Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[AtticusFinch]

I examine them, using the best historical and logical tools that I can.

And, on that basis, I'm convinced that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were as reliable as human witnesses can be.

Could you be more specific?

[why me]

Could you be more specific?

Here is john whitmer:

There are two notable times that John Whitmer defended his testimony of seeing the plates, after leaving the church. The first was on April 5, 1835, when he was accompanying 8 of a group of 50 men who had sworn to not eat or drink until they had murdered

[AtticusFinch]

Well if they are grounded in good historical evidence like a first hand account and not something written 50 years after the fact. That is a good place to start.

I believe the affidavits from Palmyra were written by people with personal knowledge. An affidavit is a sworn statement. It is testimony.

CFR please.

Joseph said this about almost all of the witnesses when they left the LDS Church. I thought that was common knowledge.

So what. If you have first hand accounts I am willing to look at them. But if all you have is stuff from 1883 from a 3rd hand report, that doesn't count worth beans.

I am not suggesting you accept any of them. I am not asking these questions to decide which are good or bad...but asking how you determined which to believe.

Oh now, not the spaulding missing manuscript again. Why don't you open up yet another thread so we can discuss how this theory has no merrit to it.

I am not asking the question to validate or invalidate the Spaulding theory. I am asking if you read the affidavits from his family and friends and why you chose to discount them, if you did. Was it just because they did not fit into your belief system or is it because you looked into the people who gave them and determined they were liars?

[Anijen]

Could it be so simple that we overlook maybe an obvious answer? When I visited Grandins shop I know he printed many Bibles. When he saw the familiar passages in the Book of Mormon, could he not have used the type set for those passages that he was so use to placing? Thus repeating some of the same errors.

[AtticusFinch]

Here is john whitmer:

There are two notable times that John Whitmer defended his testimony of seeing the plates, after leaving the church. The first was on April 5, 1835, when he was accompanying 8 of a group of 50 men who had sworn to not eat or drink until they had murdered

[LeSellers]

Joseph's witnesses, or most of them, were people he later called liars and not to be trusted.

CFR that he called "most of them", "liars and not to be trusted."

That would mean that, of the eleven witnesses, six or more were on this list.

In a cursory search, I found the following:

Oliver Cowdery, no such statement (but Joseph clearly felt betrayed by his former co-president; and I found one note that he was

[why me]

Atticus said:

I am not asking the question to validate or invalidate the Spaulding theory. I am asking if you read the affidavits from his family and friends and why you chose to discount them, if you did. Was it just because they did not fit into your belief system or is it because you looked into the people who gave them and determined they were liars?

My response:

I think that many people at that time had dubious motives. When the 'gold bible' was announced a slew of people wanted to prove it wrong and take a piece of meat from JS. Many antis would claim this and swear that. But the witnesses to the book, were strong with what they saw. Never denying it when they had many chances to do so. And nothing prevented them from coming clean.

Qustion: many of the apostates at that time and townspeople had a problem with mormonism and with JS's golden bible. And certainly some were saying exactly what you are saying on CAF about mormons and the lds faith. Could I trust you if you were to swear on a affidavit that you wrote or had someone else write for you about JS and the lds church?

[Daniel Peterson]

Could you be more specific?

I have been. Many times.

I recommend the meticulous analysis of Richard Lloyd Anderson (J.D., Harvard University; Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley), particularly in his classic Investigating the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, but also in ""Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses," "Personal Writings of the Book of Mormon Witnesses," "The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Translators," and several other important articles that he's published over the years. I also commend to you John W. Welch and Larry E. Morris, eds., Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness (Provo: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2006), as well as Lyndon Cook's collection of David Whitmer Interviews. I've offered some of my own thoughts on this topic in a two-CD recorded lecture entitled Evidences and Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. And I have a lot more to say, and I will say it in a couple of forthcoming books. (Each of them still probably at least two years off.)

[why me]

I have been. Many times.

I recommend the meticulous analysis of Richard Lloyd Anderson (J.D., Harvard University; Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley), particularly in his classic Investigating the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, but also in ""Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses," "Personal Writings of the Book of Mormon Witnesses," "The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Translators," and several other important articles that he's published over the years. I also commend to you John W. Welch and Larry E. Morris, eds., Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness (Provo: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2006), as well as Lyndon Cook's collection of David Whitmer Interviews. I've offered some of my own thoughts on this topic in a two-CD recorded lecture entitled Evidences and Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. And I have a lot more to say, and I will say it in a couple of forthcoming books. (Each of them still probably at least two years off.)

You are destroying atticus' favorite claim on CAF: The witnesses can not be trusted because JS called them all liars.

I never understood this logic.

[Jaybear]

You are destroying atticus' favorite claim on CAF: The witnesses can not be trusted because JS called them all liars.

I never understood this logic.

You really enjoy tearing down arguments of your own creation.

I believe that the argument would be: The Witnesses are not trustworthy, even your prophet said as much.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You really enjoy tearing down arguments of your own creation.

I believe that the argument would be: The Witnesses are not trustworthy, even your prophet said as much.

That was so much more different then what he originally stated. Good job Jaybear.

[AtticusFinch]

Atticus said:

I am not asking the question to validate or invalidate the Spaulding theory. I am asking if you read the affidavits from his family and friends and why you chose to discount them, if you did. Was it just because they did not fit into your belief system or is it because you looked into the people who gave them and determined they were liars?

My response:

I think that many people at that time had dubious motives. When the 'gold bible' was announced a slew of people wanted to prove it wrong and take a piece of meat from JS. Many antis would claim this and swear that. But the witnesses to the book, were strong with what they saw. Never denying it when they had many chances to do so. And nothing prevented them from coming clean.

so you dismiss offhand because many people had dubious motives?

Qustion: many of the apostates at that time and townspeople had a problem with mormonism and with JS's golden bible. And certainly some were saying exactly what you are saying on CAF about mormons and the lds faith. Could I trust you if you were to swear on a affidavit that you wrote or had someone else write for you about JS and the lds church?

It would depend on the affidavit. For example, I would never sign an affidavit that I saw someone do something they did not do. I would not sign an affidavit saying the LDS is false. I would sign one that said I believe it is false. I could not sign an affidavit about anything that happened back then, having not witnessed it, but I would sign an affidavit saying I was an LDS Missionary. Does that make sense?

[AtticusFinch]

I have been. Many times.

I recommend the meticulous analysis of Richard Lloyd Anderson (J.D., Harvard University; Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley), particularly in his classic Investigating the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, but also in ""Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses," "Personal Writings of the Book of Mormon Witnesses," "The Credibility of the Book of Mormon Translators," and several other important articles that he's published over the years. I also commend to you John W. Welch and Larry E. Morris, eds., Oliver Cowdery: Scribe, Elder, Witness (Provo: The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, 2006), as well as Lyndon Cook's collection of David Whitmer Interviews. I've offered some of my own thoughts on this topic in a two-CD recorded lecture entitled Evidences and Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. And I have a lot more to say, and I will say it in a couple of forthcoming books. (Each of them still probably at least two years off.)

Off topic. Richard Lloyd Anderson is a name I am familiar with. Did he write a book about one of my favorite Mormons (or heroes in general), Porter Rockwell?

Porter was awesome. When I was a missionary, I had a cartoon on my wall. It was a missionary talking to his mission president. It was obvious he was in trouble. The mission president was looking sternly at him. The missionary said, "So I asked myself, what would Jesus do? And I forgave him. But then I asked myself, "what would Porter Rockwell do? And I slugged him."

I loved it

[AtticusFinch]

CFR that he called "most of them", "liars and not to be trusted."

That would mean that, of the eleven witnesses, six or more were on this list.

In a cursory search, I found the following:

Oliver Cowdery, no such statement (but Joseph clearly felt betrayed by his former co-president; and I found one note that he was

[AtticusFinch]

You are destroying atticus' favorite claim on CAF: The witnesses can not be trusted because JS called them all liars.

lol...yes it would, wouldn't it? I will have to find where I read that. If I can;t, I will tell you

I never understood this logic.

The logic is simple...if they are not to be trusted....then why are you trusting them?

[Daniel Peterson]

Off topic. Richard Lloyd Anderson is a name I am familiar with. Did he write a book about one of my favorite Mormons (or heroes in general), Porter Rockwell?

No.

I don't think he has ever written on Utah history, though I could be wrong.

Porter was awesome. When I was a missionary, I had a cartoon on my wall. It was a missionary talking to his mission president. It was obvious he was in trouble. The mission president was looking sternly at him. The missionary said, "So I asked myself, what would Jesus do? And I forgave him. But then I asked myself, "what would Porter Rockwell do? And I slugged him."

I loved it

I enjoy Porter Rockwell stories, too. And J. Golden Kimball stories.

Heck, I just like good stories. I've even got a couple of John Paul II stories that I like.

[ttribe]

I would say i'm not that familiar with these patterns.

Do you think it would be relevant to your belief formation on the topic to have an understanding of such patterns given that you are stating (unequivocally) that the issue at hand is such a fraud?

[ttribe]

I don't think you have any idea how absurd the rock in hat method of translation comes across to most people.

Since you have no special insight into the working of my brain, I'll let you know that you are dead wrong. However, whether the purported method is absurd or not is irrelevant counselor. It is the method that several witnesses describe. So, if you intend to keep your fraud theory in context, you'll have to do so while still accounting for the eyewitness statements.

[AtticusFinch]

No.

I don't think he has ever written on Utah history, though I could be wrong.

You are right. I was thinking about Richard Lloyd Dewey

I enjoy Porter Rockwell stories, too. And J. Golden Kimball stories.

Heck, I just like good stories. I've even got a couple of John Paul II stories that I like.

I am a songwriter. I wrote an LDS Musical....no acting, just songs. Called Phases. About Phases in an LDS life.

[Calm]

Actually, he was Carthage jail. I've been there. It is not a mansion. I've also been to Nauvoo. And the Mansion house, despite the name, was not Tara, let alone Hurst Castle. I think my modest suburban house is bigger than the Nauvoo Mansion house.

And he was so well off he hosted hordes of people at the mansion for free.....or perhaps not.

Initially, Joseph hosted guests free of charge, but was unable to continue to support himself doing so. It eventually became necessary for him to start charging guests in September of 1843.²

http://www.mormonhistoricsitesregistry.org/USA/illinois/nauvoo/mansionHouse/history.htm includes nice photo

[AtticusFinch]

CFR that he called "most of them", "liars and not to be trusted."

That would mean that, of the eleven witnesses, six or more were on this list.

In a cursory search, I found the following:

Oliver Cowdery, no such statement (but Joseph clearly felt betrayed by his former co-president; and I found one note that he was

[ttribe]

Joseph Smith himself said, "Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them" (Smith 1902, 3:232).

The word "mean" = "liar"? Does "up" = "down" too?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The word "mean" = "liar"? Does "up" = "down" too?

And the other comments were specific to the context of the bank.

[LeSellers]

Joseph Smith himself said, "Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them" (Smith 1902, 3:232).

Which is exactly what I had said, was it not?

Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, p. 868, August 1, 1842: in Kirtland, when persecution raged, Oliver Cowdery [among others] ... had been engaged in extensive frauds in the Bank, and were the principle cause of its not being able to meet its liabilities;

Which is not what you claimed.

I cannot find what I read before, but it was an LDS site...not an anti.

So, until I can find it, I must retract what I said and limit my comments to 4 of them.

We seem to be making progress.

I still do not see how "too mean to mention" or that we'd like to forget them makes them liars or untrustworthy.

So, I see that you have just one of your "most of them" (and the original claim that it was all of them, only modified to "most" as a sop to soften the charge a bit) charges with any support at all.

Lehi

[why me]

Joseph Smith himself said, "Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them" (Smith 1902, 3:232).

Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, p. 868, August 1, 1842: in Kirtland, when persecution raged, Oliver Cowdery [among others] ... had been engaged in extensive frauds in the Bank, and were the principle cause of its not being able to meet its liabilities;

I cannot find what I read before, but it was an LDS site...not an anti.

So, until I can find it, I must retract what I said and limit my comments to 4 of them.

I am a little disapointed. I kinda hoped that he did call some of them liars. Heck, if I were in on a fraud and had a fallen out with the head fraudster and he called me a liar later on, I would like nothing more than to claim the scheme was a fraud. Sweet revenge.

But on the other hand, if I saw what I saw and believed what I saw there is nothing much I could do. Just eat being called a liar.

At least you are dialoging and not throwing bombs on the threads. And who knows you may learn something along the way. Please feel free to invite some other CAF posters over for a chat. But please tell them that the tone here is different. No one attacks the catholic church and we tend to treat posters decently as long as they don't attack mormon beliefs through bashing or mocking but disagree with mormon beliefs with respect and with dignity as a catholic should.