The Testimony of Three Witnesses

[volgadon]

So exactly how have you determined that said event did not occur?

[cdowis]

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

Give us specific examples where these witnesses faced physical persecution, jail, and possible death due to their testimony. Give examples where the witnesses to the SAME event each gave their testimony on their death bed.

Most of the thousands, tens of thousands of examples are isolated events. We are looking for at least eight witnesses to the same event -- not just a light show in the sky but a physical, close encounter like the eight witnesses, willing to give their lives, to suffer physical depravation based on that witness.

Give us concrete, specific examples which compare to those BOM witnesses.

[Ariarates]

cdowis wrote:

Give us specific examples where these witnesses faced physical persecution, jail, and possible death due to their testimony.

Can you provide such examples for Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris or David Whitmer? Do you have evidence of a causal link between these examples and their testimony? Thought not (I do not deny that they suffered hardship because of their convictions but if the three witnesses had given their testimony, stuck with it all their lives but had not been otherwise involved with the church, I doubt they would have suffered any persecution).

Give examples where the witnesses to the SAME event each gave their testimony on their death bed.

What a ridiculous requirement (fully in the spirit of the BoM challenge, though). I gave an example of two men standing by their testimony for 35 years and counting.

Most of the thousands, tens of thousands of examples are isolated events. We are looking for at least eight witnesses to the same event

I gave a specific example of two people witnessing the same event. There are more examples involving more people. Just follow the link I provided and do some clicking and reading of your own.

-- not just a light show in the sky but a physical, close encounter like the eight witnesses, willing to give their lives, to suffer physical depravation based on that witness.

I have addressed both points already.

Edit: whoops, mixed up two threads.

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

I'm very impressed with LDS teachings of the afterlife, particularly in comparison with things like Carol Zaleskie's Otherworld Journeys.

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.

Interesting repetition of the word "reliable." Perhaps as in "final, once and for all, rule-based, objective (meaning, approved of by those in the secular judgment seats), never subject to revision in light of new knowledge, and never disputed by anyone remotely interested in the question? Would that be reliable?

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.

I got very excited about LDS epistemology when I realized that Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions describe the same ongoing assessment of experience and evidence, a value-based approach that embraces the inescapable importance of personal perspective. I'm also very impressed at the implications of Alma's contrast between those who live their lives based on "cause to believe" in contrast with those who seek to simply and finally "know of a surety" about everything. (A futile endeavor, for many reasons, that tends to end in uncertainty.) I like Alma's emphasis that one can know that something is "real" without having a perfect knowledge. Just as a when I was a child looking at dinosaur bones in the rocks at the Cleveland Dinosaur quarry, I knew the bones were unalterably real without having to have a perfect knowledge about them. That knowledge could grow, be subject to radical changes in understanding without ever endangering the initial child's recognition that the bones were real.

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?

So Joseph Smith's story is appropriately paradigmatic. As is, I think, his solution, if one does not oversimplify what that solution was.

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.

SNIP

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 ).

The overall situation is quite different for me, since I noticed that the key phrase for creating the previous scenario, "only true church," does not appear in D&C 1:30. You can only get "only true church" from D&C 1 by subtracting 29 of the 31 words, which to me seems a way to encourage misreading. D&C 1 as a whole expressly describes the LDS gathering as non-exclusive relative to revelation, truth, and virtue, LDS leaders as capable of error and weakness, "others" besides Joseph Smith as having heard his voice, God as no respecter of persons, and willing and eager to give his blessings to "all flesh." The distinction for the LDS in D&C 1 is not of exclusive truth and virtue, but of a relative "well-pleasingness" relative to ongoing revelation that includes the Book of Mormon, priesthood, ordinances and covenants, the voice of warning, etc., all of which are associated with "true and living" symbolic language in the Bible. And it happens that in actual practice and distinction, those same "true and living" notions of revelation sacraments, temple, priesthood, the LDS canon, etc., do in fact distinguish the LDS church.

So, God giving to all people "all that he seeth fit for them to have" as Alma 29 puts it, does not raise epistemological quandaries for LDS from my perspective. I don't have to believe everything else is false. I just have to find cause to believe that what we have is better and relatively "well pleasing" to God. That's enough for my commitment.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, if it concerns things which actually exist/happened.

So you are the arbitor of things that actually did exsist/happened?

[Ariarates]

So you are the arbitor of things that actually did exsist/happened?

Of course, I make those kinds of determinations all the time. Started at the tender age of 7, when I determined Santa Clause doesn't exist and never looked back!

[cdowis]

cdowis wrote:

Can you provide such examples for Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris or David Whitmer?

I can understand why you want to ignore the eight witnesses.

snip

I gave a specific example of two people witnessing the same event. There are more examples involving more people. Just follow the link I provided and do some clicking and reading of your own.

I fully understand why you do not wish to continue this conversation. Your argument has totally collapsed.

[Uncertain]

Hi Kevin,

Nice to dialogue with you again.

I'm very impressed with LDS teachings of the afterlife, particularly in comparison with things like Carol Zaleskie's Otherworld Journeys.

I am sure you are . I am also certain a devote Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist etc. will also be very impressed with their particular version of the afterlife. I dare say this is one of the reasons you are Mormon and not Buddhist etc. I don't see why the fact you like the LDS teachings of the afterlife necessarily means the LDS teachings accurately reflect how the afterlife really is. Anymore than the fact my neighbor the devout Muslim really likes the Muslim view of the afterlife.

Interesting repetition of the word "reliable." Perhaps as in "final, once and for all, rule-based, objective (meaning, approved of by those in the secular judgment seats), never subject to revision in light of new knowledge, and never disputed by anyone remotely interested in the question? Would that be reliable?

Well when I say reliable I means something dependable that gives the same result no matter who uses the method. This appears to be the standard definition how would you define reliable? And no it does not necessarily have to be "approved of by those in the secular judgment seat" but it would certainly help you say this like being approved of by secular sources is bad or negative can you justify why this is necessarily so? I do expect any method that claims to dependably produce universal truth to be reproducible. There are very good reasons for this if you are interested in debating the point.

I got very excited about LDS epistemology when I realized that Alma 32 and Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions describe the same ongoing assessment of experience and evidence, a value-based approach that embraces the inescapable importance of personal perspective. I'm also very impressed at the implications of Alma's contrast between those who live their lives based on "cause to believe" in contrast with those who seek to simply and finally "know of a surety" about everything. (A futile endeavor, for many reasons, that tends to end in uncertainty.) I like Alma's emphasis that one can know that something is "real" without having a perfect knowledge. Just as a when I was a child looking at dinosaur bones in the rocks at the Cleveland Dinosaur quarry, I knew the bones were unalterably real without having to have a perfect knowledge about them. That knowledge could grow, be subject to radical changes in understanding without ever endangering the initial child's recognition that the bones were real.

A cause to believe what exactly Mormonism, Buddism, Hinduism some flavor of Protestantism perhaps? I am somewhat familiar with Kuhn and am very familiar with Alma 32 and frankly I am not seeing what you are seeing. Perhaps you can describe in more detail how Alma 32 can be used to filter out competing religions claims and identify those claims that accurately reflect how the universe really is. My dispute with Alma 32 (and LDS epistemology in general) is that it is not specific someone using this methodology can not only come to believe Mormonism is true but many other religions as well. But I am interested in your viewpoint how does the methodology outlined in Alma 32 pinpoint Mormonism as the most true out of the many competing religious truth claims?

So Joseph Smith's story is appropriately paradigmatic. As is, I think, his solution, if one does not oversimplify what that solution was.

I am well aware of JS story. I am not convinced his method of resolution i.e(personal spiritual experiences) is a good solution I am willing to back this up if you wish. There are some very powerful arguments against using personal spiritual experiences as a good means to identify universal religious truths. To start lets examine the Fatima event those witnesses certainly had some very powerful spiritual experiences affirming the truth of uniquely catholic doctrines i.e.(purgatory, immaculate heart of Mary etc.).Should we only accept as valid those personal spiritual experiences that affirm the truth of Mormonism and if so on what grounds do you make this distinction?

The overall situation is quite different for me, since I noticed that the key phrase for creating the previous scenario, "only true church," does not appear in D&C 1:30. You can only get "only true church" from D&C 1 by subtracting 29 of the 31 words, which to me seems a way to encourage misreading. D&C 1 as a whole expressly describes the LDS gathering as non-exclusive relative to revelation, truth, and virtue, LDS leaders as capable of error and weakness, "others" besides Joseph Smith as having heard his voice, God as no respecter of persons, and willing and eager to give his blessings to "all flesh." The distinction for the LDS in D&C 1 is not of exclusive truth and virtue, but of a relative "well-pleasingness" relative to ongoing revelation that includes the Book of Mormon, priesthood, ordinances and covenants, the voice of warning, etc., all of which are associated with "true and living" symbolic language in the Bible. And it happens that in actual practice and distinction, those same "true and living" notions of revelation sacraments, temple, priesthood, the LDS canon, etc., do in fact distinguish the LDS church.

I was using "one true church" purely as an example. If you wish select any uniquely LDS doctrine you can think of it is all the same. If I believe X is true than I necessarily believe ~X is false X could be whatever you wish. For example claims to exclusive use of Gods authority. If church A claims to have exclusive authority than if someone believes church A's claims to exclusive authority then it must follow they reject all other claims to authority. If you don't like the one true church example feel free to pick one you like better .

So, God giving to all people "all that he seeth fit for them to have" as Alma 29 puts it, does not raise epistemological quandaries for LDS from my perspective. I don't have to believe everything else is false. I just have to find cause to believe that what we have is better and relatively "well pleasing" to God. That's enough for my commitment.

This works fine as long as "all that he seeth fit for them to have" does not contradict LDS doctrine. If indeed LDS doctrine correctly describes the afterlife and if indeed God is behind things like the Fatima event. Then apparently "all that he seeth fit" to give the Fatima witness was dirty lies like for example that purgatory is a true doctrine.

(edited for clarity)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course, I make those kinds of determinations all the time. Started at the tender age of 7, when I determined Santa Clause doesn't exist and never looked back!

Ah but Santa does exsist. Just not everything that is taught about him is true.

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Kevin,

Nice to dialogue with you again.

I am sure you are . I am also certain a devote Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist etc. will also be very impressed with their particular version of the afterlife. I dare say this is one of the reasons you are Mormon and not Buddhist etc. I don't see why the fact you like the LDS teachings of the afterlife necessarily means the LDS teachings accurately reflect how the afterlife really is. Anymore than the fact my neighbor the devote Muslim really likes the Muslim view of the afterlife.

It's comparison with the NDE experiences from a wide range of cultures, including Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Zorastrian, Sioux, that impresses me. A cross cultural comparison and contrast. Zaleski is not LDS. Her book brings a cross cultural approach to NDEs. See my essay in JBMS vol 2. The point is, LDS teachings accurately reflect how the afterlife has been reported by those who have been there. And that includes the culturally specific elements related to how a Buddhist or Sioux might experience it in light of their own cultural expectations. According to Joseph Smith, God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. And that of course, is to help us change ourselves to be more like him so that we can understand him better. We all have to start from where we are. But if Black Elk, for example, says basically the same things about his experience as Moses 1 does, or if Ralph Waldo Emerson says basically the same things that D&C 88 does, I think they may be on to something real. And if it happens that Joseph Smith provides ways to reconcile different kinds of experience in one, then I'm drawn to his view as better. Not the only true compared to all the rest false.

Well when I say reliable I means something dependable that gives the same result no matter who uses the method.

That might just mean predictable but wrong. And also, by nature quite limited to those circumstances and that range of problems that permit that kind of dependability. Most religious debates take place at the level of paradigm debates, in which different assumptions and different methods, different investigative and exploratory frameworks come into play. So in dealing with those kinds of debates, I think asking for the same result no matter who uses the method is unrealistic for the kinds of questions and issues involved. However, I think there are criteria that can be discussed. I like Kuhn and Barbour's exploration. See for instance, my essay in RBBM 7:2 or FARMS Review 16:1.

This appears to be the standard definition how would you define reliable? And no it doe

s not necessarily have to be "approved of by those in the secular judgment seat" but it would certainly help you say this like being approved of by secular sources is bad or negative can you justify why this is necessarily so? I do expect any method that claims to dependably produce universal truth to be reproducible. There are very good reasons for this if you are interested in debating the point.

In religious matters, there is an inescapable tension between what seems, what we might want, and what is. The tension derives from inherent human limitations. Selectivity, subjectivity, temporality, and the contexts in we find and evalate information. The more variables, the more unstable the system. However, the values that Kuhn identifies as crucial in paradigm debates function as contraints, and that makes patterns visible.

A cause to believe what exactly Mormonism, Buddism, Hinduism some flavor of Protestantism perhaps?

It looks to me like you are starting by comparing differences, doctrinal wineskin, where the first order of business is what separates and defines. I prefer working from the wine to the wineskin. Things like Numinous experience, mystic experience, awe and reverence for the creation, feelings of moral demand, conscience, how well a framework provides reconciliation and reorientation on crucial issues such as the problems of freedom, of evil, of redemption, of epistemology and ontology, science and religious tensions, etc., what particular key historical events matter, how mythic and ritual patterns make sense, as well as the personal, social and ritual behavior that emerges at the end. I'm interested in how well a particular doctrinal framework accounts for the wine.

I am somewhat familiar with Kuhn and am very familiar with Alma 32 and frankly I am not seeing what you are seeing.

Kuhn lists the key values in comparing paradigms as relative puzzle generative ability (that is, providing something to test, say, like the Book of Mormon, which presents all sorts of interesting puzzles), accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness of explanation, coherence both internally and relative to other knowledge, simplicity and aesthetics, fruitfulness, and future promise. Alma 32 begins with a people confronting a puzzle (where can we worship), invites an experiment, invites consideration of the results as mind expanding and enlightening, as fruitful, as delicious, as bringing into view knowledge and experience would not have been acquired without personal involvement in the experiment, and offers future promise for further resolutions in light of some knowledge acquired, despite admitted imperfection.

Perhaps you can describe in more detail how Alma 32 can be used to filter out competing religions claims and identify those claims that accurately reflect how the universe really is.

Try my "Paradigms Crossed" or "Truth and Method" essays, or "Paradigms Regained" or my Sunstone essays. I've been doing this sort of thing at great length for twenty years. Joseph Smith said, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." What can go wrong is to neglect the contraries, usually by focusing solely on negative issues, or by not having a workable method of proving (by which he meant testing the relative value of, not engaging in binary logical elimination).

My dispute with Alma 32 (and LDS epistemology in general) is that it is not specific someone using this methodology can not only come to believe Mormonism is true but many other religions as well.

Again, I think you're starting from the doctrinal wineskin, the boundaries, rather than the wine that each carries. Joseph Smith repeatedly and emphatically taught that people can and should keep all the truth that they have. We're not working in an either/or, all or nothing framework. At least I'm not. (That belongs to earlier stages of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

But I am interested in your viewpoint how does the methodology outlined in Alma 32 pinpoint Mormonism as the most true out of the many competing religious truth claims?

The Book of Mormon provides something I can test in a wide variety of ways. And Alma 32 provides the values (not rules) to apply in the ongoing process (not a once and for all over and done event) against which I can evaluate different claims.

I am well aware of JS story. I am not convinced his method of resolution i.e(personal spiritual experiences) is a good solution I am willing to back this up if you wish.

The notion of uncertainty offers freedom from binding commitments. To refuse to commit due to uncertainty is, by definition, a lack of faith. In practice, some things worth learning only come through acting on faith. But of course doing so puts the freedom from binding commitments at risk. When you identify so strongly with uncertainty as to take the name, it seems to me like you are also putting a value on uncertainty. Would you be willing to put that uncertainty (and the freedom from binding commitments) on an altar as a potential sacrifice?

Recently Blake Ostler gave a very powerful FAIR talk on the worth of personal spiritual experiences. And further, Joseph's method of resolution did not end in the sacred grove. Rather, it began an ongoing process that continued till Carthage for him, and is ongoing for all of us. I have a lot of cause to believe. I have resolved much, and have much unresolved.

There are some very powerful arguments against using personal spiritual experiences as a good means to identify universal religious truths. To start lets examine the Fatima event those witnesses certainly had some very powerful spiritual experiences affirming the truth of uniquely catholic doctrines i.e.(purgatory, immaculate heart of Mary etc.).Should we only accept as valid those personal spiritual experiences that affirm the truth of Mormonism and if so on what grounds do you make this distinction?

See? A focus on wineskin, rather than the wine. On distinction, rather than universals. On difference, rather than common ground. As I go through the process of evaluating puzzles, and comparing solutions and problems with other viewpoints, I'm engaged in sifting and valuing. One of the things I'd bring up right away is my preference for Isaiah 55, where God compares his word to "rain" that "accomplishes what he intends", which likely is different that what human thought might imagine (his ways are not ours). To the extent the Fatima event could have divine participation, I believe that God accomplished what he intended. As Joseph said, God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. What is the alternative, if he is to reach us?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Uncertain]

It's comparison with the NDE experiences from a wide range of cultures, including Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Zorastrian, Sioux, that impresses me. A cross cultural comparison and contrast. Zaleski is not LDS. Her book brings a cross cultural approach to NDEs. See my essay in JBMS vol 2. The point is, LDS teachings accurately reflect how the afterlife has been reported by those who have been there. And that includes the culturally specific elements related to how a Buddhist or Sioux might experience it in light of their own cultural expectations. According to Joseph Smith, God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. And that of course, is to help us change ourselves to be more like him so that we can understand him better. We all have to start from where we are. But if Black Elk, for example, says basically the same things about his experience as Moses 1 does, or if Ralph Waldo Emerson says basically the same things that D&C 88 does, I think they may be on to something real. And if it happens that Joseph Smith provides ways to reconcile different kinds of experience in one, then I'm drawn to his view as better. Not the only true compared to all the rest false.

Well I have not read the book so I hesitate to comment on your view of it. I have read your JBMS essay although this was quite some time ago. I found it interesting although many of the similarities you identified between NDE and the LDS view of the afterlife in my view could be found in many different versions of the afterlife and were not just unique to Mormonism. Also I am not sure I buy your explanations for those common components of NDEs that seemingly contradict the LDS view of the afterlife. For example a common component of NDEs is an increased belief in reincarnation which directly contradicts the LDS version of the afterlife. As I recall you explain this discrepancy by claiming those experiencing the NDE were simply confusing preexistence with reincarnation. I personally found this to be weak to me this was dismissing how the participants themselves interpreted their own experiences in pursuit of making their accounts "fit" with a particular religious view. Also many who experience NDE conclude that "religions just don't matter" I find this hard to reconcile with the LDS view that we must partake of essential religious ordinances in order to obtain celestial glory. I understand by taking a twisting view of such statements you might reconcile these discrepancies with the LDS view but I am not sure I would go as far as to claim NDEs universally support the LDS view of the afterlife much more so than any other religion. In fact from my reading of NDEs they support eastern philosophy much more so than they do Christianity. For example the belief in reincarnation and the view that "religions just don't matter" are fully compatible with a number of Eastern religions. And I don't have to redefine reincarnation to really be referring to the preexistence.

That might just mean predictable but wrong.

Certainly predictability is just a minimum standard not the defining definition of reliability.

And also, by nature quite limited to those circumstances and that range of problems that permit that kind of dependability. Most religious debates take place at the level of paradigm debates, in which different assumptions and different methods, different investigative and exploratory frameworks come into play. So in dealing with those kinds of debates, I think asking for the same result no matter who uses the method is unrealistic for the kinds of questions and issues involved. However, I think there are criteria that can be discussed. I like Kuhn and Barbour's exploration. See for instance, my essay in RBBM 7:2 or FARMS Review 16:1.

Look if you are claiming method X is a reliable means to determine objective truth Y then all who correctly use method X should get truth Y whether that method is secular or spiritual. Reproducibility is a fundamental component of science for a very good reason. I see no reason why any method that claims to reliably produce objective truth Y should be exempt from the requirement to be reproducible including personal spiritual experiences. If personal spiritual experiences are a reliable means to obtain objective truth whether it be religious truth or secular than all who use this method should get the same result. If you are arguing that it is unrealistic for LDS epistemology to be reproducible why in the world should I regard LDs epistemology as a good means to learn universal religious truth? Stating it is all subjective frameworks and personal assumptions is not inspiring confidence in LDS epistemology.

In religious matters, there is an inescapable tension between what seems, what we might want, and what is. The tension derives from inherent human limitations. Selectivity, subjectivity, temporality, and the contexts in we find and evalate information. The more variables, the more unstable the system. However, the values that Kuhn identifies as crucial in paradigm debates function as contraints, and that makes patterns visible.

It looks to me like you are starting by comparing differences, doctrinal wineskin, where the first order of business is what separates and defines. I prefer working from the wine to the wineskin. Things like Numinous experience, mystic experience, awe and reverence for the creation, feelings of moral demand, conscience, how well a framework provides reconciliation and reorientation on crucial issues such as the problems of freedom, of evil, of redemption, of epistemology and ontology, science and religious tensions, etc., what particular key historical events matter, how mythic and ritual patterns make sense, as well as the personal, social and ritual behavior that emerges at the end. I'm interested in how well a particular doctrinal framework accounts for the wine.

I don't disagree so what? I am not sure what you are claiming here certainly I think religious frameworks that best incorporate what can objectively be viewed as important should be given a higher probability of being true. I have no doubt you view Mormonism as that framework which best accommodates those facts you view as important. I also have no doubt there are many many believers just as smart, educated and spiritual as you or I that have come to the same conclusion about their faiths does this fact mean I should prefer their religion over Mormonism? How exactly does the method you propose here necessarily lead someone to believe Mormonism is the most correct religion?

Again, I think you're starting from the doctrinal wineskin, the boundaries, rather than the wine that each carries. Joseph Smith repeatedly and emphatically taught that people can and should keep all the truth that they have. We're not working in an either/or, all or nothing framework. At least I'm not. (That belongs to earlier stages of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

We certainly are in many cases working in a either/or framework. Either a person must be sealed in the temple to have an eternal family or they do not. Either the LDS church possesses exclusive authority or it does not. Either the BOM is what it claims to be or it does not.

The notion of uncertainty offers freedom from binding commitments. To refuse to commit due to uncertainty is, by definition, a lack of faith. In practice, some things worth learning only come through acting on faith. But of course doing so puts the freedom from binding commitments at risk. When you identify so strongly with uncertainty as to take the name, it seems to me like you are also putting a value on uncertainty. Would you be willing to put that uncertainty (and the freedom from binding commitments) on an altar as a potential sacrifice?

I can assure you I am not uncertain because I want to avoid binding commitments. Uncertain is the perfectly logical position to take when there exists insufficient evidence to identify which position is right. I would also add acting on faith in what exactly Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism which? I appreciate your call to faith lots of religions ask me to have faith in their particular set of teachings why Mormonism?

Recently Blake Ostler gave a very powerful FAIR talk on the worth of personal spiritual experiences. And further, Joseph's method of resolution did not end in the sacred grove. Rather, it began an ongoing process that continued till Carthage for him, and is ongoing for all of us. I have a lot of cause to believe. I have resolved much, and have much unresolved.

I am aware of Blake's talk I address it here (post #24):

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/37528-the-role-of-testimony-in-determining-truth/page__st__20

See? A focus on wineskin, rather than the wine. On distinction, rather than universals. On difference, rather than common ground. As I go through the process of evaluating puzzles, and comparing solutions and problems with other viewpoints, I'm engaged in sifting and valuing. One of the things I'd bring up right away is my preference for Isaiah 55, where God compares his word to "rain" that "accomplishes what he intends", which likely is different that what human thought might imagine (his ways are not ours). To the extent the Fatima event could have divine participation, I believe that God accomplished what he intended. As Joseph said, God adapts himself to our capacity to understand. What is the alternative, if he is to reach us?

So you have not answered my question if God was involved with the Fatima witnesses did he lie to them? Or was God involved in all the other parts that don't contradict Mormonism but any doctrine taught that contradicts Mormonism the Fatima children were just confused and we can safely dismiss their testimony?

It appears to me you have explained in a succinct fashion why you believe in Mormonism I am not trying to convince you that Mormonism is flawed or wrong. I even agree by and large with the framework you outline I simply disagree (me and billions of others ) that Mormonism is the clear winner when evaluated using the criteria you outline above. For that matter there does not appear to be any clear winner religion is something that I contend reasonable people can disagree over.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[cdowis]

I have been thinking about the eight witnesses.

There is nothing particularly remarkable in their story. They held an object in their hands, hefted it, looked closely at the engravings as they turned the pages.

Nothing spectacular or remarkable at all. Just a physical object, no visions, no bright lights, no voice from the heavens. No one would pay any attention to it, EXCEPT for the object they were holding in their hands -- plates with the appearance of gold, the Book of Mormon.

I can only think of one other such story where a small group of individuals had such an intimate, physical witness == when the disciples were visited by Christ in the small room. Where He spoke to them, ate food, and they felt his hands and side.

In both situations, the witnesses suffered severe persecution for this simple witness.

To my mind, these two events are remarkably similar. I cannot think of another such event. To campare these events with these UFO sightings is similar to comparing a candy store with a five star restaurant.

[jmordecai]

I have been thinking about the eight witnesses.

There is nothing particularly remarkable in their story. They held an object in their hands, hefted it, looked closely at the engravings as they turned the pages.

Nothing spectacular or remarkable at all. Just a physical object, no visions, no bright lights, no voice from the heavens. No one would pay any attention to it, EXCEPT for the object they were holding in their hands -- plates with the appearance of gold, the Book of Mormon.

I can only think of one other such story where a small group of individuals had such an intimate, physical witness == when the disciples were visited by Christ in the small room. Where He spoke to them, ate food, and they felt his hands and side.

In both situations, the witnesses suffered severe persecution for this simple witness.

To my mind, these two events are remarkably similar. I cannot think of another such event. To campare these events with these UFO sightings is similar to comparing a candy store with a five star restaurant.

There are no credible witnesses, as none were versed in reformed Egyptian to validate (1) what was engraved on the plates, (2) that the plates were the source of the translation, (3) that the translation was accurate. "Who saw what" is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the testimony of the witnesses is undermined by the uncertainty that Smith even referenced the plates during the translation process.

[Jaybear]

To my mind, these two events are remarkably similar.

Of course they are similar. Smith was trying to sell the Book of Mormon to people who believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

To compare these events with these UFO sightings is similar to comparing a candy store with a five star restaurant.

They are similar in one important respect. To those people who believe that aliens visit or live among us, the stories of alien visitation serve to confirm that belief. For those of us who don't believe, the tales are readily dismissed as lies, misperceptions or delusions.

By the way, according to a recent worldwide poll, one in five believe that aliens live among us.

[wenglund]

I have enjoyed the exchance between Kevin and Uncertain, in part because it has caused me to consider the precept of uncertainty as a two-edged sword--i.e. it can be a means for personal growth and development as well as a means for personal stagnation and digression.

I have experienced the cut of both edges in multiple aspects of my life. For example, in terms of growth, in my professional experience as an entrepreneur, I have been faced with inumerable uncertainties, but in particularly the uncertain potential for success of various products and service I have considered getting involved with. Because of the uncertainty, I have felt inclined to educate myself indepth on the products and services and various markets, and I have learned to devise business plans that helped better insure my chances of success--which education and learning I would not have ben motivated to attain were the potential of success certain. And, having experienced my share of failure and successes, I have grown more comfortable with uncertainty, and I am more inclined to take greater risks so as to yield greater rewards.

On the other hand, in my personal life, when looking for a wife, I also have been faced with a number of uncertainties, but in particular whether this woman or that was the right or best person for me. Unfortunately, because of that uncertainty, I became indecisive, and consequently I have never married, and as a result not only have I missed out on the blessings of marriage and also failed to grow personally in ways that marriage often engenders, but I may even have digressed in some ways, reverting to a childish, Peter Pan-like mindset. By not deciding in the face of uncertainty, I unwittingly and ironically decided to make more certain my not succeeding maritally.

From my point of view as a believing LDS, the precept of uncertainty (or faith) is a critical factor in the plan of progression and salvation. Without it, we can't become like God. However, because of it, we also may fail to become like God. It all depends upon how we chose to respond to the uncertainty--either as an opportunity to grow through educating ourselves and taking risks, or as a cause for indecision and declination. The choice is ours.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

There are no credible witnesses, as none were versed in reformed Egyptian to validate (1) what was engraved on the plates, (2) that the plates were the source of the translation, (3) that the translation was accurate. "Who saw what" is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the testimony of the witnesses is undermined by the uncertainty that Smith even referenced the plates during the translation process.

I think that was what I said. They simply said that they saw the plates, hefted them, turned the pages and viewed the engravings. That's it. No statement about the translation, whether it was correct, or even whether these plates were the basis of the BOM.

Plates "with the appearance of gold". That's it.

Now some may accept the testimony of the witnesses, that they saw what they claimed, but reject it as a witness of the divinity of the BOM. I find it hard to separate this witness from a testimony of the BOM itself.

But whatever floats your boat.

[cdowis]

Of course they are similar. Smith was trying to sell the Book of Mormon to people who believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Ok dokey, your comment suggests that you think JS devised this eight witness story as a deliberate fraud. Is that correct?

Let me ask you, then.

• Were the eight witnesses co-conspirators? They made up this story with JS?
  Or did JS somehow deceive them.

To which theory do you subscribe -- co-conspirators, or deception. Those who reject their testimony need to find an alternative explanation. Remember, no flashing lights, no heavenly voice, just hefting and examining the plates.

[Ariarates]

To which theory do you subscribe -- co-conspirators, or deception.

I'm not sure these are the only options. There are millions of LDS who still subscribe to the hemispheric view of the BoM because this is what they have been taught in church for decades. Are they victims of deception or a consipracy?

[Palador]

I'm not sure these are the only options. There are millions of LDS who still subscribe to the hemispheric view of the BoM because this is what they have been taught in church for decades. Are they victims of deception or a consipracy?

Or perhaps just a mere misunderstanding to a point that bears no real impact on the validity of the Book of Mormon.

[volgadon]

I'm not sure these are the only options. There are millions of LDS who still subscribe to the hemispheric view of the BoM because this is what they have been taught in church for decades. Are they victims of deception or a consipracy?

Really a poor comparison. We aren't talking about percieved wisdom, we are talking about a small group of people who actually saw and touched a physical object.

[cdowis]

I'm not sure these are the only options.

Of course they may have seen the actual BOM plates, which is my view. Please suggest another option.

[Jaybear]

Ok dokey, your comment suggests that you think JS devised this eight witness story as a deliberate fraud. Is that correct?

My comment suggests that the Smith included the statement from the 8 witnesses to promote the sale of the book. Nothing more.

Let me ask you, then.

• Were the eight witnesses co-conspirators? They made up this story with JS?
  Or did JS somehow deceive them.

To which theory do you subscribe -- co-conspirators, or deception.

Why are they mutually exclusive theories. Perhaps some may have conspired with Smith to dupe the others. I presume you have heard of the term shill. Of course, they could be all be co-conspirators, or they could all have been duped. They could also be telling the truth, which is not the plates were ancient, but that they merely had "the appearance of ancient work".

Those who reject their testimony need to find an alternative explanation.

Really? Says who? It seems a tad bit unreasonable to ask those who don't accept the statement at face value to declare what really happened, when there are so many unanswered question. Questions that any rational objective person would need to have answered before declarative asserting what he/she believed occurred.

Questions, such as:

What day did this inspection take place?

Where did it take place?

Were they drinking? Had they been fasting?

Who brought the plates to the viewing?

Where had they come from?

Who took the plates away?

Where did he take them?

When was the statement drafted?

Who wrote the statement?

When, if at all, did they sign the statement?

Did they have an opportunity to comment and or revise the statement?

Why were they not allowed to write in their own words what they saw and felt?

Why were the witnesses limited to members of the Smith and Whitmer family?

What financial arrangement had been made between Smith and Whitmer regarding the proceeds from the sale of the book?

What is the earliest first hand written account by any of these 8 witnesses detailing when it happened, what they saw, who was there, etc?

Of course, in a real investigative setting, each witness would be questioned separately, so that the answers by one don't influence others.

[Daniel Peterson]

The Witnesses provide plenty of reason for those open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is true to accept its claims.

Those who are not open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is true will find ways to dismiss their testimony.

That, I suspect, is precisely where things are supposed to be.

[zeezrom]

The Witnesses provide plenty of reason for those open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is true to accept its claims.

Those who are not open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is true will find ways to dismiss their testimony.

That, I suspect, is precisely where things are supposed to be.

Are there just as many ways to dismiss the testimonies of the witnesses of the Bible? Why or why not?

[volgadon]

Which witnesses would those be?