The Testimony of Three Witnesses

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

He sure did do a crappy job of selling that book as all he did was give them away (meaning he didn't make money on the BoM). Something just doesn't fit in your theory.

[Uncertain]

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.

Hi Wade,

I don't need three guesses as to which category I belong to .

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-

And from the point of view of a Catholic or Buddhist or Protestant it is just as critical to have "faith" in their particular teachings. At least with regards to Mormonism I would consider myself highly educated certainly much more so than say the average LDS convert. So it appears at least in my case my uncertainty did not prevent me from educating myself. And I would ask what particular risks should I take at last count there was something like 30,000 denominations of Christianity should I take a risk on all of them? There isn't enough time in a lifetime and this is not including all the non christian denominations. Have you followed your own advice and taken a risk and had faith in Tibetan Buddhism or Jainism how about Hinduism? I dare say by advocating taking a "risk" you mean have faith in your particular religious denomination.

I would also state I have no problems with a person taking a leap of faith in whatever religion they desire you for Mormonism someone else for Hinduism. I am happy you have found fulfillment in Mormonism. I just balk at claiming that because a particular religion worked out for you it must necessarily work out for everyone that based on the fact you have found personal growth in your chosen religion that every person who ever lived must chose your religion to obtain the fullness of personal growth and to live with God in the afterlife. And I was not always uncertain once like you I also was convinced God told me the LDS church was "his" church that blessings in the afterlife were predicated in part on participation in LDS ordinances. Hence I have taken your "risk" I tried Mormonism I think it is a wonderful religion that by and large builds great people. But no I don't think personal spiritual experiences are a good reason to suppose a given religion out of all the many thousands is the "one true way".

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

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.

I vigorously deny the implication that I am not open to the BOM being true. I have provided reasoned argument backed up with appropriate references to defend my position.If you disagree attack my argument show me where it is flawed I assure you I am open to the BOM being true. I am not applying any standard to the BOM witnesses that I do not to any other witnesses including those that agree with my position.For example as I pointed out to Kevin many NDE suffers arrive at the conclusion that which religion you belong to it just doesn't matter when it comes to heavenly rewards. This perfectly dovetails with my own position however given the contradictory teachings of personal spiritual experiences. Taking NDEs as strong evidence for my particular beliefs would be special pleading assigning a stronger evidentiary weight to those witness testimonies that agree with my particular beliefs and explaining away in an ad hoc fashion all the witness testimony that does not support my beliefs. Hence I don't view NDEs as strong evidence for my position even though many of them agree with me. I am applying this exact same standard to the BOM witnesses where is the flaw in my logic? Don't just attack my presumed motives attack my argument.

All the best,

Uncertain

[Daniel Peterson]

I vigorously deny the implication that I am not open to the BOM being true. I have provided reasoned argument backed up with appropriate references to defend my position.If you disagree attack my argument show me where it is flawed

I haven't read a line that you've written on this thread until now, wasn't thinking of you when I posted, and have implied nothing about you.

Don't take it personally.

Don't just attack my presumed motives attack my argument.

Sigh.

I've got to . . . edited to avoid irritating rockslider and those of similar mindset. Have you read Richard Anderson's works on the Witnesses? If not, I recommend them.

[Uncertain]

I haven't read a line that you've written on this thread until now, wasn't thinking of you when I posted, and have implied nothing about you.

Don't take it personally.

Sigh.

Hi Dan,

Sounds like I jumped to conclusions. I read it as implying that all who don't view the BOM witnesses as strong evidence for Mormonism are doing so because they have a preexisting comment to the BOM being false. I have no doubt for some this is true I don't believe this is true for all. In any case sorry for the misunderstanding.

I've got to . . . edited to avoid irritating rockslider and those of similar mindset. Have you read Richard Anderson's works on the Witnesses? If not, I recommend them.

Haven't read his book have read a number of his articles. If he is arguing in his book that the BOM witnesses were by and large honorable honest men who firmly believe they viewed an angel and physically handled the plates I agree with him. All of the above is firmly supported by the historical evidence in my opinion. I dare say I agree with 95% of what I have seen written by FAIR/FARMS concerning the BOM witnesses.

[Molloch]

If anyone is open to sharing their reasons for dismissing this as a valid witness please share.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I guess I would have to say......They were in on it too?

[Lamanite]

I'm still on pause. I'll be back when I'm done re-evaluating

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Well I'm back. Here is my best attempt at articulating how I feel about this subject and the issues we've discussed so far.

I assert that the witness of Whitmer, Cowdery, and Harris stand alone and independent of other worldwide and historical spiritual manifestations. It does not need to be validated externally. It is a witness that can be accepted based on its own merits.

These witnesses were three normal, well respected men. These men came together, and in a unified voice, declared to the entire world that they had a physical experience with certain plates.

Of the Book of Mormon Terryl Givens writes:

This is a "book actually 'deposited' in the earth, and consisting of a physical, tangible medium-actual gold-plates-lifts the revelatory experience beyond the nebulous stuff of visions and alters the whole dynamic of the religious claims Smith would be making. It shifts the debate- at least partly- from the realm of interiority and subjectivity toward that of empiricism and objectivity." Givens, 2002 p.12

This "empiricism" combined with the plurality and unanimity of the witness carries a powerful punch. This witness statement begs to be investigated. Why? Because three normal guys with everything to lose and almost nothing to gain said they shared a common experience; and if accurate would carry Eternal consequences.

To be sure, this witness is both powerful and compelling. It begged me to investigate. And I don't know how it does not tug and pull at anyone within its influence. And now that I believe, this witness stands as an expression of God's abiding love.

I don't think as a critic you should dismiss this witness with the casualness that has been displayed here. Nor do I think critics need to start creating ridiculously elaborate scenario's so that the witness statement fits within their non-believing paradigm.

It would be refreshing to hear. "Wow, that is certainly a statement that carries depth and weight for a number of reasons. Do I believe it? No. Can I explain it? No." I think this type of honest admission is admirable. Creating an endless supply of ad hoc reasoning is not very becoming. (Talking to no one in particular.)

Big UP!

Lamanite

3DOP, I need to start a new thread about my apparent conflicting statements so as to preserve the topic of this thread.

[Daniel Peterson]

I guess I would have to say......They were in on it too?

Maybe. Except that there's no evidence to show such a conspiracy, and considerable evidence indicating that these were men of solid character and good reputation.

[Lamanite]

Maybe. Except that there's no evidence to show such a conspiracy, and considerable evidence indicating that these were men of solid character and good reputation.

This continued assertion by critics is getting tiresome. It's a little embarrassing too.

No Big UP for the conspiracy theory,

Lamanite