Ida Smith, Chris Nemelka, and Spiritual Witnesses of Truth

[Hughes]

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

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? 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. Or the Bible for that matter.

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

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.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?

Sorry, it's not *known* what happened to the plates if they existed at all. It's all based on faith.

One doesn't need to dig very deep to see that Joseph Smith had a negative impact on those around him.

The fact that the LDS church does do good things today, is in spite of Joseph's example.

[Vex]

Sorry, it's not *known* what happened to the plates if they existed at all. It's all based on faith.

Quid pro quo.

One doesn't need to dig very deep to see that Joseph Smith had a negative impact on those around him.

Such as?

The fact that the LDS church does do good things today, is in spite of Joseph's example.

Or could it be the fruit of the Prophet... nah, that couldn't be it could it?

I notice you have not made further reference to the other points you have brought up. Does that mean we can consider those points conceded?

[CQUIRK]

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

No witnesses to the plates? Did we wake up on the stupid side of the bed today?

BTW, there's still no evidence that they DIDN'T exist.

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.

Largely negative?

To the Devil and his followers, they are largely negative.

[Hughes]

Quid pro quo.

Such as?

Or could it be the fruit of the Prophet... nah, that couldn't be it could it?

I notice you have not made further reference to the other points you have brought up. Does that mean we can consider those points conceded?

Not sure what you mean with your Quid pro quo.

Joseph Smith's negatively impacted his world. How? Just look at the number of wife's he was sealed to. How many of them were still married to other men?

I don't think I've conceded any points, but I don't have time to chase every rabbit down every trail.

[Hughes]

No witnesses to the plates? Did we wake up on the stupid side of the bed today?

BTW, there's still no evidence that they DIDN'T exist.

Largely negative?

To the Devil and his followers, they are largely negative.

Nope. No witnesses. Not only that, the claimed witnesses were threatened with ex-communication if they didn't sign. Not really an impartial witness, I'd say.

And the fact that they don't exist now, is evidence that they never existed at all. Who in their right mind would think that an angel would need their gold plates back? Angels don't need gold.

Joseph Smith's negative impact is still felt today by the many ex-mormons who feel they've been lied to by the organization he started.

[Vex]

Not sure what you mean with your Quid pro quo.

It means I'll give it to you if you admit that the same argument works against the Bible. Hence: Quid pro quo, '*** for Tat', etc.

Joseph Smith's negatively impacted his world. How? Just look at the number of wife's he was sealed to. How many of them were still married to other men?

Yet this does not prove it has a negative effect on anyone. You are still wanting for your argument to work. Try again

I don't think I've conceded any points, but I don't have time to chase every rabbit down every trail.

It looks to me as though you have a hard time even seeing the rabbits.

The points you have yet to address:

1. Location and condition of original biblia manuscripts
   
2. Your argument undercuts your own position on the matter
   
3. 3+8 witnesses of the plates themselves
   

Those three points aren't all that hard to respond to are they? Here; I'll give you some help

1. You don't know and can not prove there ever was an authentic manuscript
   
2. Thus being unable to prove those things your argument works against you in the same way you are attempting to use it against the Book of Mormon
   
3. You forgot that there were witnesses of the plates and heavenly messengers
   

[Calm]

Not only that, the claimed witnesses were threatened with ex-communication if they didn't sign.

CFR

And the fact that they don't exist now, is evidence that they never existed at all. Who in their right mind would think that an angel would need their gold plates back? Angels don't need gold.

So no ark then.....

[CQUIRK]

Nope. No witnesses. Not only that, the claimed witnesses were threatened with ex-communication if they didn't sign. Not really an impartial witness, I'd say,

CFR, and why is it that while some of these 11 witnesses did leave the LDS church after Joseph was killed, they never went back on their claim about the gold plates?

You're argument is now falling closer and closer to the ground.

And the fact that they don't exist now, is evidence that they never existed at all. Who in their right mind would think that an angel would need their gold plates back? Angels don't need gold.

Maybe they love to maintain records, or even had to patch up a road in heaven, LOL. But again, your argument- "And the fact that they don't exist now, is evidence that they never existed at all." can be easily applied to many of the spiritual and other events described in the Bible that have yet to be proven as a scientific or historical fact- I guess Adam never existed at all, since we haven't found his body, let alone his grave site yet, LOL.

I guess we have woken up on the stupid side of the bed after all.

Joseph Smith's negative impact is still felt today by the many ex-mormons who feel they've been lied to by the organization he started.

And many of those ex-mormons have either been kicked out for good reasons, like Ed Decker, or simply wore their faith on their sleeve before, that turning against the church and blaiming them for everything was a piece of cake for them.

But then again, that argument can also be applied to Christianity in general- since we had the inquisition and other events in where people have been persecuted or killed in Jesus's name, then we ought to view Jesus's impact on the world as a rather negative and bad effect on everybody else.

-You really aren't getting anywhere here, and it's quite funny.

[beth]

Separates Water & Dry Land said:

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: I would say that whether or not there were modern-day horses in the Americas during BofM times is more of a science question with a Yes or No answer and less like a philosophical issue like the perceptions of the Civil War that is very subjective.

Quote: "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:

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

BETH: OK, I don

[beth]

For some reason, I can't seem to be able to edit posts from my work PC. But these replies are in reponse to things that VEX said.

[Vex]

Beth, this has been discussed ad nausium; may I suggest reading this thread:

for a better understanding (it even has one of the individuals you cited discussing the issue)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nope. No witnesses. Not only that, the claimed witnesses were threatened with ex-communication if they didn't sign. Not really an impartial witness, I'd say.

CFR Hughes. Something tells me you are going to have an epic fail here.

And the fact that they don't exist now, is evidence that they never existed at all. Who in their right mind would think that an angel would need their gold plates back? Angels don't need gold.

Brilliant logic Hughes. Since we don't have original soruces for the bible then the bible does not really exsist.

More have the Hughesian blind faith on dispaly again.

Joseph Smith's negative impact is still felt today by the many ex-mormons who feel they've been lied to by the organization he started.

JS negative impact? If you say so. JS did not lie. Sorry.

[Hughes]

Hughes, on 07 February 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

Sorry, it's not *known* what happened to the plates if they existed at all. It's all based on faith.

It means I'll give it to you if you admit that the same argument works against the Bible. Hence: Quid pro quo, '*** for Tat', etc.

As I've said before, if we didn't have copies of the originals in their original languages, then we'd have a similar situation, that we do for the BoM.

Yet this does not prove it has a negative effect on anyone. You are still wanting for your argument to work. Try again

IT doesn't prove it has a negative effect on anyone? Wow. You're saying that the husbands of said wives weren't negatively impacted by Joseph Smith's actions?

It looks to me as though you have a hard time even seeing the rabbits.

The points you have yet to address:

1. Location and condition of original biblia manuscripts
   
2. Your argument undercuts your own position on the matter
   
3. 3+8 witnesses of the plates themselves
   

Those three points aren't all that hard to respond to are they? Here; I'll give you some help

1. You don't know and can not prove there ever was an authentic manuscript
   
2. Thus being unable to prove those things your argument works against you in the same way you are attempting to use it against the Book of Mormon
   
3. You forgot that there were witnesses of the plates and heavenly messengers
   

Here, I'll help you out.

1. Location and condition of original biblia manuscripts - The copies are evidence of an original manuscript, as they are in the original languages, and there's not one writer, as we have with Joseph Smith.
   
2. Your argument undercuts your own position on the matter - Only if you're LDS and you want to make it look like the BoM has as much evidence as the Biblical text has. Fact remains we've no idea what reformed Egyptian looks like.
   
3. 3+8 witnesses of the plates themselves - None of them are reliable, and no plates equals, no plates. I mean seriously it was only 180 years ago? We've got documents of importance that are not are older and still around, and aren't gold.
   

[Vex]

As I've said before, if we didn't have copies of the originals in their original languages, then we'd have a similar situation, that we do for the BoM.

And yet, you don't know what those copies are of. For all you know it might be a different version of The Hero With a Thousand Faces, thus your own argument undermines your own position. If you continue down this argument path you become stuck in circular logic.

IT doesn't prove it has a negative effect on anyone? Wow. You're saying that the husbands of said wives weren't negatively impacted by Joseph Smith's actions?

There in is your ethos to prove, not to assume. You must show negative impact occurred by association and instance. Until then, yes; my stance is unchanged.

Here, I'll help you out.

Location and condition of original biblia manuscripts - The copies are evidence of an original manuscript, as they are in the original languages, and there's not one writer, as we have with Joseph Smith.

Again, you assert something as fact, but as of yet have not produced a compelling argument to the contrary. We can run with this stance if you want, it will be very easy for you to convince me I am wrong. Tell me who wrote the earliest translation or copy and from what. There's your line in the sand for you.

Your argument undercuts your own position on the matter - Only if you're LDS and you want to make it look like the BoM has as much evidence as the Biblical text has. Fact remains we've no idea what reformed Egyptian looks like.

You mean we don't know what this looks like? Huh... who know?

3+8 witnesses of the plates themselves - None of them are reliable, and no plates equals, no plates. I mean seriously it was only 180 years ago? We've got documents of importance that are not are older and still around, and aren't gold.

You know you're right; the witnesses didn't leave the church, persecute it, and keep their testimonies, thereby making them completely unreliable. Both you and I know that even if the Gold Plates were placed down in front of you, you would not accept them.

[Pahoran]

Since there are no witnesses to the plates

Hughes: I realise that those in the circles you usually move in know nothing at all about the Church of Jesus Christ; as a result you can get away with blatantly asserting things that contradict proven facts.

However, this is not one of those places.

(as it was stated that anyone who looked at them would die),

Call for references, please: when, where and by whom was this "stated?"

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.

That's as truthful as everything else you've asserted: IOW, it's false.

Nope. No witnesses. Not only that, the claimed witnesses were threatened with ex-communication if they didn't sign. Not really an impartial witness, I'd say.

Let's see: according to you there were "no witnesses." And yet somehow those non-existent witnesses "were threatened with ex-communication if they didn't sign."

Well I suppose that makes sense; after all, the Church had not yet been organised, so there was nothing for them to be excommunicated from; so it becomes entirely symmetrical for non-existent witnesses to be threatened with excommunication from a non-existent church.

Actually what's really non-existent is the threat; so I join with others in issuing a formal call for references that "the claimed witnesses were threatened with ex-communication if they didn't sign."

Right now, Hughes, you have two outstanding calls for references before you. By the rules of this forum, you are obligated to either provide the references or retract the claims.

I'm going to venture a prediction here, Hughes: I predict that you won't honour these calls. Oh, I'm aware that the first falsehood is a popular one, and anti-Mormons have been repeating it for a long time. But if you provide a reference, you'll show what discredited sources you rely upon for your "knowledge" of Mormon things. And the second falsehood is so blindingly stupid that I'm inclined to suspect that it is original with you.

In any event, these two false claims are about to be exposed as the hate-based falsehoods they are, so now would be a very good time for you to repudiate them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Hopefully Hughes is at least some of his time before he posts again looking up references for the CFR that has been issued by five? (I've lost count) people so far. If he fails to address it again as he did in this last post, I know I for one will be waving my hand going "Mod, Mod, he's not playing the game by the rules!"

[LDS Guy 1986]

Over in the News portion of this website, Dan Peterson linked to an article about Chris Nemelka and his most prominent follower, Ida Smith. Chris Nemelka claims to be a prophet who has revealed the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon and Ida Smith is a believer.

Here is a link to the thread started by Dan: http://goo.gl/wWwR3

Here is a link to the article: http://goo.gl/52mJK

Here is a link to the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon: http://goo.gl/KQU11

The thing that really struck me about the article is this:

Ida Smith's experience seems like a classic Mormon Holy Ghost experience - except she received a witness that Nemelka is a true prophet (instead of Joseph Smith) and that the Sealed Portion is a true book (instead of the BOM).

How can this be?

I should note that I was struck by this passage because it is very similar to my conversion experience with the BOM when I was a teenager. I read it every night after high school for a few months and had what I thought were amazing spiritual experiences confirming that it was true. I shed many tears and highlighted many verses, just like Ida Smith. How can I say that my experience is valid and hers is not?

Before I respond let's clean up some very big mistakes you made here. Ida Smith nor Nemelka claim that Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon is false. If Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon is false then Chris Nemelka cannot traslate the sealed 2/3rds of the plates.

What Chris Nemelka claims is that after Joseph Smith's death there was no legitimate prophets, LDS, RLDS, FLDS are all apostate Churches. He claims a prophet has never been called from an "organized religion", he claims that as he worked as a security guard in the Salt Lake Temple, Joseph Smith gave him the gold plates to translate the sealed portion of the plates. Chris is now the new prophet called to "fight against all organized religions".

As for your question, how can two different people have a testimony of two different things?

The answer is simple, remember the teachings of the New Testament, many false teachers and false prophets will come and distort the truth. Many people will be deceived by false teachers, and fall away from the truth. The deceiver is always working against the truth that is the restored Gospel, he wants to see it destroyed so people cannot find the truth. His favorite tool is false teachers and false prophets, they deceive the faithful (like Ida Smith, who gave away everything to Chris Nemelka) and give ammunition to Anti-Mormons.

Satan can deceive people into believing his lies are truth, it is sad when it happens but it does.

There are many people who if asked bear testimony that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. They too invoke the name of Jesus Christ when they bear there testimony, but only one (or none) can be right.

The claims of Christ Nemelka though do not hold water very well, his translation is far to short to be the remaining sealed 2/3rds of the golden plates. His translation conflicts with the Bible and the Book of Mormon (though he claims that his translation is inerrant and never conflicts with the scriptures). Also any devout LDS member knows that the D&C contains a promise from Christ that the Church will never fall into great apostasy again. The D&C also claims only one person at a time can receive revelation for the entire Church and world.

So Chris's claims are in direct conflict with the doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith through God. He cannot claim the Church fell into apostasy (since the scriptures says it cannot become apostate again) and since the Church cannot fall into great apostasy again that means Thomas S Monson is the prophet of God and Chris Nemelka cannot be the prophet of God.

In the same article from Dan Peterson (unless I am mistaken) he points out that Chris' claims do not hold up to any academic scrutiny for several of the reasons listed above.

It is sad to see someone deceived by the clever devices of man, but we are warned of the false teachers so it is not crazy to see a false teacher deceive a descendant of Hyrum Smith. It is a reminder though that we must hold to the iron rod and follow the true Church built on a foundation of Apostles and Prophets (see Ephesians 2:20) to not be deceived by Satan.

[stYro]

...any devout LDS member knows that the D&C contains a promise from Christ that the Church will never fall into great apostasy again. The D&C also claims only one person at a time can receive revelation for the entire Church and world.

LDS Guy, you wouldn't mind providing the reference for those passages from the D&C, would you? I tried to do a search at lds.org but couldn't get the search function to work for me.

Thanks,

stYro

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy, you wouldn't mind providing the reference for those passages from the D&C, would you? I tried to do a search at lds.org but couldn't get the search function to work for me.

Thanks,

stYro

No problem D&C 28:1-7 states that only Joseph Smith can hold the keys of the mysteries and only he can receive revelation for the Church. Verse 7 says " For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead." Only Smith and his appointed successors (the other Presidents of the Church) can receive revelation for the Church.

I was incorrect though on the D&C stating that the Church will stand until Christ returns, the closest promise is in D&C 13 where it promises that the priesthood will never be removed again till the Sons of Levi offer again there offerings to the Lord. The scripture that foretells of the Latter-day Church to be destroyed is in Daniel 2:44 "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

I am sorry for that I knew there was a verse I though it was from the D&C not the Old Testament.

[Vex]

No problem D&C 28:1-7 states that only Joseph Smith can hold the keys of the mysteries and only he can receive revelation for the Church. Verse 7 says " For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead." Only Smith and his appointed successors (the other Presidents of the Church) can receive revelation for the Church.

I was incorrect though on the D&C stating that the Church will stand until Christ returns, the closest promise is in D&C 13 where it promises that the priesthood will never be removed again till the Sons of Levi offer again there offerings to the Lord. The scripture that foretells of the Latter-day Church to be destroyed is in Daniel 2:44 "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

I am sorry for that I knew there was a verse I though it was from the D&C not the Old Testament.

If I recall correctly there is something in the D&C about it, but I am fighting off a fever and a few other things right now and won't be able to look/post it.

[beth]

VEX said "Beth, this has been discussed ad nausium; may I suggest reading this thread: <a href=' class='bbc_url' title=''>http://www.mormondia...age__hl__horses</a> for a better understanding (it even has one of the individuals you cited discussing the issue)

I read that thread - sure it discussed it ad nausium - but with no definitive conclusions reached.

You made a big deal about me not being able to support my belief that most non-Mormon scientists would support that there were no modern-day horses in the Americas during BofM times. And then when I provide a list of sources and my methodolgy for proving that, you merely refer me to another thread - as if all of the research I did was meaningless and completed invalidated on some other thread. A simple search on the Internet shows clearly that most non-Mormon scientists believe the that there were no modern-day horses in the Americas during BofM times. Sure, some will disagree but they certainly seem to be in the minority unless the anti-Mormon scientists have rigged the search results in Google to overwhelmingly support only those that hold their view.

Again, the point isn't whether or not there were horses then, but merely that it's a valid anachronism to the BofM. Nemelka's work, similarly cannot be dismissed for comparable anachronisms in his scripture.

[Pahoran]

Bump for Hughes. You have two outstanding calls for references before you.

When, where and by whom was it "stated that anyone who looked at them [i.e. the plates] would die?"

When, where and by whom were "the claimed witnesses threatened with ex-communication if they didn't sign?"

As a Christian[TM] you of course would never stoop to bearing false witness against your neighbours, even if they are only Mormons(ugh!) So naturally you will do your best to make sure that the truth about these allegations comes out.

Won't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Vex]

I read that thread - sure it discussed it ad nausium - but with no definitive conclusions reached.

You made a big deal about me not being able to support my belief that most non-Mormon scientists would support that there were no modern-day horses in the Americas during BofM times. And then when I provide a list of sources and my methodolgy for proving that, you merely refer me to another thread - as if all of the research I did was meaningless and completed invalidated on some other thread. A simple search on the Internet shows clearly that most non-Mormon scientists believe the that there were no modern-day horses in the Americas during BofM times. Sure, some will disagree but they certainly seem to be in the minority unless the anti-Mormon scientists have rigged the search results in Google to overwhelmingly support only those that hold their view.

Again, the point isn't whether or not there were horses then, but merely that it's a valid anachronism to the BofM. Nemelka's work, similarly cannot be dismissed for comparable anachronisms in his scripture.

Let's set this straight; the point I was making is that the science is still on going:

From 2009:

http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2009/12/094.shtml

Puts the extinction date between 7000 and 10500 years, this further indicates that the extinction date is moving closer and closer to the time of the book of mormon.

From 2010:

http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/extinction-176.shtml

The date keeps getting pushed closer and closer:

North America remained home to Equus species for most of the next 2.5 million years until they died out. On latest evidence, that was just 7600 years ago.

That means they are getting to about 5600 BCE, almost 5000 years longer than what you have claimed and posted. If this doesn't drive home the point that the debate (yes, it's a debate in the science circles) that the extinction date is as of yet undetermined and quite possibly even longer still I'm not sure what will.

Your point is moot.

[LDS Guy 1986]

If I recall correctly there is something in the D&C about it, but I am fighting off a fever and a few other things right now and won't be able to look/post it.

I would swear that it is covered in the D&C also. I too am looking but I turned to my trusty Gospel Principals handbook to find supporting scripture! When I finally stumble upon it in the D&C I will be sure to post it for y'all!

[stYro]

No problem D&C 28:1-7 states that only Joseph Smith can hold the keys of the mysteries and only he can receive revelation for the Church. Verse 7 says " For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead." Only Smith and his appointed successors (the other Presidents of the Church) can receive revelation for the Church.

I was incorrect though on the D&C stating that the Church will stand until Christ returns, the closest promise is in D&C 13 where it promises that the priesthood will never be removed again till the Sons of Levi offer again there offerings to the Lord. The scripture that foretells of the Latter-day Church to be destroyed is in Daniel 2:44 "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

I am sorry for that I knew there was a verse I though it was from the D&C not the Old Testament.

Thank you, LDS Guy.

So far I have not seen the LDS church break in pieces and consume any nations or kingdoms. let alone all of them, so I don't think that scripture applies.

Nor have I seen any of Joseph's successors bring forth mysteries or revelations even remotely approaching what he did. For example, compare the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Sections 1-134 and 137 of the D&C (produced by Jospeph over a twenty-year span) with the three sections and two Official Declarations that have been added by five different authors (or committees) in the one hundred sixty-six years since his death. The only one of these additions that increases our knowledge of mysteries is the near-death-like experience of Joseph F. Smith. Therefore, I must conclude that none of Joseph Smith's successors were appointed by God. The actual demonstration of authority from God would be persuasive to me, but occupying the ecclesiastical position of President of the LDS church is not.

stYro