Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Testimony of Three Witnesses


Lamanite

Recommended Posts

I can only speak for myself and I primariliy reacted to your OP where you stated that this testimony is a "rational expression of certitude". I think it is an honest expression of faith.

I agree. Perhaps "rational" was an overstatement. I think in my mind the creation of a documented "testimony" required a certain rationality. The idea of a unified expression really resonated with me, both before and after my conversion. It seems miraculous and meticulous. I think that's why I used the word "rational."

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment
I agree. Perhaps "rational" was an overstatement. I think in my mind the creation of a documented "testimony" required a certain rationality.

And I agree with that as well. In general I think religion is a rational activity. People engage in religious activities for a reason, even if it's just to please their parents. That reason may not be "correct" as in "equally valid for everyone", like 1+1=2, but it is not random, impulsive, irrational or delusional.

The idea of a unified expression really resonated with me, both before and after my conversion. It seems miraculous and meticulous. I think that's why I used the word "rational."

Objectively speaking, though, it shouldn't be too hard to get three people to agree on something that may or may not be literally true. There are several instances of alien abductions in groups of two or more, such as the abduction of Calvin Parker and Charles Hickson on October 11, 1973:

Even after thirty-plus years, both Calvin Parker and Charles Hickson still testify to the same story, and have never wavered in their account of what happened that October night on the Pascagoula River. There have been many articles, magazine reports, and television documentaries done on the case, and the two men have given numerous interviews about their experience.

Note that the testimonies of these two men are much more detailed that that of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon so if "miraculous and meticulous" strike a chord with you, how do you feel about the phenomenon of alien abduction?

Link to comment

"Uncertain", who is apparently not a Catholic, cited the same events which point to the truth of the Catholic faith I did for why one might without malice, be dismissive of the claims of these three men. He also alluded to factors surrounding the event which in his words are as follows:

...the entire complex of evidences surrounding Fatima are far more impressive than that surrounding the BOM witnesses.

I didn't put it that way. But seeing his impression of the situation, without my eyes of faith, seems to support my contention that there are valid reasons for why I don't find Whitmer, Cowdery, and Harris to be compelling. In the one event, we have confirmations that take place over a great length of time, and a miracle confirmed by skeptical witnessed and faithful numbering an estimated 70,000. All this would be very faith affirming even if what was prophesied had never come to pass! The very month of the infamous "October Revolution" in Russia, before it happened, three peasant children in Portugal claim that Mary warns them that unless the Church repents and performs some specific acts of reparation, that there will be another war worse than the one concluding, and Russia will spread her errors throughout the world. It doesn't seem to me that political scientists knew of the Second World War or Communist Russia's future influence weeks before the name of Lenin was even known to the world. These were small children from the "Appalachia" of a state (Portugal) that was itself far removed from the turmoils.

Why, where, and how did these children dupe the entire Catholic hierarchy, the 20th Century popes, and 70,000 eye witnesses into thinking that heaven was speaking through them in asking for rosaries and a consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Subsequent events have been weirdly in opposition to the wills of believing popes to ask the world's bishops to join him in performing this simple act. Our Lord is said to have appeared to Sister Lucia as an adult, affirming all of what she said when she was a child to promise that though late, like the king of France, who also refused to consecrate his nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in 1689 (resulting in the French Revolution in 1789, when late, from his prison, Louis asked for those prayers for poor France), the pope will eventually do this. Some of us are still waiting while seeing with our own eyes the chastisements of the church and the world for delaying this apparently easy, but "difficult" act.

In my opinion, however a Catholic or non-Catholic interprets the events at Fatima, they are at least equally difficult to dismiss as Whitmer, Harris, and Cowdery because of their magnitude, modernity, and present witness to past proclamations. Without ill will or illogical explanations, I am overwhelmed by Fatima, and many other evidences that make these Three's claim to have seen golden plates, to be comparatively unimportant with regards to any influencing of my religious beliefs.

3DOP

Link to comment

Even after thirty-plus years, both Calvin Parker and Charles Hickson still testify to the same story, and have never wavered in their account of what happened that October night on the Pascagoula River. There have been many articles, magazine reports, and television documentaries done on the case, and the two men have given numerous interviews about their experience.

Note that the testimonies of these two men are much more detailed that that of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon so if "miraculous and meticulous" strike a chord with you, how do you feel about the phenomenon of alien abduction?

Let's compare the two.

There are more than three witnesses to the BOM. Eight witnesses had a very physical experience with the plates -- they held them in their hands, hefted them, turned the pages and looked at the engravings. The first three had a spiritual manifestation, a vision, whilst the eight had a physical one, with no visions or spiritual manifestations.

The witnesses suffered physical persecution, beyond simple ridicule.

Now, tell us again about these two guys and YOU make the comparision with the eleven witnesses.

Personally, I find the difference similar to a candy store compared to a five star restaurant.

Link to comment
Let's compare the two. There are more than three witnesses to the BOM.

I just quoted one example. There are hundreds, if not thousands of people who were abducted by aliens.

Eight witnesses had a very physical experience with the plates -- they held them in their hands, hefted them, turned the pages and looked at the engravings. The first three had a spiritual manifestation, a vision, whilst the eight had a physical one, with no visions or spiritual manifestations.

That's nothing. Alien abductees typically get operated on and probed. Some are required to have intercourse with the aliens.

The witnesses suffered physical persecution, beyond simple ridicule.

I guess you assume alien abductees did not suffer physical persecution but you present no evidence. Also, you assume that any physical persecution of the BoM witnesses (examples??) are due entirely to their being BoM witnesses. Evidence??

Now, tell us again about these two guys and YOU make the comparision with the eleven witnesses. Personally, I find the difference similar to a candy store compared to a five star restaurant.

At your service. There are differences indeed. Based in the criteria presented in the OP (multiple people speaking with a unified voice), I think one can make a stronger case for alien abductions than for the literal historicity of the BoM.

Link to comment

You know how I keep trying to put things into a context that I understand, like my constant reference to hustlers and people trying to get over on others? That's because my life's experience tells me to look for these angles. It's just what I do.

Well, I think the Fatima visitation could have been little kids trying to fit a spiritual manifestation into a religious context they understood.

And of course the BOM witnesses did not do this they of course were not trying to fit a spiritual manifestation into a religious context every word of the witness statements should be taken very literally as gospel truth straight from God :P. Surely you can see why an outside observer should view such maneuvers with skepticism. Based purely on the witness testimony comparing Fatima to the BOM witness there is no reason to suppose the Fatima witnesses misunderstood Gods message in a simply stunning fashion while the BOM witnesses got it exactly right. To suppose otherwise seems to be driven purely by preexisting beliefs.If anything based solely on the relative "impressiveness" of the two events Fatima should be preferred over the BOM witnesses.

PS - See how we all start performing these incredible acrobatics to make these little factoids fit into our accepted paradigms. Kind of lame. Ad hoc reasoning...lol. We are all so objective and reasonable.

You know I believe just about every thing I have read by FAIR/FARMS concerning the BOM witnesses. I absolutely believe the BOM witness firmly believe what they claim. The historical evidence in my view is simply to strong in this regard. I also absolutely believe that by and large the BOM witnesses were honorable men. But when there are multiple honorable witnesses testifying to directly contradictory events this necessarily greatly weakens any individual witness testimony. So to directly answer your opening post I find the witness testimony to be weak because other honorable witnesses directly contradict them what is wrong with that argument? Hopefully you can see how someone can reasonably doubt the BOM witnesses without being a wicked apostate driven by Satan to justify their many carnal sins ;).

All the Best,

Uncertain

Link to comment

Note that the testimonies of these two men are much more detailed that that of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon so if "miraculous and meticulous" strike a chord with you, how do you feel about the phenomenon of alien abduction?

While investigating Mormonism its members said it held the answers to who I was/am/ and may be. It also said it could help me find forgiveness, peace, and eternal salvation. I thought it was worth studying. I also thought it was worth praying over and waiting patiently for answers.

If alien abductees offered this type of salvation and wisdom then I'd be willing to pray over whether their story is true.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

"Uncertain", who is apparently not a Catholic, cited the same events which point to the truth of the Catholic faith I did for why one might without malice, be dismissive of the claims of these three men. He also alluded to factors surrounding the event which in his words are as follows:

I didn't put it that way. But seeing his impression of the situation, without my eyes of faith, seems to support my contention that there are valid reasons for why I don't find Whitmer, Cowdery, and Harris to be compelling. In the one event, we have confirmations that take place over a great length of time, and a miracle confirmed by skeptical witnessed and faithful numbering an estimated 70,000. All this would be very faith affirming even if what was prophesied had never come to pass! The very month of the infamous "October Revolution" in Russia, before it happened, three peasant children in Portugal claim that Mary warns them that unless the Church repents and performs some specific acts of reparation, that there will be another war worse than the one concluding, and Russia will spread her errors throughout the world. It doesn't seem to me that political scientists knew of the Second World War or Communist Russia's future influence weeks before the name of Lenin was even known to the world. These were small children from the "Appalachia" of a state (Portugal) that was itself far removed from the turmoils.

Why, where, and how did these children dupe the entire Catholic hierarchy, the 20th Century popes, and 70,000 eye witnesses into thinking that heaven was speaking through them in asking for rosaries and a consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Subsequent events have been weirdly in opposition to the wills of believing popes to ask the world's bishops to join him in performing this simple act. Our Lord is said to have appeared to Sister Lucia as an adult, affirming all of what she said when she was a child to promise that though late, like the king of France, who also refused to consecrate his nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in 1689 (resulting in the French Revolution in 1789, when late, from his prison, Louis asked for those prayers for poor France), the pope will eventually do this. Some of us are still waiting while seeing with our own eyes the chastisements of the church and the world for delaying this apparently easy, but "difficult" act.

In my opinion, however a Catholic or non-Catholic interprets the events at Fatima, they are at least equally difficult to dismiss as Whitmer, Harris, and Cowdery because of their magnitude, modernity, and present witness to past proclamations. Without ill will or illogical explanations, I am overwhelmed by Fatima, and many other evidences that make these Three's claim to have seen golden plates, to be comparatively unimportant with regards to any influencing of my religious beliefs.

3DOP

Hi 3DOP,

First I have been consistently impressed with your posts. I am not Catholic and I am certain there are many things we disagree on but in my view you defend your beliefs with grace and skill even if I am not always convinced :P. I think the closest description to my personal beliefs would be religious relativism although the fit is not perfect. In any case notwithstanding my agnosticism towards the Catholic faith I do believe the complex of evidences surrounding the Fatima events is more impressive than the BOM witnesses frankly in my view any objective observer would say the same. For example however improbable it is at least possible for JS to have constructed a false set of plates. Many Fatima witnesses report their rain sodden clothes suddenly becoming dry as far as I am aware the technology did not exist in the early twentieth century to produce such an event without harming the person. It takes a great deal of energy to vaporize water.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Link to comment

Hopefully you can see how someone can reasonably doubt the BOM witnesses without being a wicked apostate driven by Satan to justify their many carnal sins :P.

All the Best,

Uncertain

First of all, I never said the Fatima witnesses were wrong. I just said the little kids (please note the cognitive abilities of the comparisons here) may have put things into a religious context they understood. I never ascribed a negative motive.

I don't think your bad because you don't agree with me or because you doubt the BoM witnesses. I wholeheartedly disbelieved them at first glance. And although I disbelieved, I thought their statement carried tremendous strength. Inasmuch as my intellect wouldn't allow me to believe in the witnesses' story, it also precluded me from believing in your shared delusion or shared manipulation theories. Seems silly to me.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

First of all, I never said the Fatima witnesses were wrong. I just said the little kids (please note the cognitive abilities of the comparisons here) may have put things into a religious context they understood. I never ascribed a negative motive.

First you are claiming the Fatima witnesses are wrong. You are asserting when they affirm doctrine was taught to them by the Virgin Mary that contradicts LDS doctrine that they are wrong. While I appreciate the spirit in which your comment is made. If you believe X and someone else asserts ~X then you are necessarily claiming they are incorrect.So yes if you believe LDS doctrine correctly describes the afterlife you necessarily are asserting the doctrine taught by the Fatima witnesses is wrong. And second apparently according to 3DOPs post the Virgin Mary appeared to Lucia as an adult reaffirming all she had told her as a child so I don't see why the perceived deficiencies in the cognitive abilities of children should matter at all. And frankly whatever the perceived deficiencies of children do you really think it reasonable that they would have gotten it so stunningly wrong while on the other hand the BOM witnesses should be taken at face value with their testimonies not at all influenced by their preexisting religion convictions. Looks like a clear case of special pleading to me.

I don't think your bad because you don't agree with me or because you doubt the BoM witnesses. I wholeheartedly disbelieved them at first glance. And although I disbelieved, I thought their statement carried tremendous strength. Inasmuch as my intellect wouldn't allow me to believe in the witnesses' story, it also precluded me from believing in your shared delusion or shared manipulation theories. Seems silly to me.

Big UP!

Lamanite

If all we had was the BOM witnesses by themselves they would be strong evidence. However when placed in the context of BOM witness like events of other faiths they don't look nearly as impressive. Again if there are multiple honorable witnesses that directly contradict each other this necessarily greatly weakens any individual witness testimony how could it be otherwise? Do you disagree and if so what is your counter argument?

And no I am not saying the BOM witnesses had a shared delusion or were manipulated by JS I don't know how to explain their testimony just like I don't know how to explain the Fatima testimony. What I do know is given the presence of multiple contradictory BOM witness like events apparently these witness type events are not a reliable means to determine which church teaches correct religious truth. Why this is I don't know perhaps all such witnesses are influenced to a very large degree by their existing religious culture such that any spiritual event is interpreted in a way to fit what they already believe as I said I just don't know why these types of witness events contradict each other.

Link to comment

I'll too step away from my TBM frame of mind and suggest another perspective...

One thing to think about is the circumstances under which the 3 witnesses saw the angel and plates.

Section 5 is one of my favorite sections in the D&C for this very reason. It very plainly shows the Lord (and/or Joseph Smith) slapping Martin Harris for his strong desire to actually see the plates, and maneuvering him into a position to be more "open" to seeing the plates.

The relevant verses start at v.23:

Either way, that's a classic setup. God is promising Martin that he will get to see the plates if he "humbles" himself. So if he doesn't see the plates, then that is obviously proof that he didn't humble himself sufficiently, because God wouldn't lie, right? It couldn't be that Joseph was fooling him or anything like that. No, it's Martin's fault.

And then after Martin has seen whatever it is God is going to show him, these are the exact words he should say, because after all he might not know what to say after God had actually shown him the plates. Better write it out for him just in case. And don't say anything more than this exact thing which I have told you (which, if you don't say, means you're not humble).

If any of us had a friend or relative in Martin Harris's position, and they had someone telling them stuff like this, we would do everything in our power to get them away from this person. I've always considered it a miracle that Joseph Smith just happened to end up living a mile from the Hill Cumorah and the Gold Plates, but the greater miracle was that he ended up living near someone like Martin Harris.

There are two places in the D&C where we get the rare event of actually seeing the con in action. This is one of them. The other is D&C 132 where we can see Joseph is blatantly manipulating a "revelation" to apply pressure to Emma for her compliance with polygamy.

Link to comment

First you are claiming the Fatima witnesses are wrong. You are asserting when they affirm doctrine was taught to them by the Virgin Mary that contradicts LDS doctrine that they are wrong. While I appreciate the spirit in which your comment is made. If you believe X and someone else asserts ~X then you are necessarily claiming they are incorrect.So yes if you believe LDS doctrine correctly describes the afterlife you necessarily are asserting the doctrine taught by the Fatima witnesses is wrong. And second apparently according to 3DOPs post the Virgin Mary appeared to Lucia as an adult reaffirming all she had told her as a child so I don't see why the perceived deficiencies in the cognitive abilities of children should matter at all. And frankly whatever the perceived deficiencies of children do you really think it reasonable that they would have gotten it so stunningly wrong while on the other hand the BOM witnesses should be taken at face value with their testimonies not at all influenced by their preexisting religion convictions. Looks like a clear case of special pleading to me.

If all we had was the BOM witnesses by themselves they would be strong evidence. However when placed in the context of BOM witness like events of other faiths they don't look nearly as impressive. Again if there are multiple honorable witnesses that directly contradict each other this necessarily greatly weakens any individual witness testimony how could it be otherwise? Do you disagree and if so what is your counter argument?

And no I am not saying the BOM witnesses had a shared delusion or were manipulated by JS I don't know how to explain their testimony just like I don't know how to explain the Fatima testimony. What I do know is given the presence of multiple contradictory BOM witness like events apparently these witness type events are not a reliable means to determine which church teaches correct religious truth. Why this is I don't know perhaps all such witnesses are influenced to a very large degree by their existing religious culture such that any spiritual event is interpreted in a way to fit what they already believe as I said I just don't know why these types of witness events contradict each other.

Contradictory spiritual manifestations....

I don't know.

As a TBM do I believe that the Qur'an was inspired of God? Absolutely. Now where it falls on the continuum of truth and error is up for debate. Same with Catholicism.

I'm kind of a weird inclusive Universalist type Mormon. I can't know what others experience so I don't disbelieve them, even when it contradicts Mormonism. It's a comfortable place for me to exist right now.

I know Mormonism is true... for me :P

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

I'm glad you're enjoy the thread. Classical reasoning an logic often lay outside of my reach, so I often have to take things very very very slow. I also have a very unique world view as a result of who i was and where/how I grew up. I also like to speak in specifics as opposed to hypotheticals. Forgive me in advance as this insistence can get irritating. It is by no means an absolute though.

There is a lot I want to discuss from your post. But lets start with Asch.

Is it your assertion that the idea of group conformity as it applies to the length of lines can be extended to circumscribe the testimony and experiences of the three witnesses?

Sometimes when I debate with atheists they try to tell me exactly what happened in Palestine 2,000 years ago that caused people to erroneously believe in the events of the Bible. I've heard them say that Jesus was an expert at inducing mass hallucination, that Paul had epilepsy of the temporal lobe which caused him to think he was hearing the voice of God, and so forth. I find it somewhat humorous that atheists who accuse us of being too ready to accept records of events from the distant past are equally ready to accept explanations like these. No one on earth can know the past exactly and I don't know what happened with the three witnesses exactly. I'm only trying to point out that there are methods by which people can be mislead and there are clear cases where people had false memories.

Moreover, the early 1800's was particularly dense with religious visionaries and prophets, as I've pointed out in another thread. It seems there were certain trends in western society that were taking place at that time which caused many people to believe such things. As the organized power of traditional religion was crumbling, people had much more freedom and it's understandable that many would be more willing to think about having direct personal experiences with the divine. The region of western New York appears to have been a hot spot for this sort of thing. Ann Lee claimed to be Jesus Christ and founded the Shaker movement, so named because of the intense ecstasies that her followers experienced. Isaac Bullard founded a separatist religious community. Asa Wild claimed that he had received a direct revelation from God telling him to overthrow the world's corrupt church and prepare for Christ's return. All these characters and many others were active in New York and New England just before and during the early years of Mormonism, and it's not hard to theorize about them influencing Joseph Smith and his followers.

As a side note, I'd mention that one of the things that appeals to me about the Catholic Church is its approach to the question of religious experience. Some churches such as Baptists and Pentecostals seem to encourage members to treat almost anything as a divine visitation, even if it's just a warm, fuzzy feeling. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has always been more cautious, urging people not to rush to judgement, but rather to consider carefully the circumstances and guard against deception (both by the self and others). If you read the experiences of famous Catholic visionaries such as Saint Teresa of Avila, Saint John of the Cross, or Blessed Alexandrina da Costa, you'll see that they were all extremely careful and hesitant about declaring that they had been in the presence of God.

Link to comment

You need to read a better source on Sabbetai Tzvi. I recommend Gershom Scholem's work.

The parralels between the testimonies really are neither as close nor as impressive as you make them out to be, nor were the above-mentioned prominent scholars witnesses in the same way that the three were.

To clarify, I wasn't implying that Smith had copied from Sabbatai Sevi, merely that there are broad similarities between how they went about bolstering their claims. On the question of Sevi's use of ancient documents, some of what I said was wrong and I shouldn't have posted it; I guess that's what I get for not being suitably skeptical about internet sources. Nevertheless, the similarities are still there for all to see. Both Sabbatai Sevi and Joseph Smith claimed that they had received a visitation from God and that they were making a world-changing revelation, both used the testimony of groups of witnesses as proof of their correctness, both claimed to have a historical document which they did not actually have.

Lastly of course I discussed three cases of mass religious visions in my first post, and other posters have mentioned many others. The central point was that it's possible for groups of people to remember seeing things which they didn't actually see.

Link to comment

Contradictory spiritual manifestations....

I don't know.

As a TBM do I believe that the Qur'an was inspired of God? Absolutely. Now where it falls on the continuum of truth and error is up for debate. Same with Catholicism.

I'm kind of a weird inclusive Universalist type Mormon. I can't know what others experience so I don't disbelieve them, even when it contradicts Mormonism. It's a comfortable place for me to exist right now.

I know Mormonism is true... for me :P

Big UP!

It really doesn't make any difference what kind of Mormon you are unless Mormonism is compatible with it. I don't think it is. Ask your fellow LDS what they think about your description of yourself as a "weird inclusive Universalist type Mormon" and the things you say above. How do you even explain the Restoration in the context of God being said to tell Joseph Smith that none of the churches were true? Is this how Joseph inspired his disciples? By saying that other religions are true too, but the LDS Restoration is true for Joseph Smith? Does a single missionary bother with the expense and sacrifice of two years in a strange place so that he can tell people that Mormonism is relatively true for himself without implying any doubts about the Koran or the Catholic Church.

Lamanite, I would convert you to the Catholic faith. But it would be impossible to reconcile with your view of the world. I would begin by insisting that either the Three Witnesses are true, Fatima is true, or none of them are true. If I take you at face value, you can't for now believe in a church, have "true" faith, restored or not. You first need to believe in error. It seems to me like you have to share the common, almost universal Catholic, Islamic, Protestant, LDS, and atheistic belief in error before you can even believe in a Restoration. Was Joseph saying that the churches were false all of us, or just himself? Can you picture him saying that "absolutely" the Qu'ran is inspired? Is this how you think God reveals Himself in the Latter Days, as a "weird inclusive Universalist type" God who isn't willing to say anything is false? All this is in the context of you not wanting to admit that Fatima if true, is incompatible with the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, or that if the Testimony of the Three LDS is true, Fatima is false. You spelled the word "truth", but you use it in a way that is incomprehensible.

I am amazed that you can find this a "comfortable place for me to exist right now". Would you support missionaries who are in this "comfortable place" going around denying that anything is false, that the Qu'ran is absolutely inspired and that Mormonism is true...for them? Or more importantly, do you support missionaries who with respect and grace explain why, if the Restoration is true, other religious claims are false? I am sorry to be so hard, but if you believe everything is true that anybody claims, you should have said so at the beginning. To believe in everything is to believe in nothing. If this is really your belief, it is the purest agnosticism and there is verily nothing to discuss.

Sincerely,

Rory

PS: Lamanite, "Big Up", tell me I have misunderstood what you are saying. Just tell me Fatima is wrong. Tell me you think it is false for some reason that you don't know, and I will be done with the thread! I find myself at the keyboard saying "Lighten up on Big Up." I know, I know you don't consistently apply this view you have outlined to your whole life. Maybe I should press delete. Maybe I should send it privately. No...No...I know you'll affirm that you deny Fatima to be true. Please, you are not unique in this way. I'm posting now before I go crazy thinking anymore about it. If its real, it will be okay. But its not real. Fatima is false. Say it. Just say it. Fatima has to be false for everybody. I am mistaken about you and about Fatima. That HAS to be your position. Hey, I know. I've GOT IT. You cannot possibly agree with what I have written about your position above. Tell me, do you agree that to believe in everything is to believe in nothing? NO. You disagree. I know you aren't going to come back and say you agree with that! There you see, you believe in error...not error for you...not error for me...I am wrong according to you...just plain wrong error!

Link to comment

I'll too step away from my TBM frame of mind and suggest another perspective...

One thing to think about is the circumstances under which the 3 witnesses saw the angel and plates.

Section 5 is one of my favorite sections in the D&C for this very reason. It very plainly shows the Lord (and/or Joseph Smith) slapping Martin Harris for his strong desire to actually see the plates, and maneuvering him into a position to be more "open" to seeing the plates.

The relevant verses start at v.23:

Either way, that's a classic setup. God is promising Martin that he will get to see the plates if he "humbles" himself. So if he doesn't see the plates, then that is obviously proof that he didn't humble himself sufficiently, because God wouldn't lie, right? It couldn't be that Joseph was fooling him or anything like that. No, it's Martin's fault.

And then after Martin has seen whatever it is God is going to show him, these are the exact words he should say, because after all he might not know what to say after God had actually shown him the plates. Better write it out for him just in case. And don't say anything more than this exact thing which I have told you (which, if you don't say, means you're not humble).

If any of us had a friend or relative in Martin Harris's position, and they had someone telling them stuff like this, we would do everything in our power to get them away from this person. I've always considered it a miracle that Joseph Smith just happened to end up living a mile from the Hill Cumorah and the Gold Plates, but the greater miracle was that he ended up living near someone like Martin Harris.

I can see why you're often called Cynicpro.

Funny how two different people can look at the same thing and reach such divergent conclusions one from another. I've always considered D&C 5 as a strong testimony, per se, of the truthfulness of the whole story of the witnesses. Why? Because it seems so consistent with what I imagine God would do in a case like this.

All the same, poor Martin Harris has really been abused over the years as the primary target of critics of the witnesses to the plates of the Book of Mormon. My reading of Harris' history reveals, on balance, a very competent, very intelligent, very trustworthy, and very prudent man. He wanted some solid evidence of what Joseph Smith was telling him. After all, Martin was putting up some big money (in 1830 terms) to finance the publication of the book. I certainly think he was justified in seeking some tangible reassurance that he was doing the right thing. Would he have consented to spend his $5000 if he had not been personally satisfied of the reality of the plates, and of the fact that God was behind the whole endeavor? I do not believe so. I do not believe that the Martin Harris I know from my studies would have done what he did simply to avoid having to admit that he wasn't "humble enough" to receive the desired manifestation from God. Pride can be a powerful motivator in people, but it almost always yields to the superior persuasions of money. In the case of Martin Harris, I'm convinced he would not have parted with his $5000 unless he had really experienced more or less what is recorded in the Testimony of the Three Witnesses.

In any case, there are 10 other testimonies that need to be dealt with here. Whitmer and Cowdery represent powerful witnesses, and I have always believed that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses carries with it greater evidentiary weight than does the testimony of the other three.

Link to comment

It really doesn't make any difference what kind of Mormon you are unless Mormonism is compatible with it. I don't think it is. Ask your fellow LDS what they think about your description of yourself as a "weird inclusive Universalist type Mormon" and the things you say above. How do you even explain the Restoration in the context of God being said to tell Joseph Smith that none of the churches were true? Is this how Joseph inspired his disciples? By saying that other religions are true too, but the LDS Restoration is true for Joseph Smith? Does a single missionary bother with the expense and sacrifice of two years in a strange place so that he can tell people that Mormonism is relatively true for himself without implying any doubts about the Koran or the Catholic Church.

Lamanite, I would convert you to the Catholic faith. But it would be impossible to reconcile with your view of the world. I would begin by insisting that either the Three Witnesses are true, Fatima is true, or none of them are true. If I take you at face value, you can't for now believe in a church, have "true" faith, restored or not. You first need to believe in error. It seems to me like you have to share the common, almost universal Catholic, Islamic, Protestant, LDS, and atheistic belief in error before you can even believe in a Restoration. Was Joseph saying that the churches were false all of us, or just himself? Can you picture him saying that "absolutely" the Qu'ran is inspired? Is this how you think God reveals Himself in the Latter Days, as a "weird inclusive Universalist type" God who isn't willing to say anything is false? All this is in the context of you not wanting to admit that Fatima if true, is incompatible with the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, or that if the Testimony of the Three LDS is true, Fatima is false. You spelled the word "truth", but you use it in a way that is incomprehensible.

I am amazed that you can find this a "comfortable place for me to exist right now". Would you support missionaries who are in this "comfortable place" going around denying that anything is false, that the Qu'ran is absolutely inspired and that Mormonism is true...for them? Or more importantly, do you support missionaries who with respect and grace explain why, if the Restoration is true, other religious claims are false? I am sorry to be so hard, but if you believe everything is true that anybody claims, you should have said so at the beginning. To believe in everything is to believe in nothing. If this is really your belief, it is the purest agnosticism and there is verily nothing to discuss.

Sincerely,

Rory

PS: Lamanite, "Big Up", tell me I have misunderstood what you are saying. Just tell me Fatima is wrong. Tell me you think it is false for some reason that you don't know, and I will be done with the thread! I find myself at the keyboard saying "Lighten up on Big Up." I know, I know you don't consistently apply this view you have outlined to your whole life. Maybe I should press delete. Maybe I should send it privately. No...No...I know you'll affirm that you deny Fatima to be true. Please, you are not unique in this way. I'm posting now before I go crazy thinking anymore about it. If its real, it will be okay. But its not real. Fatima is false. Say it. Just say it. Fatima has to be false for everybody. I am mistaken about you and about Fatima. That HAS to be your position. Hey, I know. I've GOT IT. You cannot possibly agree with what I have written about your position above. Tell me, do you agree that to believe in everything is to believe in nothing? NO. You disagree. I know you aren't going to come back and say you agree with that! There you see, you believe in error...not error for you...not error for me...I am wrong according to you...just plain wrong error!

LOL.... This is good stuff.

Ok, give me a day or two to take a step back and see if what I've written accurately depicts my beliefs. Let me reconsider the Three Witnesses in light of the particular religious experience of Fatima.

I'll be back.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

The central point was that it's possible for groups of people to remember seeing things which they didn't actually see.

Is it possible for groups of people to remember seeing things which they did actually see? Just curious.

Link to comment

To clarify, I wasn't implying that Smith had copied from Sabbatai Sevi, merely that there are broad similarities between how they went about bolstering their claims.

Except that Shabbatai and Nathan did not go around bolstering their claims by producing witnesses to supernatural events. The mass support came from enthusiastic retellings of events usually at a large remove from the actual occurences. There was no intentional use of witnesses such as with Joseph Smith.

On the question of Sevi's use of ancient documents, some of what I said was wrong and I shouldn't have posted it;

Not some, most of it.

I guess that's what I get for not being suitably skeptical about internet sources.

What source did you get this from?

Nevertheless, the similarities are still there for all to see.

Very few similarities, weak ones at that. People rip on Nibley for his parallelomania, but seriously, a bit of introspection is in order.

Both Sabbatai Sevi and Joseph Smith claimed that they had received a visitation from God

Actually, Sabbatai didn't claim that, not in the way that Joseph did. Proper distinctions are important in discussions like these.

and that they were making a world-changing revelation,

One of the few similarities.

both used the testimony of groups of witnesses as proof of their correctness,

Sabbatai didn't.

both claimed to have a historical document which they did not actually have.

Sabbatai never made the claim, Nathan of Gaza did.

Lastly of course I discussed three cases of mass religious visions in my first post, and other posters have mentioned many others. The central point was that it's possible for groups of people to remember seeing things which they didn't actually see.

And I will get to some of the Sabbatian specifics later, such as the bit about Scotland being an outgrowth of rumours.

Link to comment

Contradictory spiritual manifestations....

I don't know.

As a TBM do I believe that the Qur'an was inspired of God? Absolutely. Now where it falls on the continuum of truth and error is up for debate. Same with Catholicism.

I'm kind of a weird inclusive Universalist type Mormon. I can't know what others experience so I don't disbelieve them, even when it contradicts Mormonism. It's a comfortable place for me to exist right now.

I know Mormonism is true... for me :P

Big UP!

Lamanite

I can really empathize with this post if Mormonism works for you I would encourage you to stick with it. In fact Mormonism works for a great many people. For the majority of active believing members I think it would be a great tragedy if they lost their faith.Of course I also believe the same concerning Catholicism and many other religious faiths.I do believe in God but there does not seem to be a reliable means to determine which spiritual/religious claims accurately describe things like the afterlife. It is not that such knowledge is inherently unknowable it is just that the various methods I have been exposed to do not appear to be a reliable means to determine such knowledge.I am aware of the LDS method of seek ponder and pray but for various reasons I won't go into I find LDS epistemology to be suspect. But what then is left? Many religious claims are fundamentally untestable and not amendable to empirical based methods of inquiry logical consistency will only take you so far. So how out of all the competing claims to religious truth am I to identify who is right and who is wrong? At least to me this state of affairs is very strong evidence that if God exists he doesn't care all that much what religion a person belongs to. When it comes to religion I am the ultimate pragmatist if a person finds love and fulfillment in a given religion I would encourage them to stick with that religion.

For someone like me who is more or less agnostic towards any particular religious claim I think the position you outline above is at least consistent (I am not claiming it is necessarily correct). However to someone strongly invested in a particular religious tradition I don't think your position is logically tenable. If you in your heart of hearts believe the LDS faith is the one true church than you must necessarily claim every contradictory position to this is false and by extension every spiritual experience that contradicts this the person must be either lying, deceived in some way or God is lying to them.Now you could claim that the LDS church is only true for you in which case you would be holding a position that is contrary to what the LDS church itself claims (not that this is necessarily bad ;) ).

All the Best,

Uncertain

Link to comment

Okay I think my previous post slipped off into nowhere so I will make another attempt at asking it.

Say three guys come to you and say, "And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true."

Bold mine. I think questions to the effect of:

1. How did you know it was an angel of God?

2. Did you see him descend from the sky?

3. Did you see into heaven and this angel came out? if so how did you know it was heaven and what did it look like?

4. Did the angel tell you he came from heaven?

are all fair questions that a rational person would likely ask. We aren't talking about day to day observations that can be more readily accepted at face value. Most would count the appearance of an angel as somewhat miraculous.

The questions posited are not answered in the testimony of the 3. Is it fair to ask someone to accept such testimony as evidential, when their are so many (I only listed a few) unanswered questions about what they said?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...