Ida Smith, Chris Nemelka, and Spiritual Witnesses of Truth

[cinepro]

If Christopher Nemelka's "sealed portion" can really have such an effect on people, all he needs is a critical mass of followers and some smart people to act as apologists, and he could be unstoppable.

[Hughes]

One problem- the references you cite are known anti-Mormon works written by anti-Mormon authors, especially when it comes to Daniel P. Kidder, a Methodist 'theologian' and active anti-Mormon.

Their claims and accuracy are very much open to question.

The reference to John Cook Bennett's work is ironic since he was excommunicated from the LDS church for adultery, even though he later joined the Strangite church after Joseph's death and lived with their community on Beaver island, in Michigan.

And coincidentally, he had to leave that group over allegations of sexual misconduct as well.

Fawn Brodie's work also borrowed from a lot of John Bennett's and other sources critical of the faith and was refuted by Hugh Nibley. There is a web index that goes further into her book's claims too-

http://en.fairmormon.org/Specific_works/No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith/Index

Some info on Fawn Brodie-

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/brodie.htm

Appreciate that you finally listed some CFR's, but you're still not getting anywhere in your arguments, especially with these unreliable sources of yours.

Having read the supposed refutation to the threats of death by FAIR. They didn't refute the claims, rather they "doubt" their accuracy. Oh well. What is interesting to me is the constant refrain I hear from you guys. "anti-mormon" this or "anti-mormon" that.

You see, to be honest, I don't care who's anti-what, if they speak the truth, I'm interested.

Have Fawn Brodie, Peter Ingersoll, Charles Anthon and Sophia Lewis all been discredited as an unreliable witness? I don't think so.

Has Joseph Smith proved himself reliable? Not in the least.

[Vex]

Having read the supposed refutation to the threats of death by FAIR. They didn't refute the claims, rather they "doubt" their accuracy. Oh well. What is interesting to me is the constant refrain I hear from you guys. "anti-mormon" this or "anti-mormon" that.

You see, to be honest, I don't care who's anti-what, if they speak the truth, I'm interested.

Have Fawn Brodie, Peter Ingersoll, Charles Anthon and Sophia Lewis all been discredited as an unreliable witness? I don't think so.

Has Joseph Smith proved himself reliable? Not in the least.

This makes me laugh.

[Hughes]

Hughes, on 10 February 2011 - 11:31 PM, said:

It is a signed affidavit sworn out by Peter Ingersall before Judge Baldwin of Wayne County Court in New York in December, 1833....

No wonder you spread such misinformation if these are your sources.

Not quite sure what the problem with sworn court affidavits as a source is.

Martin Harris, was threatened with divine condemnation:

And your point is?

The point is that witnesses who are threatened aren't reliable witnesses. In our court system it's called "witness tampering." Threatening a witness is illegal for that reason.

[Deborah]

Not quite sure what the problem with sworn court affidavits as a source is.

Believe it or not people lie in affidavits which was shown time and again in Joseph's court hearings and in the history where many recanted their testimonies which brought persecution on Joseph and the church.

The point is that witnesses who are threatened aren't reliable witnesses. In our court system it's called "witness tampering." Threatening a witness is illegal for that reason.

Seriously?? The only threat had to do with "divine condemnation" as you put it. Someone who would deny the things they knew wouldn't care about this anyway. "Witness tampering"? I think not.

[Nathair/|\]

Not quite sure what the problem with sworn court affidavits as a source is.

The point is that witnesses who are threatened aren't reliable witnesses. In our court system it's called "witness tampering." Threatening a witness is illegal for that reason.

What do you think would have happened to St. Peter if he denied Christ after witnessing the fact of His resurrection?

Before you accept Fawn Brodie as reliable on Joseph Smith, consider how historians receive her biography on Thomas Jefferson.

Yours under the logical oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Hughes]

Believe it or not people lie in affidavits which was shown time and again in Joseph's court hearings and in the history where many recanted their testimonies which brought persecution on Joseph and the church.

Seriously?? The only threat had to do with "divine condemnation" as you put it. Someone who would deny the things they knew wouldn't care about this anyway. "Witness tampering"? I think not.

Believe it or not, people lie all the time. Even those who claim to have revelation from God. Test all things.

"Only" had to do with divine condemnation. I'm not sure if there's a greater condemnation, than what comes from God.

[Hughes]

What do you think would have happened to St. Peter if he denied Christ after witnessing the fact of His resurrection?

Before you accept Fawn Brodie as reliable on Joseph Smith, consider how historians receive her biography on Thomas Jefferson.

Yours under the logical oaks,

Nathair /|\

Thanks be to God that we don't have to accept only one witness, ie Peter's.

And I don't have to accept Fawn's reliability, since none of the others mentioned were contradicted or shown to be false.

[CQUIRK]

Having read the supposed refutation to the threats of death by FAIR. They didn't refute the claims, rather they "doubt" their accuracy. Oh well. What is interesting to me is the constant refrain I hear from you guys. "anti-mormon" this or "anti-mormon" that.

Hey, your arguments are the ones that are laughable, as your sources were already debunked and refuted.

Besides, for someone like John Bennett & Daniel Kidder to be considered "reliable" is like considering Sinead O'Connor to be reliable about the life of Pope John Paul II, or David Duke to be reliable about the life of Booker T. Washington.

No credibility there, still.

You see, to be honest, I don't care who's anti-what, if they speak the truth, I'm interested.

As biased as they are against the Church, they don't speak the truth at all. If you consider that as "truth", then I guess we can consider Mein Kampf as free of any anti-semitism.

However, you really ought to read Jan Shipps stuff on the church if you want to start on proper research.

Have Fawn Brodie, Peter Ingersoll, Charles Anthon and Sophia Lewis all been discredited as an unreliable witness? I don't think so.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Anthon_transcript

http://en.fairmormon.org/Specific_works/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Peter_Ingersoll

http://en.fairmormon.org/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Sophia_Lewis

http://en.fairmormon.org/Viewing_gold_plates_would_result_in_death

Actually, I think so.

Has Joseph Smith proved himself reliable? Not in the least.

He's more reliable then someone like you.

[CQUIRK]

Believe it or not, people lie all the time. Even those who claim to have revelation from God. Test all things.

And especially those that make false claims and slander people or churches as well. But such slanderers and liars fail the test in the end.

[CQUIRK]

Thanks be to God that we don't have to accept only one witness, ie Peter's.

Just like how Joseph wasn't the only one that saw the Gold plates.

And I don't have to accept Fawn's reliability, since none of the others mentioned were contradicted or shown to be false.

Then her take on Joseph Smith is wrong then, as is her take on Thomas Jefferson. But John Bennett, Daniel Kidder, and the others, especially Ed Decker, have been proven wrong also.

[stYro]

But you don't believe they still receive revelation from God?

Hi Vex,

Well I don't think there's much productive that would come from me going back-and-forth with you on your whole post; we obviously have different paradigms.

But yes, I see a great deal of good in the Mormon church and in its leaders, even though I disagree with them on a lot of things, including their claim of being "prophets, seers, and revelators". Very few people and very few institutions are all good or all bad.

stYro

[Hughes]

Hey, your arguments are the ones that are laughable, as your sources were already debunked and refuted.

Besides, for someone like John Bennett & Daniel Kidder to be considered "reliable" is like considering Sinead O'Connor to be reliable about the life of Pope John Paul II, or David Duke to be reliable about the life of Booker T. Washington.

No credibility there, still.

As biased as they are against the Church, they don't speak the truth at all. If you consider that as "truth", then I guess we can consider Mein Kampf as free of any anti-semitism.

However, you really ought to read Jan Shipps stuff on the church if you want to start on proper research.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Anthon_transcript

http://en.fairmormon.org/Specific_works/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Peter_Ingersoll

http://en.fairmormon.org/The_Hurlbut_affidavits#Sophia_Lewis

http://en.fairmormon.org/Viewing_gold_plates_would_result_in_death

Actually, I think so.

He's more reliable then someone like you.

Sorry, the arguments weren't debunked or refuted. Try again.

And bias doesn't matter, truth does.

I don't know who Jan Shipps is, but I guess I'll have to look him/her up.

[Hughes]

And especially those that make false claims and slander people or churches as well. But such slanderers and liars fail the test in the end.

I wonder who you would believe, since anyone who is or who has come out of the LDS faith is seen as making false claims.

In essence, if your only test is whether they agreed with the church or not, that's a nice little circular framework you got there.

Just like how Joseph wasn't the only one that saw the Gold plates.

Then her take on Joseph Smith is wrong then, as is her take on Thomas Jefferson. But John Bennett, Daniel Kidder, and the others, especially Ed Decker, have been proven wrong also.

No one saw the Gold plates, as they all said they did so "through the power of God..." just the same way that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the BoM.

Please, people haven't been, "proven wrong" Maybe one of their arguments... but people aren't an argument to be proven right or wrong.

[Calm]

I wonder who you would believe, since anyone who is or who has come out of the LDS faith is seen as making false claims.

Which is false as you will find out if you research who Jan Shipps is.

[Hughes]

Which is false as you will find out if you research who Jan Shipps is.

Jan doesn't look like she says much of anything useful.

I did find this statement telling.

"When Fawn Brodie, a historian of high repute from another generation, wrote the same in her definitive history of Smith, No Man Knows My History, she received excoriating criticism from the Mormon authorities and was excommunicated. But Jan Shipps is different. Where Brodie was a Mormon who failed to toe the party line Shipps is a non-Mormon who has some nice things to say about Mormons notwithstanding. Brodie was a

[CQUIRK]

Sorry, the arguments weren't debunked or refuted. Try again.

Well, you can't make an argument against them in the first place, all you seem to be doing so far is this-

And bias doesn't matter, truth does.

Yes it does, yet if the source of his "truth" is biased, then it isn't truth at all in the first place.

I don't know who Jan Shipps is, but I guess I'll have to look him/her up.

You should, and she's not a Mormon.

[Hughes]

Well, you can't make an argument against them in the first place, all you seem to be doing so far is this-

Yes it does, yet if the source of his "truth" is biased, then it isn't truth at all in the first place.

You should, and she's not a Mormon.

If you can't make an argument against them, how is it that you can claim they've been refuted?

If an atheist says that the moon orbits the earth. Is that not true because he's biased?

If a Christian says that the moon orbits the earth, is that not true because he's biased?

Truth is true regardless of the source.

Jan Shipps doesn't seems to only make observations about the life of Mormons, she doesn't seem to say anything useful on this topic. If I'm wrong, feel free to quote what you think I've missed, and I'd be glad to look at it.

[CQUIRK]

I wonder who you would believe, since anyone who is or who has come out of the LDS faith is seen as making false claims.

Because their claims have already been proven false. Even the alleged claims made by some exmos of Danite hit squads roaming around Utah, and the total suppression of women of that state makes for a good laugh or even comic material in a Naked Gun movie.

In essence, if your only test is whether they agreed with the church or not, that's a nice little circular framework you got there.

Hey, your test for the truth is comparable to the science the Nazis employed to prove the inferiority of other races.

No one saw the Gold plates, as they all said they did so "through the power of God..." just the same way that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the BoM.

Yet you don't have reliable evidence for such claims at all, so you still don't havn't made any good points.

Please, people haven't been, "proven wrong" Maybe one of their arguments... but people aren't an argument to be proven right or wrong.

But Brodie, Bennett, you, and the others already have, especially Ed Decker.

[CQUIRK]

If you can't make an argument against them, how is it that you can claim they've been refuted

Because they have and you won't admit it, which is quite funny.

If an atheist says that the moon orbits the earth. Is that not true because he's biased?

If a Christian says that the moon orbits the earth, is that not true because he's biased?

That's a proven fact, yet the facts that Joseph Smith was an evil con men and that NOBODY saw the Golden plates have yet to be proven as fact. Unlike the moon's orbit here.

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Truth is true regardless of the source.

Only problem is such claims haven't been established as 'truth', but rather are pointing in the opposite direction.

Jan Shipps doesn't seems to only make observations about the life of Mormons, she doesn't seem to say anything useful on this topic. If I'm wrong, feel free to quote what you think I've missed, and I'd be glad to look at it.

Is Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition about the life of Mormons, or about the religion in general?

-You're doing it again

[CQUIRK]

Jan doesn't look like she says much of anything useful.

More useful and better regarded then your claims and research.

I did find this statement telling.

"When Fawn Brodie, a historian of high repute from another generation, wrote the same in her definitive history of Smith, No Man Knows My History, she received excoriating criticism from the Mormon authorities and was excommunicated. But Jan Shipps is different. Where Brodie was a Mormon who failed to toe the party line Shipps is a non-Mormon who has some nice things to say about Mormons notwithstanding. Brodie was a

[CQUIRK]

Sorry- double post.

[Hughes]

Because they have and you won't admit it, which is quite funny.

That's a proven fact, yet the facts that Joseph Smith was an evil con men and that NOBODY saw the Golden plates have yet to be proven as fact. Unlike the moon's orbit here.

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Only problem is such claims haven't been established as 'truth', but rather are pointing in the opposite direction.

Is Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition about the life of Mormons, or about the religion in general?

-You're doing it again

I find it telling that you feel the need to post an image from gods4suckers.net

If they had been refuted, please post the refutation.

Since the truth isn't changed by one's bias, which you clearly disagree with. And the fact that you think anyone who disagrees with the church is anti, then it's clear to me that you won't find the truth using your methods.

[Hughes]

More useful and better regarded then your claims and research.

So why are we quoting from a website that features the link to "Why I left the Mormon Church"? and especially with other links critical of the faith? And the paragraph about Fawn Brodie isn't a quote from Jan Shipps at all. There's also a few errors in grammar of the article you cited as well.

But don't other churches also reprimand or even kick out members that drag their own faith through the mud, or even preach what is considered false and heretical things in writing and action?

One good example-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Loisy

But even if much of her book was proven wrong, Fawn still apostatized in the church and didn't consider herself a believing member in the first place when she did her book, so the reasoning for her excommunication was quite justified in the end.

Other churches, you mean the Catholic church, yes.

But you don't hear even the catholic church calling them "anti-catholic" or a professional anti- this or that. Only mormons do that. I wonder why?

[CQUIRK]

I find it telling that you feel the need to post an image from gods4suckers.net

Hey, it describes you to the T; you've earned it.

If they had been refuted, please post the refutation.

Already have. If you have any claims against the witnesses of the Gold plates that doesn't come from an exmo or other source that simply bashes everything LDS in general, then please post it.

Since the truth isn't changed by one's bias, which you clearly disagree with.

But the only problem is that it isn't the truth, so why are you claiming that a lie is the truth? You're not making any sense here.

And the fact that you think anyone who disagrees with the church is anti, then it's clear to me that you won't find the truth using your methods.

Actually you're only putting words in my mouth, but this is a no-spin zone here, and the fact that such firebrand critics of the church like John Bennett and Daniel Kidder try to make a serious claim against it makes it hard for them to be taken seriously by the general public, since their rhetoric is more akin to having an axe to grind instead of telling the actual truth itself.