Ida Smith, Chris Nemelka, and Spiritual Witnesses of Truth

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Listen to her video as well. She describes reading the Sealed Portion while weeping and marking passages. She had this experience repeatedly over a significant span of time (weeks or months if I recall correctly). The interviewer asked her how she knows the book is true and she responds multiple times that she read it (hearkening back to her strong spiritual reaction as she read).

Besides, must she actually state "I had a Holy Ghost experience." She described an experience that, in the context of a faith promoting experience, any LDS would understand as a witness from the Holy Ghost. If I was a missionary and she had this experience reading the BOM, I would have told her outright that it was the Holy Ghost. The only reason you have to dismiss her almost identical experience is that it conflicts with your own spiritual witness. I think you need to do better than that.

Yeah she should. When I bore testimony and was asked on my mission how I knew the BoM was true, I never said, "I read many passages and wept and then marked them in red".

I said, "I knew it was true by the power of teh HG because I read the book and prayed to ask my HF if it was true".

As to your point "She described an experience that, in the context of a faith promoting experience, any LDS would understand as a witness from the Holy Ghost." I disagree.

Just weeping and getting emitional is not really how I would relate to the HG. Thanks for your response though. I will state that her experiance sounds quite a bit different from my own. That is the reason I reject her "witness" among other things.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And once again I repeat she did not, at least in reference to the promptings of the Holy Ghost. I and several others have tried to explain why it isn't the same and you continue to act as if nothing was said.

You are once again correct. I think this is soon going to be on the "this is pointless" board, soon if FC doesnt' start to actually respond and udnerstand what we are saying.

[Fifth Columnist]

Yeah she should. When I bore testimony and was asked on my mission how I knew the BoM was true, I never said, "I read many passages and wept and then marked them in red".

I said, "I knew it was true by the power of teh HG because I read the book and prayed to ask my HF if it was true".

As to your point "She described an experience that, in the context of a faith promoting experience, any LDS would understand as a witness from the Holy Ghost." I disagree.

Just weeping and getting emitional is not really how I would relate to the HG. Thanks for your response though. I will state that her experiance sounds quite a bit different from my own. That is the reason I reject her "witness" among other things.

Please read the following testimony. http://lds.org/liahona/1988/02/the-book-changed-my-life?lang=eng

This person did not use the word "Holy Ghost" either, but almost every Mormon knows what happened. This person's experience is virtually the same as Ida's.

[Fifth Columnist]

I am being accused of not responding to everyone's arguments so let me provide a recap:

My argument:

1. Ida read the Sealed Portion and "had an intense, life-changing reaction when she read the book [the sealed portion revealed by Nemelka]. She devoured it over six weeks, in the process emptying two boxes of tissues and several red ballpoint pens as she wept and underlined page after page of scripture."

2. This same experience would be considered a valid Holy Ghost experience to a Mormon reading the Book of Mormon. I cited this testimony given by Joseph Jung on LDS.org as evidence. http://lds.org/liaho...y-life?lang=eng. Joseph stated "As I read these words [from the Book of Mormon], I started to cry. My heart was filled with the great love the Lord has for me. I cried in my heart,

[CQUIRK]

False. Christianity isn't based on the promise of Moroni. Nor is it based on one man's claimed revelations, none of which can be verified.

What about the accounts from Genesis and other portions of the Bible that can't be verified by scientists? How can the entire Bible be based on scientific fact? How can most of it be based on scientific fact? Especially when there's no scientific evidence of God and Satan debating over Job's faith.

Christianity isn't based on scientific fact- but faith, first and foremost. So get over your own false notions.

BTW, Joseph Smith already predicted the American Civil War 20 years before it took place and BY also predicated Utah's future prosperity, both which came true and are verified.

[Hughes]

False. Christianity isn't based on the promise of Moroni. Nor is it based on one man's claimed revelations, none of which can be verified.

What about the accounts from Genesis and other portions of the Bible that can't be verified by scientists? How can the entire Bible be based on scientific fact? How can most of it be based on scientific fact? Especially when there's no scientific evidence of God and Satan debating over Job's faith.

Christianity isn't based on scientific fact- but faith, first and foremost. So get over your own false notions.

BTW, Joseph Smith already predicted the American Civil War 20 years before it took place and BY also predicated Utah's future prosperity, both which came true and are verified.

I didn't claim that Christianity was based on scientific facts.

Christianity is based on the writing and faith of those eye-witnesses to those events of which they write or report on, the major difference is that the Bible has many different writers, and many historical facts that support their writings.

Mormonism rests on but one man, and all trust is laid on him, and there's no way to verify if what he said or translated is accurate or not.

[Vex]

3. Vex's argument that the Holy Ghost confirmed the truth of a few items of universal truth in the Sealed Portion, but Ida misinterpreted it as confirming the truth of the entire book

- My response is that this calls into question the everyone's interpretation of spiritual experiences, including Mormons. Ida obviously thought her spiritual experience confirmed the truth of all the Sealed Portion, just like most Mormons believe their spiritual experiences confirm the truth of all of Mormonism. If it is so easy to misinterpret these experiences, then they cannot be viewed as a reliable indicator of truth.

Of which you have not countered the point; yet I have qualified my statements making your claim strained at best. That is the point you seem to have missed.

4. Vex's arguments that seem to require me to defend Nemelka's role as a prophet and argue that everything Nemelka said is consistent with what Joseph Smith said.

- My response is that I don't care whether Nemelka is a prophet or whether he has been consistent with Joseph Smith. It doesn't matter to the point of the thread, which is that different people (Ida, Joseph Jung, myself, Muslims, evangelicals, etc.) experienced the same powerful experience yet reached contradictory conclusions.

Which has already been answered there too, which you have yet to address also. Your responses are wanting.

[TAO]

I am being accused of not responding to everyone's arguments so let me provide a recap:

My argument:

Rebuttal arguments:

Please answer my point as well - which is that other people's witnesses don't matter when compared to your own. In other words, your own witnesses decide everything.

[Fifth Columnist]

Please answer my point as well - which is that other people's witnesses don't matter when compared to your own. In other words, your own witnesses decide everything.

You seem to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost prompts people in conflicting ways, yet you still think you should trust your own witness. I disagree. If the Holy Ghost cannot provide a unified message, then I think it calls into question the whole idea of a Holy Ghost. Why would he witness to one person that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet and then witness to the next person that the LDS Church is the only true Church on the earth?

[Fifth Columnist]

Of which you have not countered the point; yet I have qualified my statements making your claim strained at best. That is the point you seem to have missed.

Which has already been answered there too, which you have yet to address also. Your responses are wanting.

Vex, I appreciate your earlier responses. I think, however, that many of your arguments represent a brand of Mormonism that is somewhat unique. For example, You seem to view any Holy Ghost experiences that did not follow the strict confines of Moroni's promise as somehow being invalid (the examples I gave were spiritual experiences in sacrament meeting and EFY). Although that's interesting, I think it is very much a minority view amongst Mormons.

You also expanded the meaning of spiritual witnesses to refer to prophets, scriptures, and the Holy Ghost. I think most people view the prophets and scriptures as witnesses in a sense, but the Holy Ghost experience is the means by which we know that the prophets and scriptures are true. Ultimately, everything comes down to the spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost.

You have also cited the fact that there is a perceived conflict between the views of Ida and Nemelka and Joseph Smith as somehow invalidating Ida's Holy Ghost experience. I suspect that there are ways to mesh their views so that there is no conflict. I am not interested in doing that, however, since I am not an apologist for Nemelka. I don't think it matters anyway since the root of the conflict centers on the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost (or his boss, God) inspired Joseph to record a revelation, the Holy Ghost then tells Ida that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, and the Holy Ghost also tells Ida that the Sealed Portion is true. If you are right that there is a conflict, then it just goes to illustrate how unreliable the Holy Ghost can be.

[TAO]

You seem to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost prompts people in conflicting ways, yet you still think you should trust your own witness.

No, not quite. What I ackonwledge is that I will never know what they did to prompt - that I will never know how much or to what degree they were seeking. I can never feel what they felt. Thus, I think it incorrect for me to use their experiences as evidence for myself.

I disagree. If the Holy Ghost cannot provide a unified message, then I think it calls into question the whole idea of a Holy Ghost.

Let's say you had two scientists who said different things. One said 'light is a particle'. The other said 'light is a ray'. In fact, scientists across the world are split on the two ideas. How are you going to decide yourself - by which one has more supporters? No. What you are going to do is you are going to test it yourself, and not trust what either scientist says. So is the same here. You trust your own spiritual experiences alone for your own beliefs. You do not listen to people just because they say 'it's this way' or 'it's that way'. Instead, you find out for yourself. Who knows, you might find, like the scientists would later, that it is a bit of a combination of both. But you won't know until you test it yourself.

Why would he witness to one person that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet and then witness to the next person that the LDS Church is the only true Church on the earth?

I don't think it's the spirit that is the problem. I think it's our interpretation of it that has the problem. As a result, I only trust my own interpretation of it for my own belief. I do not rely on others to have faith for me. I do it myself.

BTW, I do think Mohammed was inspired to some degree. Truth is truth, and good is good to me.

So again, I ask, considering these things, why do you not think a belief in the prophets and apostles is an adequate reason to not trust the guy? After that, we can go to a trust in D&C, I suppose. Section 43, I believe.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Please read the following testimony. http://lds.org/liahona/1988/02/the-book-changed-my-life?lang=eng

This person did not use the word "Holy Ghost" either, but almost every Mormon knows what happened. This person's experience is virtually the same as Ida's.

Oh boy. I feel like we are on a merry go round. Just going round and round in circles. Virtually every LDS (I am not aware of one that has agreed with you) active member that as responded to you on this board seems not to relate to Ida's claims. Therfore I can only conclude that you feel that paroting your same mantra will some how win the debate.

[Fifth Columnist]

Oh boy. I feel like we are on a merry go round. Just going round and round in circles. Virtually every LDS (I am not aware of one that has agreed with you) active member that as responded to you on this board seems not to relate to Ida's claims. Therfore I can only conclude that you feel that paroting your same mantra will some how win the debate.

Thanks for repeating the statement that your experience was not the same as Ida's. Merry-go-round indeed.

I responded to this argument above.

2. Ida's experience is not the same as yours.

- My response is that I have provided evidence that her experience is virtually the same as Joseph Jung's Holy Ghost experience with the BOM (and my own when I was growing up, but I expect that you would discount it). It doesn't matter that you have not had exactly the same experience. If Ida's experience is invalid then so are countless other experiences by Mormons.

Do you also reject Joseph Jung's Holy Ghost experience as related in the Liahona? Do you extend your logic to reject anyone else's Holy Ghost experience as long as it was different than your own?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I will not deny Ida had an experience, my conclusion on it's source is different then hers or yours. You say it was the Holy Ghost, I say it was her own desire to find things which she could not understand. Like the early Jews...

Jacob 4:14

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness,which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

[beth]

quote]

beth, on 03 February 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

Say what you will but the fact is that public schools teach facts and are generally pretty accurate.

SEPARATES WATER & DRY LAND said:

"Not really, and is entirely dependent upon the location, principality, and leanings of those who dictate the curriculum. For instance I was made aware that many of the elementary books that covered the civil war are not standardized and many have agendas with which they contribute; for instance 'The War of Northern Aggression' as opposed to 'The Civil War'. There are also instances of government mandated propaganda infiltrating such lessons and discussions in the form of McCarthyisms just after WWII. This was tuned down in later years and is repeatedly brought up, albeit more subtly, when discussing Communism as late as the 1990's."

BETH: Not sure where you went to school but the public school I went to taught that the Civil War was a Civil War, they didn't seem to promote any hidden agenda. Maybe a few fringe teachers somewhere teach something radical, but as a whole, I would say our modern public school system teaches facts. They don't teach 2+2=5, they don't teach the Sun revolves around the earth and they don't teach horses were in abundance in the Americas during the BofM time period.

BETH: And the fact is that the over-whelming majority of the scientific community would argue that there were no horses in the Americas duing BOM times.

SEPARATES WATER & DRY LAND said:

That's highly contestable as research in that current field is still on going and has placed horse remains much closer than previously assumed in the Americas. This may prove enlightening. FAIR article: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=1&id=246

BETH: That one-page article was not very convincing. Did that article cause anyone else to throw out their history books?

[Mortal Man]

Perhaps I have a different persepective than some of you. As most of you are already devout members of the Mormon Church, you already "know" Nemelka is not a prophet so you read his scripture without giving him any serious consideration that it might be true. Kinda like an investigator to the Mormon Church that won't consider that the BOM is true.

I decided to give them equal, real consideration this past weekend. I read some of the BofM scriptures on Saturday and sincerely prayed about them that night, with real intent as missionaries have told me too. I did not read any of Nemelka's sealed portion that day as to not confuse the 2. On Sunday I read some of Nemelka's sealed portion and prayed that night just as intently if it was true.

When I was reading the BofM, it seemed like I was reading a real historical account and I could imagine their stories as if they were real. When I prayed about it to "know for sure" if what I was reading was actual, literal history and not just a story, I did not get any real answer. I heard no voices nor could I detect any external influence telling me it was literally true.

The next day, when I was reading Nemelka's sealed portion, it likewise seemed like I was reading a real historical account and I could imagine their stories as if they were real. When I prayed about it to "know for sure" if what I was reading was actual, literal history and not just a story, I also did not get any real answer. I likewise heard no voices nor could I detect any external influence telling me it was literally true.

This was very disappointing. The stories both seem like they are ancient works about real people and real events when I read them. I prayed about each one independently (on different days) yet no answers were forthcoming on either one. From merely reading, thinking about and praying about these scriptures, I cannot determine if either one of them is really scripture from God.

I don't see from praying alone, how someone could "know for sure" that a book is literal history or not. I think that many people make up their mind before they pray about the church and just think they get an answer that confirms what they believed already. This seems like kind of a poor way to discern truth.

Hi beth,

I've enjoyed your posts in this thread, especially the one above.

MM

[Vex]

Say what you will but the fact is that public schools teach facts and are generally pretty accurate.

SEPARATES WATER & DRY LAND said:

"Not really, and is entirely dependent upon the location, principality, and leanings of those who dictate the curriculum. For instance I was made aware that many of the elementary books that covered the civil war are not standardized and many have agendas with which they contribute; for instance 'The War of Northern Aggression' as opposed to 'The Civil War'. There are also instances of government mandated propaganda infiltrating such lessons and discussions in the form of McCarthyisms just after WWII. This was tuned down in later years and is repeatedly brought up, albeit more subtly, when discussing Communism as late as the 1990's."

BETH: Not sure where you went to school but the public school I went to taught that the Civil War was a Civil War, they didn't seem to promote any hidden agenda. Maybe a few fringe teachers somewhere teach something radical, but as a whole, I would say our modern public school system teaches facts. They don't teach 2+2=5, they don't teach the Sun revolves around the earth and they don't teach horses were in abundance in the Americas during the BofM time period.

A well rounded teacher would tell you the history of why things are the way they are. The civil war was just one example:

Naming of the American Civil War. So if it was just dictated to you as "The Civil War" then your teacher has done you a disservice when you were growing up; and you further validate my point in that any presentation of facts is inherently swayed by those who are communicating them to you.

Now to validate your point you go to arithmetic which is a baseless assumption on numerics, which if you continue with education into higher levels of mathematics you realize that you can not simply say 2+2=4, but must in fact prove that 2+2=4 based on other methods and logic:

Mathematical Proof. However doing so still does not remove ones own view from how or why something is, thus the fact you so readily purport as fact is nothing more than one individuals view of something that is.

But your example falls even shorter when you consider the subject matter at hand: Mathematics is a science in that no philosophy or morality is taught there in. However more open subjects such as Language and History classes offer more ability for the teachers to teach to tests as well as teach their own spin on the subject. For instance; the name of The Civil War. Teachers discussing Communism in a capitalist state are going to discuss the same facts very differently than a Communist state talking about Communism, and vice versa.

BETH: And the fact is that the over-whelming majority of the scientific community would argue that there were no horses in the Americas duing BOM times.

Let's go ahead and back this one up. Let's see where you pull this reference from. Let's see numbers.

SEPARATES WATER & DRY LAND said:

That's highly contestable as research in that current field is still on going and has placed horse remains much closer than previously assumed in the Americas. This may prove enlightening. FAIR article: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=1&id=246

BETH: That one-page article was not very convincing. Did that article cause anyone else to throw out their history books?

Did I say it would throw out your history books? Better yet, go look up your history book and tell me what page number they say Horses on the American continent were not there until the Spanish brought them (thus you would have to throw out your book anyways since they make no reference to the horses that already were on the continent but had died out). You seem to demand evidence of one thing, and when presented to them you dictate that the evidence is not convincing enough. I'm sensing bias on weight of evidence.

[Fifth Columnist]

No, not quite. What I ackonwledge is that I will never know what they did to prompt - that I will never know how much or to what degree they were seeking. I can never feel what they felt. Thus, I think it incorrect for me to use their experiences as evidence for myself.

So how do you explain the apparent conflict between your spiritual experience and Ida's? Are you saying that both are equally valid and that Ida has chosen the correct path for her? Or are you saying that there really is something that makes Ida's experience invalid (e.g., she didn't seek enough) but you just don't have enough information to figure out what it is?

Let's say you had two scientists who said different things. One said 'light is a particle'. The other said 'light is a ray'. In fact, scientists across the world are split on the two ideas. How are you going to decide yourself - by which one has more supporters? No. What you are going to do is you are going to test it yourself, and not trust what either scientist says. So is the same here. You trust your own spiritual experiences alone for your own beliefs. You do not listen to people just because they say 'it's this way' or 'it's that way'. Instead, you find out for yourself. Who knows, you might find, like the scientists would later, that it is a bit of a combination of both. But you won't know until you test it yourself.

I'm not a fan of your analogy since I doubt even Mormons would turn to a spiritual experience to answer this question. I think most would carefully weight the evidence and make a decision accordingly (if the evidence is truly split then most would probably wait for additional evidence). That said, I'll try to run with it as much as I can. The problem I am referring to would occur in your hypothetical if I prayed about it and God told me light is a wave, but some other scientists did the same thing and God gave them conflicting answers. Why should I automatically assume that my experience is correct and valid and the others' are not? This would certainly cause me to question whether this was a valid methodology to determine the true nature of light.

I don't think it's the spirit that is the problem. I think it's our interpretation of it that has the problem. As a result, I only trust my own interpretation of it for my own belief. I do not rely on others to have faith for me. I do it myself.

If interpreting the spirit is so difficult, then what basis do you have to trust your own interpretation? After all, interpreting spiritual experiences is so difficult that most of the religious adherents on planet earth have interpreted them incorrectly since their experiences have led them down a different path than to God's only true Church.

So again, I ask, considering these things, why do you not think a belief in the prophets and apostles is an adequate reason to not trust the guy? After that, we can go to a trust in D&C, I suppose. Section 43, I believe..

Okay, so you really are arguing that your experience is valid and Ida's is not. Your argument seems to be that although you are not Ida and did not experience what she experienced, you are certain she is wrong because it conflicts with what you have experienced (spiritual experience confirming that the LDS Church is led by prophets and apostles), which you are certain is true because you experienced it. The only thing you have established is that you and Ida had conflicting spiritual experiences. You have done nothing to demonstrate why yours is superior. If your reason is that you experienced it, then why isn't Ida's just as valid under the same argument (i.e., she experienced it).

[Calm]

A well rounded teacher would tell you the history of why things are the way they are. The civil war was just one example:

Naming of the American Civil War. So if it was just dictated to you as "The Civil War" then your teacher has done you a disservice when you were growing up; and you further validate my point in that any presentation of facts is inherently swayed by those who are communicating them to you.

My favourite example is the "War of 1812"...which we Americans are taught that we won as well as being forced into taking aggressive actions in our own defense ....

How we managed to win when the Canadians (British subjects at the time) not only kicked us out of their own country after we invaded it (without formally announcing an act of war IIRC, some have equated America's actions to the Japanese at Pearl Harbor), but conquered our capital and burned it and at the time the war ended they were in possession of a great amount of US territory while Americans had zip of British is quite remarkable.

[Senator]

FC

I must confess that your queries, and the several responses to them, have be very interesting and educational.

Good thread!

[TAO]

So how do you explain the apparent conflict between your spiritual experience and Ida's? Are you saying that both are equally valid and that Ida has chosen the correct path for her? Or are you saying that there really is something that makes Ida's experience invalid (e.g., she didn't seek enough) but you just don't have enough information to figure out what it is?

I don't attempt to explain it... I don't really hold them on equal levels. Because I have felt my own experiences, and understand them the most out of anybody on Earth (except God =D), I view them as far more valid than other people's. I also think people's expression of spiritual experiences also does not communicate well (much as trying to describe a strawberry to someone who has never tasted one doesn't communicate well). Another reason is that I believe for spiritual experience, there are certain required elements; faith, humility, focus, and will... and I can never know what Ida had when she had hers. I do not know if she did all she could do. I can only know what I did.

Those are the general reasons thought that I view my own experiences as totally valid, and yet do not consider the spiritual experiences of others.

I'm not a fan of your analogy since I doubt even Mormons would turn to a spiritual experience to answer this question. I think most would carefully weight the evidence and make a decision accordingly (if the evidence is truly split then most would probably wait for additional evidence). That said, I'll try to run with it as much as I can. The problem I am referring to would occur in your hypothetical if I prayed about it and God told me light is a wave, but some other scientists did the same thing and God gave them conflicting answers. Why should I automatically assume that my experience is correct and valid and the others' are not? This would certainly cause me to question whether this was a valid methodology to determine the true nature of light.

Well then you should go with the light wave =). You go with whatever God tells you, because you cannot experience what the others are, and it is not good to be dependent on other people for such an important thing.

If interpreting the spirit is so difficult, then what basis do you have to trust your own interpretation? After all, interpreting spiritual experiences is so difficult that most of the religious adherents on planet earth have interpreted them incorrectly since their experiences have led them down a different path than to God's only true Church.

To sum it up again, I trust my own interpretation because: 1) I want to be responsible for my own actions, 2) I cannot verify how the other person was acting inside when they asked, 3) I have felt my own experience, and 4) spiritual experiences do not communicate well just as most sense do not communicate well before you experience them yourself.

Okay, so you really are arguing that your experience is valid and Ida's is not. Your argument seems to be that although you are not Ida and did not experience what she experienced, you are certain she is wrong because it conflicts with what you have experienced (spiritual experience confirming that the LDS Church is led by prophets and apostles), which you are certain is true because you experienced it.

Nah, it's an I am not sure she is wrong. However, I have also experienced experiences which have led me to trust the prophets. The D&C (and the prophets themselves) say that the revelation will come through them if it will come. Thus, I say, I do not believe Nemelka. What Ida experience I have no idea of, but it does not really matter, as I do not agree with her conclusion. I don't hold this against her though... it's not for me to judge her, I'm sure she is a fine person =).

In any case, God has given me the feeling that I should not try to voice excessively against Ida, as she is not really one who is in much err. I should not heed her, but neither should I douse kindness, which needs bloom over everyone, making the world a better place.

The only thing you have established is that you and Ida had conflicting spiritual experiences. You have done nothing to demonstrate why yours is superior. If your reason is that you experienced it, then why isn't Ida's just as valid under the same argument (i.e., she experienced it).

I think I explained it a bit better now =D. Thanks for your response,

Best Wishes,

TAO

[CQUIRK]

I didn't claim that Christianity was based on scientific facts.

= You can't rely on science to specifically verify the truth of a religion in the first place.

Christianity is based on the writing and faith of those eye-witnesses to those events of which they write or report on, the major difference is that the Bible has many different writers, and many historical facts that support their writings.

= Same thing with the BOM; Mormon and Moroni aren't its only writers, and let's not forget that 11 other people have also seen the plates besides Joseph.

Mormonism rests on but one man, and all trust is laid on him, and there's no way to verify if what he said or translated is accurate or not.

= There's also no way to verify if what he said was total hogwash either; there's no conclusive evidence for either side, really. Maybe that may someday change, who knows?

[CQUIRK]

What Ida experience I have no idea of, but it does not really matter, as I do not agree with her conclusion. I don't hold this against her though... it's not for me to judge her, I'm sure she is a fine person =).

I disagree. I think she's looney-tunes and of the same flock as the many spectators at Obama's inauguration that got so worked up and hysterical about it to the point of having 'visions' and seeing things that weren't there.

[Hughes]

= You can't rely on science to specifically verify the truth of a religion in the first place.

= Same thing with the BOM; Mormon and Moroni aren't its only writers, and let's not forget that 11 other people have also seen the plates besides Joseph.

= There's also no way to verify if what he said was total hogwash either; there's no conclusive evidence for either side, really. Maybe that may someday change, who knows?

Since there are no witnesses to the plates (as it was stated that anyone who looked at them would die), and then it's claimed Moroni took them back, it's unlikely they existed at all. Which brings into question whether any of the claimed writers for the BoM existed either.

What can be verified about the claims of Smith is nothing at all. But, what can be seen are the effects he and his teaching had on the world around him. Those effects are largely negative.

[Vex]

Since there are no witnesses to the plates (as it was stated that anyone who looked at them would die)

Huh, who know the 3+8 witnesses didn't witness the plates?

and then it's claimed Moroni took them back

Yeah? And? At least it's known what happened to the original of the Book of Mormon. Care to enlighten us where the original versions of the Biblia are?

it's unlikely they existed at all.

Which can be said for the Biblia as well... You do see that your argument cuts both ways? If you continually pursue this same line of argument you only undercut your position on the authenticity of the Bible.

Which brings into question whether any of the claimed writers for the BoM existed either.

Or the Bible for that matter.

Hughes are you sure you're not an anti-biblicist as well?

What can be verified about the claims of Smith is nothing at all.

Which are obviously false considering his learning at the time and the complexity of the Book itself. Then one must imagine alternatives to support the interconnectivity, doctrine, and applications there from that occurred. But hey, if you poison the well enough I'm sure there's no water to drink.

But, what can be seen are the effects he and his teaching had on the world around him. Those effects are largely negative.

Yes... Negative indeed. Remind me who are the first responders to natural disaster? Who are the ones going out and preaching Christ Resurrected to the masses without purse or script?