All About Mormons

[Matt Amos]

Tetraforce asked, "Before he obtained the plate, however not before he had already seen the plates and angel?"

Yes, before the plates and the angel. According to Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins [Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1997], the stone was found in 1822.

(Joseph had found a seer stone while digging a well for Willard Chase in 1822 and became adept at finding lost objects.)

[Drevan]

Hmm...this thread has been derailed, last time i checked it was a thread on South Park, not the Urim and Thumum.

[ryanw]

when did i say this is all there is? I am agnostic because it is impossible to prove or disprove. Athiests are just as wrong as religious people because they too throw all their beliefs into one basket without being open to suggestion.

[Ray Agostini]

Tetraforce asked, "Before he obtained the plate, however not before he had already seen the plates and angel?"

Yes, before the plates and the angel.  According to Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins [Provo: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1997], the stone was found in 1822.

(Joseph had found a seer stone while digging a well for Willard Chase in 1822 and became adept at finding lost objects.)

According to Harris the stone was found in 1822, but he does not say that Joseph used the stone at that time to find the plates:

Mr. Harris says: "Joseph Smith, jr., found at Palmyra, N.Y., on the 22d day of September, 1827, the plates of gold upon which was recorded in Arabic, Chaldaic, Syriac, and Egyptian, the Book of Life, or the Book of Mormon. I was not with him at the time, but I had a revelation the summer before, that God had a work for me to do. These plates were found at the north point of a hill two miles north of Manchester village. Joseph had a stone which was dug from the well of Mason Chase, twenty-four feet from the surface. In this stone he could see many things to my certain knowledge. It was by means of this stone he first discovered these plates.

This is from the link you originally gave:

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/harris_1.htm

The plates, according to Harris, were "found" four years after Moroni's appearances.

[Tetraforce]

I am agnostic because it is impossible to prove or disprove. Athiests are just as wrong as religious people because they too throw all their beliefs into one basket without being open to suggestion.

Yes, not much difference between the Christian "God is everywhere" and the Atheist "God is nowhere", isn't it.

But seeing faith as 'believing in that which you know is not true,' or a leap of faith, is not how the LDS believe things, like South Park portraies us.

To LDS, true faith is based on knowledge - knowledge gained by personal experience of the thing believed,

In our case we believe the testimony of the scriptures, which has proven trustworthy through fulfilled prophecy, as well as the testimony of the good and trustworthy men and women whose testimony it in turn presents.

And more importantly, exercise greater faith by our personal experience as God does indeed prove himself reliable, as we can see the teachings work effectively and the things He has promised are worked out and the prayers answered.

[Matt Amos]

Ray A wrote:

According to Harris the stone was found in 1822, but he does not say that Joseph used the stone at that time to find the plates...The plates, according to Harris, were "found" four years after Moroni's appearances.

I never claimed, nor implied that Harris had Joseph finding the plates any sooner than 1827. The point is that Joseph found the seer stone in 1822, before the angel and the plates. If the seer stone was used in the translation process, instead of or in addition to something that was specially prepared for that purpose and stored with the plates, then some people would find that disturbing.

[Kozaru]

Hmm...this thread has been derailed, last time i checked it was a thread on South Park, not the Urim and Thumum.

We are discussing a supposed inaccuracy in the South Park episode, bear with us...

[Ray Agostini]

Ray A wrote:

According to Harris the stone was found in 1822, but he does not say that Joseph used the stone at that time to find the plates...The plates, according to Harris, were "found" four years after Moroni's appearances.

I never claimed, nor implied that Harris had Joseph finding the plates any sooner than 1827. The point is that Joseph found the seer stone in 1822, before the angel and the plates. If the seer stone was used in the translation process, instead of or in addition to something that was specially prepared for that purpose and stored with the plates, then some people would find that disturbing.

I don't find it disturbing, especially in light of Revelation 2:17, which I quoted earlier. But I can see how people like ryanw would find it disturbing to discover this through a TV program.

Some other points need to be brought out. It was Moroni who initially showed Joseph the plates, and told him that "in due time" he would obtain them. For the next several years Joseph was instructed by Moroni each year. Let me refresh your memory on what Moroni initially told Joseph:

33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

  34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

  35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows

[ryanw]

I just re-read that explanation that the 17 year old kid gave for the inaccuracies in the south park episode. One that has always puzzled me (and makes me think that Martin Harris was an idiot) is the fact that he tried to trick Joseph with another rock in the hat. Honestly, did he think that would work? This is a rock that others here have shown that he had for a long time, a rock that he spent hours looking at every day for a year or so, and a rock that is pretty outstanding in description. ANY moron could look at Martin's new rock and say "it's as dark as egypt" because any moron could easily recognize it is not the same rock. I find it funny that Martin instantly cried and apologized and knew that what joseph was doing, was truly of god.

[Ray Agostini]

I just re-read that explanation that the 17 year old kid gave for the inaccuracies in the south park episode.  One that has always puzzled me (and makes me think that Martin Harris was an idiot) is the fact that he tried to trick Joseph with another rock in the hat.  Honestly, did he think that would work?  This is a rock that others here have shown that he had for a long time, a rock that he spent hours looking at every day for a year or so, and a rock that is pretty outstanding in description.

How do you know it was not a very good duplicate? Do we have pics?

ANY moron could look at Martin's new rock and say "it's as dark as egypt" because any moron could easily recognize it is not the same rock. I find it funny that Martin instantly cried and apologized and knew that what joseph was doing, was truly of god.

Joseph recognises the con, says "it's as dark as Egypt", goes back to his marvellous invention called the Book of Momon, all 500-plus pages of it, as consistent and complex a text ever published in history, and he does all this with his head in a hat and, according to all witness accounts, without any notes anywhere in sight. Marvellous. Has to be the greatest religious genuis who ever lived. A computer would have trouble doing that today.

Then Martin, convinced, totally, that his ploy worked, because he saw Joseph's reactions, firsthand, cries out "it's the work of God!"; of course he's just an idiot, and has been conned by a greater conman than himself. The whole scenario is just one great almighty dupe so they could all get rich and famous.

[ryanw]

I don't recall saying that they were in it for money. Do me a favor, hold a rock in your pocket or carry it with you every day for two weeks, and let someone do their best to swap it on you when you won't notice. You will notice, no matter how closely the replacement resembles the original. And lastly you speak as though Joseph was the first person to write a book. Or at least the first person un-educated through the marvel of modern schools, to write a book. His story isn't that complicated and could easily have been borrowed from View of the Hebrews or Manuscript Story since they are both similar, but without all the "it came to pass" introductions to each paragraph. Besides, his family all at some time or another write that he had a fixation with native americans growing up, and used to tell stories of all kinds about them as a child.

That whole business aside, what about all the other holy books from other religions? were they not coined by men of equal education or less? Why are they any less acceptable?

[ryanw]

Nevermind on that last question, I answered it myself. It's because they don't speak of christ isn't it? Anyway, by the supposition that since joseph wasn't educated, his book must have come from god, is wrong. By that same logic, you are saying that EVERY book of scripture in the world is true and comes from god since nearly all came from people without education.

[Ray Agostini]

And lastly you speak as though Joseph was the first person to write a book.  Or at least the first person un-educated through the marvel of modern schools, to write a book.  His story isn't that complicated and could easily have been borrowed from View of the Hebrews or Manuscript Story since they are both similar, but without all the "it came to pass" introductions to each paragraph.  Besides, his family all at some time or another write that he had a fixation with native americans growing up, and used to tell stories of all kinds about them as a child. 

That whole business aside, what about all the other holy books from other religions?  were they not coined by men of equal education or less?  Why are they any less acceptable?

Ryan, there are some fundamental problems with your approach. Unfortunately I don't have much time left today.

The VOH hypothesis has been debunked. It simply does not explain the Book of Mormon.

Spauling has been thoroughly dubunked. Actually since the 80s by Dr. Lester Bush.

You're parroting all the anti-Mormon fables, I'm sorry to say. I think you'd do yourself a great service spending a lot more time studying before walking away from the church.

Take a fool's advice.

[ryanw]

I'm not saying that is how I think the book came about. I'm saying it's a possibility. However, I tend to think that it is no different than any other book. It is not impossible to write a book like that. People write amazing works of literature every day. That is one of the amazing capabilities of people, but to say that no man could write such a work and computers would have trouble writing a book like that is bunk. Besides, how many computer programs out there write books? Saying that a computer program could not write a book doesn't prove anything. That would require A.I. which doesn't exist.

[Ray Agostini]

The problem is that no one has ever produced a book like the Book of Mormon. Not even the Koran measures up, as it's mainly a book of praise. Have a look at Richard L. Anderson's comparisons, for example, of the Book of Mormon with other such books which make the claim to authenticity. I don't have the reference at hand now, and my time is running out.

[ryanw]

Let me guess, Richard Anderson is a mormon? That's another thing that cracks me up. The only studies that any mormon holds to be relevant are those done by OTHER MORMONS.

[Ray Agostini]

Let me guess, Richard Anderson is a mormon?  That's another thing that cracks me up.  The only studies that any mormon holds to be relevant are those done by OTHER MORMONS.

Here is the link to the article I mentioned:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=15

Bill Gates also owns Microsoft. I guess we can't trust him to get the facts about Microsoft.

So who will you go to to get accurate information about Mormonism? RFM? Non-Mormons? Let me tell you that ex-Mormons who go about bleating about how wrong and "false" Mormonism is are not exactly objective themselves. If you think so then you have another thought coming. You're going to get the most biased and muddled information about Mormonism from some of them. You need to balance both sides, and to do that you also have to read what people like Anderson have written. Would any court make a judgement based only on the evidence of one side? I have been weighing both sides since 1983, which I guess would make it 21 years now. That's why I said, "take a fool's advice", a fool who thought, at one time, the anti-Mormons were right. You don't even know who Anderson is. That alone tells me how much you have studied the Mormon perspective.

[ryanw]

I don't need to know who anderson is. and taking advice from you is no different than taking it from those yahoos at concerned christians or those tanner douchebags. Are you getting my tone? I think they are more nuts than mormons. I got all of my information from a cd rom (Gosepl Link) sold at deseret book that has it all from manuscript story to view of the hebrews, from the spectacles to the hat, all the way up to the REAL witnesses story about seeing the plates.

[ryanw]

I just re-read what i just wrote. I'm not in any way saying that ray is like any of those people i mentioned. he has been rational and not nearly as biased as the likes of those folks in speaking to me today.

[ryanw]

200 posts! Wahoo!

[Ray Agostini]

I don't need to know who anderson is.  and taking advice from you is no different than taking it from those yahoos at concerned christians or those tanner douchebags.  Are you getting my tone?  I think they are more nuts than mormons.  I got all of my information from a cd rom (Gosepl Link) sold at deseret book that has it all from manuscript story to view of the hebrews, from the spectacles to the hat, all the way up to the REAL witnesses story about seeing the plates.

If you feel you have all the information you need, then the choice is yours. That's the great thing about this life, and the gospel, and the plan of salvation, and the Book of Mormon.

2 Ne. 10:23

[23] Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves -- to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

Helaman 14:30

[30] And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.

If ever you want to know more from me then you know where I am.

[Confidential Informant]

I don't need to know who anderson is. and taking advice from you is no different than taking it from those yahoos at concerned christians or those tanner douchebags. Are you getting my tone? I think they are more nuts than mormons. I got all of my information from a cd rom (Gosepl Link) sold at deseret book that has it all from manuscript story to view of the hebrews, from the spectacles to the hat, all the way up to the REAL witnesses story about seeing the plates.

Boy those Mormons must be stupid...or someone is Stupid. On one hand we've got all the anti's claiming out history is hidden and secret and suppressed.

Then here comes Ryan who went to Deseret Book and bought a CD (Gospel Link) that is produced by the Church that actually contains all of these secrets! Was it like a Karl Rove thing? Maybe Dallin H. Oaks had the original CD in his briefcase but he dropped it and it made it's way to DB where it was accidentally published?

The LDS Church must be the most incompetent bunch of secret keepers in the known world, second only -- possibly -- to the U.S. Gov't.

C.I.

[ryanw]

thanks ray, been good talking to you. but still why should scripture references help anything? That was my point earlier. Telling someone they have a choice of eternal death or life is a scare tactic. Humans react favorably to them and are going to scare themselves into following the pattern that will lead them to what they think will help them achieve life. This is part of my explanation of why religion exists.

[ryanw]

Oh give me a freakin break C.I. I was merely pointing out the fact that i haven't spoken with the "anti" crowd. My info comes from your own writers, prophets, witnesses, etc. I'm not claiming conspiracy theory, i'm just saying it isn't prominently known throughout the mormon community. My dad is a good example of why no one knows about the hat and rock story. I tried to tell him about it and the church has him so conditioned to shun any reading material that may influence his view of the church, he won't listen. Even though he could read those same stories from any book at the church library. I don't think the church actively tries to cover it up, they just don't teach about it anymore and teach members not to read things that would skew their views on the church. again, it's all just positively and negatively reinforced behavioralism.

[Ray Agostini]

thanks ray, been good talking to you.  but still why should scripture references help anything?  That was my point earlier.  Telling someone they have a choice of eternal death or life is a scare tactic.  Humans react favorably to them and are going to scare themselves into following the pattern that will lead them to what they think will help them achieve life.  This is part of my explanation of why religion exists.

It scares the hell out of me too, but I still don't change my evil ways

What I am saying is that I probably lost the ability in 1987, when I walked away from the church. That's all I am telling you and warning you about. Make sure first you understand the consequences, and how difficult if not impossible it is to get back if at some later time you come to other realisations.

I am totally convinced now that Mormonism is true, and I think everyone knows my feelings about the Book of Mormon, yet I feel like I've been sucked into a black hole, and the Book of Mormon warned me about this from day one! I chose to ignore those scriptural warnings.

The enticements of philosophy and psychology, especially the Freudian ones, seem to be appealing explanations. In the end you're going to realise that the Book of Mormon outstrips them all. The learning and rationalisations of men are dung. Too speculative for my comfort, especially Freud.