saw what they interpreted as being an angel who showed them plates.

2. I don't find the witness testimony compelling evidence that Joseph Smith translated the book by looking at a stone in a hat. I do find it compelling evidence that the witnesses thought he was translating in that manner.

Is that clear? Never mind, it does no one any good conversing with a deceptive and dishonest person.

Yes, it is clear. I misunderstood your position on the hat thing.

[John Williams]

Gee, John. Do the "minor" inaccuracies in the way you portray things not bother you at all?

When you say "that they know the record is ancient", when what they really said was "all of which has the appearance of ancient work", are you really trying to be deceptive, or are you just really, really sloppy?

Apparently sloppy today. Sorry about that.

And when you assert "that they know... the translation is correct" and that they "simply could not have known", do the actual words of the witnesses, which were; "And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.", do you really think that your over-simplification in order to make your point is really going to fly? They are, after all, basing their claim on a spiritual experience. They make no claim to "knowing that the translation is correct" by their own intellect, which was the impression you were trying to give.

That wasn't the impression I was trying to give. If I oversimplified, sorry. I still think they had no way of knowing "of a surety that the work is true."

What's the purpose in misrepresenting something, which we can easily go and look up, in order to make your point?

Had I intentionally misrepresented something, you might have a point. From what I see, you have one example of my sloppiness and one example of your assigning intent to me without reason.

It must really be a miserable life to constantly think the worst of people.

[jwhitlock]

That wasn't the impression I was trying to give. If I oversimplified, sorry. I still think they had no way of knowing "of a surety that the work is true."

They make no other claim than that God told them - which significant point you leave out - and then say they had no realistic way of knowing of a surety that it was true.

Right.

Had I intentionally misrepresented something, you might have a point. From what I see, you have one example of my sloppiness and one example of your assigning intent to me without reason.

And yet your whole point in all this was based on the fact that they couldn't possibly have known these things. Period. You didn't qualify it in any way, allowing for any mitigating circumstances. It left the very clear impression that these were things they couldn't have known on their own. They never claimed to have made such assertions on their own.

And yet, when digging into the two things you claimed they couldn't possibly have known on their own, we find that the first was never actually claimed by them, and the second was told to them (according to their testimony) by the voice of God - a significant aspect of their testimony that you left out.

The whole basis for your argument that eyewitness testimony is not compelling, because the witnesses to the Book of Mormon couldn't have known those things has no foundation.

It must really be a miserable life to constantly think the worst of people.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because I've read too much of what you've written about the Church and its members elsewhere, outside of this board, to trust your motivations when you post here about the "[expletive deleted] cult" that I belong to.

[John Williams]

Maybe, just maybe, it's because I've read too much of what you've written about the Church and its members elsewhere, outside of this board, to trust your motivations when you post here about the "[expletive deleted] cult" that I belong to.

Wow, I haven't used that phrase in at least two years, and I've repeatedly apologized for that angry stage I went through. I'm grateful I don't feel that anger anymore, but I suppose I will always be tagged with that.

[jwhitlock]

Wow, I haven't used that phrase in at least two years, and I've repeatedly apologized for that angry stage I went through. I'm grateful I don't feel that anger anymore, but I suppose I will always be tagged with that.

I believe in repentance.

I also believe in checking ongoing blogs from time to time to get a current idea of what a person thinks outside of this board.

[John Williams]

I believe in repentance.

I also believe in checking ongoing blogs from time to time to get a current idea of what a person thinks outside of this board.

Of course. People like Rommelator always keep me honest if I post something questionable on my blog.

[Scottie]

Rom, it is interesting to me that you believe the witnesses for the LDS church, but not the thousands of witnesses in the past 150 years who claim to have seen angels and God that testify other religions are true. Why?

[LDSMusic483]

Of course. People like Rommelator always keep me honest if I post something questionable on my blog.

I did want to point out something that was a small innacuracy (probably doesn't amount to much of a difference to you) that JWhitlock kinda touched on. You and Rom kept on talking about the angel telling them that the translaton was true and what the BoM was. According to the witnesses, it was the voice of the Lord from which they received their witness, not the angel Moroni. Now, either Joseph Smith performed some extremely elaborate hoax (I think they might have noticed the "voice of the Lord" coming from behind a tree if that was the case) or their witness has some merit. You have multiple witnesses testifying to multiple witnesses.

[Scottie]

I did want to point out something that was a small innacuracy (probably doesn't amount to much of a difference to you) that JWhitlock kinda touched on. You and Rom kept on talking about the angel telling them that the translaton was true and what the BoM was. According to the witnesses, it was the voice of the Lord from which they received their witness, not the angel Moroni. Now, either Joseph Smith performed some extremely elaborate hoax (I think they might have noticed the "voice of the Lord" coming from behind a tree if that was the case) or their witness has some merit. You have multiple witnesses testifying to multiple witnesses.

Again, my question still stands. How do you discredit the multitudes of others in other religions who have claimed to have a vision or voice or whatever that testifies that their religion is true without discrediting the LDS witnesses?

[Bond...James Bond]

Again, my question still stands. How do you discredit the multitudes of others in other religions who have claimed to have a vision or voice or whatever that testifies that their religion is true without discrediting the LDS witnesses?

My emotional witness trumps your emotional witness. Suck on that home slice.

[/theist]

[Cooper]

If the witnesses are so reliable - does that mean we should believe all the other statements they made ? Or are they only reliable with their statement about the BoM ?

Shouldn't we consider what they said before, and after this statement as well ?

[saemo]

Speaking of BoM witnesses, did the 3 or 8 individuals ever write their statement, separately, and sign? If so, anyone have a link to where I can read them? (Not the all together signing that is in the front of the BoM. I would like to read first hand, individual, accounts.)

Muchos gracias.

[MormonMason]

Speaking of BoM witnesses, did the 3 or 8 individuals ever write their statement, separately, and sign? If so, anyone have a link to where I can read them? (Not the all together signing that is in the front of the BoM. I would like to read first hand, individual, accounts.)

Muchos gracias.

Obtain and read for starters Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. There is a fraction of the available firsthand accounts contained in that work. It also contains a bibliography making reference to many other sources you can consult for additional firsthand and other testimonies of all the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

[LDSMusic483]

If the witnesses are so reliable - does that mean we should believe all the other statements they made ? Or are they only reliable with their statement about the BoM ?

Shouldn't we consider what they said before, and after this statement as well ?

Of course. But you'll be hardpressed to ever find them denying their testimony of the Book of Mormon. They may have fallen away from the church for one reason or another, but their testimonies of the Book of Mormon did not ever cease. That's one ofthe greatest testimonies in and of itself concerning the Book of Mormon. It also a great testimony of Joseph Smith. For them to give witness of the Book of Mormon in and of itself is them giving testimony of Joseph Smith being a prophet. They may have believed that he became a fallen prophet, but a prophet at some point nonetheless.

[LDSMusic483]

Again, my question still stands. How do you discredit the multitudes of others in other religions who have claimed to have a vision or voice or whatever that testifies that their religion is true without discrediting the LDS witnesses?

I can give no opinion on others spiritual experiences because I do not know much about them. I haven't heard of "many" which included testimonies of their churches. I know plenty say they saw this vision or that vision, but not including testimonies of their religions. Many probably did happen, but how many were told to give their vision or experience as a testimony to the world? There's too much I don't know concerning them for me to "discredit" them.