As a "critic", what is your purpose or motivation?

[ozpoof]

Oh but that is not what you claimed earlier. You claimed we were attacking other's faith. A criticism is a different thing. Talk about moving the goal posts. (I know I could not resists saying this.)

Anyway, I have no problems with personal opinions, they are what they are. What I have a problem with, which it sounds like I have demonstrated, is that when one tries to use some one else's personal opnion as a club to try and bash a whole orginization with.

So would you agree that bashing a whole group of ex-organization people in a similar way is something you would also have a problem with?

[Calm]

As above, "The criticism that Joseph later claimed that the revelation had not come from God is in all likelihood the product of a false memory by David Whitmer." That's not an explanation at all. The statement "in all likelihood" means they have no proof.

Did you not read the rest of the article that give evidence for this position?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I only ask because I know of no one in the LDS Church who plays the role as a "critic" for other's beliefs and I completely don't understand the need to be one. I am open to understand.

Looking back at the OP I would not say that BRM qualifies as a critic of other churches. Did he have some criticisms of others? yeah. Were his books all about how wrong the EV's and Cahtolics are? No. That vast majority of books and talks that the church produces are overwelmingly about the LDS faith.

I think the OP will back me up in my comments about what he has in mind.

[Calm]

There's always the possibility the "actual" revelation was changed later.

While that is certainly a possibility why isn't it also a possibility that David Whitmer remembered it wrong? Why is the idea that the revelation was changed not nonsense but that Whitmer misremembered (which is not the same as lying) is nonsense?

[ozpoof]

On the other hand you have no other evidence that that is indeed what occoured. THe fact that there seems to be no other account that back's up what Whitmer says seems to lay doubt the claim's he made.

There's no other account to back up Joseph Smith's claims as to his visitations. So would you also lay doubt on his claims? When you consider Joseph Smith changed his story of the first vision several times before we arrive at the "official" one, doesn't that lay even more doubt on Smith's claims? Why doubt Whitmer and not Joseph Smith who changed his story?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So would you agree that bashing a whole group of ex-organization people in a similar way is something you would also have a problem with?

You mean like "All ex-mormons just wanted to sin and that is why the left"?

If yes, then I have major porblems with that and those types of arguments. If not then please explain more.

[ozpoof]

While that is certainly a possibility why isn't it also a possibility that David Whitmer remembered it wrong? Why is the idea that the revelation was changed not nonsense but that Whitmer misremembered (which is not the same as lying) is nonsense?

My point is, and I believe we both have shown this, that the FAIR effort is pointless because it explains nothing. When you take a good look at their attempts to explain things, there really isn't much there at all in many cases. I don't think they do a very good job at apologetics.

[Calm]

Your last statement is ridiculous. If I consider FAIR to be unable to answer many difficult questions about church history, I therefore don't belong here to discuss Mormonism?

I am just saying that if you don't accept anything that FAIR produces through its work and proclaim it instead nonsense, why would you accept anything that a believer might state as evidence of their beliefs as anything except nonsense?

I've been involved with how FAIR produces its articles. They not only try to rely on the latest scholarship such as the Joseph Smith Papers collection which is where they based their evidence for the claim that Whitmer likely misremembered the prophecy, but try to be as accurate as possible to the point of investigating any criticisms made of their articles so feel free to write them when you find something inaccurate on their site.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There's no other account to back up Joseph Smith's claims as to his visitations.

But there are other accounts. You just are not willing to accept them. And this is besides the point about David. The FAIR article does a fine job of detailing the issues with Whitmers comments. The aspect that the other accounts seem to even contradict it is a problem, but it is not the only one. And I am not suggesting that Whitmer lied about it. He just unknowingly got some facts wrong.

So would you also lay doubt on his claims? When you consider Joseph Smith changed his story of the first vision several times before we arrive at the "official" one, doesn't that lay even more doubt on Smith's claims? Why doubt Whitmer and not Joseph Smith who changed his story?

He did not change his story, but alas that is for a different thread.

I guess If we have other accounts that seem to contradict it from other people who were there that might make me change my mind.

[ozpoof]

You mean like "All ex-mormons just wanted to sin and that is why the left"?

If yes, then I have major porblems with that and those types of arguments. If not then please explain more.

Yes. Or people that want to explain their position and opinion towards the church are trolls.

[Calm]

My point is, and I believe we both have shown this, that the FAIR effort is pointless because it explains nothing. When you take a good look at their attempts to explain things, there really isn't much there at all in many cases. I don't think they do a very good job at apologetics.

And how is pointing out that the revelation that has been found and now published in the JS Papers does not support David Whitmer's description of it not explaining something?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My point is, and I believe we both have shown this, that the FAIR effort is pointless because it explains nothing. When you take a good look at their attempts to explain things, there really isn't much there at all in many cases. I don't think they do a very good job at apologetics.

Did you even read the article?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And how is pointing out that the revelation that has been found and now published in the JS Papers does not support David Whitmer's description of it not explaining something?

Amen, I am beginning to think he did not read the article.

[ozpoof]

But there are other accounts. You just are not willing to accept them. And this is besides the point about David. The FAIR article does a fine job of detailing the issues with Whitmers comments. The aspect that the other accounts seem to even contradict it is a problem, but it is not the only one. And I am not suggesting that Whitmer lied about it. He just unknowingly got some facts wrong.

He did not change his story, but alas that is for a different thread.

I guess If we have other accounts that seem to contradict it from other people who were there that might make me change my mind.

Sorry, who else was in the sacred grove with Smith and witnessed the first vision? Where are their accounts? References please.

Yes Smith did change his story. His first account talked of angels. Later this changed more times until the official version we have today with the father and Jesus. It's like he said Nephi appeared in his bedroom and later he changed the name to Moroni.

[ozpoof]

And how is pointing out that the revelation that has been found and now published in the JS Papers does not support David Whitmer's description of it not explaining something?

FAIR doesn't explain anything. They think it "likely" Whitmer made it up. Likely isn't proof of anything at all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes. Or people that want to explain their position and opinion towards the church are trolls.

Ha, well, you will need to take that up with the admin.

You need to remember (not that this really makes it ok) that there are a lot of people that come here and some people do troll. THe admins do this on the side and are not paid. Some times they just don't have patients for some comments. I tend to wait before calling some one a troll.

Of course being called a troll is a subjective opinion and can be hard to pin point some times.

I would state that if you want to avoid the troll lable try to be more sensitive. Just a suggestion.

[Eldwynn]

Miracles have to do with seeing SIGNIFICANCE not with natural explanations. It's a miracle the sun comes up every day.

But yes, I have seen events with no natural explanations as well. You would be the last person I would talk to about that. The point is, they do happen.

Did you finally graduate from High School? Last time you were here I don't think you were quite out yet as I recall.

Yes, but just because you think they have no natural explanations... how does that convince me that they do? I can't explain the behavior of electrons... does that mean that the explanation is supernatural? Newton could not explain how the planets moved, so he invoked god, until someone else showed how they could. Furthermore, you mis-characterized my position later when you said it contradicted someone else. I was asking for you to define which sense of the word miracle you were using. You then jumped on one of my definitions and contrasted it with someone else. You did define a miracle, but I think your definition turns a miracle into something (even more) meaningless.

If a miracle is simply defined by significance, then we certainly can't use them as indisputable proof of your faith. A miracle is then anything and everything. It reminds of people that define god as energy. Who was it that said that if god is energy, then you could find god in a lump of coal? That is what you are doing with miracles in my opinion.

LOL

I used to be an atheist, but I got better. You know nothing about me, and all you are doing is making a fool of yourself for making presumptions about people you know nothing about.

I am glad that you have found your religion!

However, can we characterize you as an anti-atheist?!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry, who else was in the sacred grove with Smith and witnessed the first vision? Where are their accounts? References please.

The Holy Ghost, he will manisfest all truth.

See, I told you you would not accept that.

Yes Smith did change his story. His first account talked of angels. Later this changed more times until the official version we have today with the father and Jesus. It's like he said Nephi appeared in his bedroom and later he changed the name to Moroni.

Take it to anthter thread dude.

CFR that JS ever claimed that Nephi appeared in his room. Ugh, take it to another thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

FAIR doesn't explain anything. They think it "likely" Whitmer made it up. Likely isn't proof of anything at all.

Oh brother, you are a sound bite type of guy. Read the whole article. They present some very valid and nuanced reasons why Whitmer's story has problems. It is more than just "They think it "likely" Whitmer made it up."

What are the reasons they think that? Can you list them?

[ozpoof]

Ha, well, you will need to take that up with the admin.

You need to remember (not that this really makes it ok) that there are a lot of people that come here and some people do troll. THe admins do this on the side and are not paid. Some times they just don't have patients for some comments. I tend to wait before calling some one a troll.

Of course being called a troll is a subjective opinion and can be hard to pin point some times.

I would state that if you want to avoid the troll lable try to be more sensitive. Just a suggestion.

It seems to me that when trying to discuss Mormonism on Mormon controlled forums, if you aren't in agreement with what is said by TBMs, you're automatically a troll and turfed. What is interesting is that I have seen first hand TBMs being allowed to discuss facts on post-Mormon boards with the sole proviso they don't resort to testimony bearing. Why is it that those who claim they have the truth seem terribly nervous when presented with other opinions? I've tried to be sensitive here. I can't say I've been treated as politely as I have on most other boards. Just saying.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but just because you think they have no natural explanations... how does that convince me that they do? I can't explain the behavior of electrons... does that mean that the explanation is supernatural? Newton could not explain how the planets moved, so he invoked god, until someone else showed how they could. Furthermore, you mis-characterized my position later when you said it contradicted someone else. I was asking for you to define which sense of the word miracle you were using. You then jumped on one of my definitions and contrasted it with someone else. You did define a miracle, but I think your definition turns a miracle into something (even more) meaningless.

If a miracle is simply defined by significance, then we certainly can't use them as indisputable proof of your faith. A miracle is then anything and everything. It reminds of people that define god as energy. Who was it that said that if god is energy, then you could find god in a lump of coal? That is what you are doing with miracles in my opinion.

However, can we characterize you as an anti-atheist?!

How we decide to live our lives and what is important to us is far from "meaningless"- in fact it is the only thing which gives our lives meaning.

Are your own decisions predictable to others?

Can science predict when you will sit at your desk, what you will write here, or when you will decide to eat lunch?

What school you pick as the "best" or which girl you will ask out?

I suppose your answer will be "in principle, yes, I am totally predictable- one day science will be able to do that- plug all that is known into a big computer and predict what I will do in every situation"

But will that change your decision process itself and what is important to you? Will your decisions feel any different- will you make them differently when they are predictable?

[ozpoof]

Oh brother, you are a sound bite type of guy. Read the whole article. They present some very valid and nuanced reasons why Whitmer's story has problems. It is more than just "They think it "likely" Whitmer made it up."

What are the reasons they think that? Can you list them?

Well they stated it for one. QUOTE "

Response

The criticism that Joseph later claimed that the revelation had not come from God is in all likelihood the product of a false memory by David Whitmer."

They then go on to drag the guy through the mud to try and make him sound like he had a grudge. You have to remember that there were a lot of people who believed Smith was a fallen prophet. The Nauvoo Expositor was established by many Latter Day Saints who were still believers in the LDS faith, yet they felt the need to publish their concerns about Joseph Smith. These were not "anti" or "ex" Mormons at all.

Besides, it's not hard to find false prophecies made by Smith even if you accept FAIR's explanation as rock solid. Smith said in one sermon that the people attending would be alive when Christ returns. HE said there were 6ft tall Quakers living on the Moon.

[mfbukowski]

Why is it that those who claim they have the truth seem terribly nervous when presented with other opinions? I've tried to be sensitive here.

I'm quaking in terror.

[Eldwynn]

How we decide to live our lives and what is important to us is far from "meaningless"- in fact it is the only thing which gives our lives meaning.

Are your own decisions predictable to others?

Can science predict when you will sit at your desk, what you will write here, or when you will decide to eat lunch?

What school you pick as the "best" or which girl you will ask out?

I suppose your answer will be "in principle, yes, I am totally predictable- one day science will be able to do that- plug all that is known into a big computer and predict what I will do in every situation"

But will that change your decision process itself and what is important to you? Will your decisions feel any different- will you make them differently when they are predictable?

I lost how what you are saying is relevant to miracles. I do not think I am totally predictable- assuming I do not have a disease (and there are mental diseases where someone loses complete control of their actions). Your brain has the ability to control itself in a way. So you supposed wrong.

However, that doesn't mean that choosing what school to go to, or which (out of many) girls to pursue, is a SUPERNATURAL event.

[ozpoof]

I'm quaking in terror.

Well a lot of Mormons seem to be. They are told endlessly the big bad "world" is out to get them. My point was that Mormon controlled forums never seem to allow full and open discussion, even excluding temple subjects.