Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[mathonihah]

mathonihah,

I had stated that Jesus appeared to his brothers, who had not believed in him previously. You replied:

We are told explicitly that Jesus appeared to James (1 Cor. 15:7). Although we are not told explicitly about appearances to any of the other brothers, an appearance that included Jude, the author of the epistle bearing his name, is a reasonable inference from the fact that he also became an apostle (cf. Jude 1). That James and his brothers did not believe in Jesus during his mortal lifetime is evident from several statements in the Gospels (Matt. 12:46-49; Mark 3:21, 31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:3-5). Note especially John 7:5, "For not even his brothers believed in him."

Regarding the appearance of the risen Christ to Saul of Tarsus, you wrote:

You're right; he was worse than the typical unbeliever, as he himself said (1 Tim. 1:15). But "a special case" is just a fancy way of saying "an exception." The fact remains that Jesus did not appear only to believers. He also appeared to unbelievers. Saul of Tarsus was the most obvious example. James the Lord's brother is another documented example. I have more examples, but let's see if we can agree on this much, which really should be beyond controversy.

You wrote:

The way Joseph reportedly found the plates would be miraculous, but not the plates themselves. The way Joseph said that he translated the plates would be miraculous, but not the plates themselves. The existence of the plates is not miraculous; the existence of the living body of Jesus after he had been killed and buried is miraculous. Surely you can see the difference.

I had written: "Here's something else that bothers me about the gold plates. Why did Joseph even need to see them? He didn't look at them or use them when he dictated his translation." You replied:

You may think they are silly questions, but your answer appears to be "I don't know and I don't care," which from my perspective shows that the question I raised was not at all silly.

You say that "we know" that Joseph copied characters from the plates to show to the "learned," but in fact we do not know any such thing. In fact, I know with a high degree of certainty that Joseph did no such thing. I would be happy to explain how I know this if you're interested, but since you are increasingly resorting to outright dismissal of everything I say as silly or quibbling I will refrain unless you ask.

I had also wrotten: "According to the usual LDS theory, Moroni carried the gold plates about three thousand miles (from Mesoamerica to New York State) so he could bury them near what would be Joseph Smith's boyhood home fourteen centuries later. Why bother, if Joseph wasn't going to use the plates to produce the translation and the plates were not to be kept available for people to see the original on which the translation was based?" You replied:

I'm not making definitive assumptions about it; I am simply assuming, for the sake of discussion, the dominant believing LDS view of the subject. Do you agree or disagree with the limited geography theory that the entire Book of Mormon lands were restricted to the area known as Mesoamerica? And if this theory were correct -- hypothetically speaking -- would not the point I raised be at least puzzling?

I think that you are just being argumentative, and are arguing for its own sake rather than having something constructive to contribute; and I think that my time is better spent than playing that game with you. Therefore I will reply to the first paragraph of your post, and leave it at that. This is what you had said:

We are told explicitly that Jesus appeared to James (1 Cor. 15:7). Although we are not told explicitly about appearances to any of the other brothers, an appearance that included Jude, the author of the epistle bearing his name, is a reasonable inference from the fact that he also became an apostle (cf. Jude 1). That James and his brothers did not believe in Jesus during his mortal lifetime is evident from several statements in the Gospels (Matt. 12:46-49; Mark 3:21, 31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:3-5). Note especially John 7:5, "For not even his brothers believed in him."

Regarding James, there are two Jameses in the NT, and it is not clear which one is being referred to here. But assuming that you are right, and it refers to James the brother of Jesus, the context of 1 Cor. 15:7 suggests that he was already a believer and an apostle when Jesus appeared to him, therefore he was not an unbeliever. The rest of your argument in this paragraph is just speculation. You haven't presented evidence that Jesus did appear to his other "brothers" after his resurrection, or that if he did, they were still unbelievers at that time.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Oh my! You have hurt me to the bone.

Whatever will I do?

It is more likely that you cannot counter my arguments. You seem like a scrappy enough fellow to be able to handle it.

There are a lot of people who participate here whose arguments I am happy to counter. If I choose not to engage you in discussion after you characterize my argument as "stupid," it doesn't mean that you are so much more dauntingly brilliant than all of the other Mormons here I do answer.

[canard78]

This whole thing about carrying the plates 3000 miles to deposit them for Joseph Smith is just stupid.

"Joseph Smith" could have been "Jose Sanchez" and have been born a mile or two from anywhere God wanted him to be born. Who knows why Moroni had to make the journey? It might have been a trial of his own faith- who knows? It might have been his personal test as Abraham's journey thinking he was to sacrifice Isaac was. Does anyone complain about THAT journey and why he had to travel a distance when he could have sacrificed Issac in his own back yard? It's just silly!

But probably Joseph had to be born in the US because this was the only country which offered freedom of religion.

And clearly, in my opinion, the plates only existed for Joseph's own lack of confidence early on in doing the "translation" which is now regarded by people like Blake Ostler as barely a "translation" at all!

Clearly the Book of Abraham is not a "translation" of anything and it is also clear the Joseph- for whatever reason - liked to use "props" to receive his revelations, like the seer stone, the hat, the papyrus manuscript and the plates. However God did it, what Joseph needed psychologically, God provided. But I don't think that the BOM is a "translation" at all. I think, as Ostler does, that it was essentially a 19th century "re-wright" of an ancient manuscript "given" to Joseph by revelation. I think it has historic roots, but it was essentially fully revealed to Joseph. It came through Joseph's mind and includes many elements of the 19th century mind that gave it to us. But there is also much much that he could not possibly have known about ancient America, and the original gospel

I personally think that with his lack of education he lacked the confidence to just sit down and receive revelation and that he was always fascinated with translation and ancient objects and folk magic and that was part of his upbringing and his personal psychological makeup and that God used that, especially at first, to give him confidence in the project.

That's just my opinion but I have felt that for a long long time and have yet to see an argument or evidence which disproves that theory.

The need for the plates existed only in Joseph's mind, and God provided what was necessary.

That's two posts in a row I've 'Upped' (liked?). I would feel very comfortable with this explanation. And it in no way takes away from the spiritual impact of the words that work and spirit that moves.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

I think that you are just being argumentative, and are arguing for its own sake rather than having something constructive to contribute; and I think that my time is better spent than playing that game with you.

What a shame. You started off so politely.

You wrote:

Therefore I will reply to the first paragraph of your post, and leave it at that.

Since you have made it clear you are not interested in what I might say in response, perhaps I should not waste any more of your time--or mine.

[mfbukowski]

That's two posts in a row I've 'Upped' (liked?). I would feel very comfortable with this explanation. And it in no way takes away from the spiritual impact of the words that work and spirit that moves.

Hey thanks!

I really think this approach takes care of all the alleged anachronisms etc and the need for the plates and all the "problems" in the Book of Abraham. These documents are historic documents delivered directly to Joseph and "filtered" though his human mind, including his prejudices and perspectives and his understanding of the bible and all the Lord had shown him.

He used the word "horse" because what he understood was an animal like a horse in certain ways, etc. God spoke to him in the spirit, but what he wrote was what he knew and understood of what the spirit was saying.

This is the way I am convinced all the biblical prophets spoke as well- and we see evidence of them trying to describe the modern times they saw in vision using ancient languages. They, like Joseph wrote in terms they understood even if what they saw was in some ways totally unintelligible to them.

Nahum 2:

4 The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.

Prophets see what they see, and write it in their own terms. So it has always been and always will be.

[mfbukowski]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

What a shame. You started off so politely.

You wrote:

Since you have made it clear you are not interested in what I might say in response, perhaps I should not waste any more of your time--or mine.

Tsk tsk Mr. M!

Soon you will be in the same category as I am!

Don't know how well you know Rob- go ahead and google "Institute for Religious Research" and see what you come up with.

Edited December 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

There is obvious differences between Jesus' physical body and the gold plates:

There is an obviouse between a rock and the body of a beautiful woman, between a star and a tree, etc. etc. But in each case they hold a common characteristic -- they are made of a physical substance confined in a definite space.

I understand that you reject that premise, and it appears that this is the basis of your argument. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

Jesus is a person whose redemptive purpose required that he ascend to heaven to rule at the Father's right hand, whereas the gold plates are not a person but are mere inanimate objects, the purpose of which supposedly was to preserve a written record for the benefit of future generations living on the earth. If we're going to compare the gold plates to anything, we should compare them to the biblical manuscripts that were also found in the nineteenth century, not to the resurrection body of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Also, my argument is not merely that the gold plates should be available for everyone to see.

You are hysterically declaring, "I do not understand how God would do this. If *I* were God, this is what I would do. This is MY plan os savation." You reject modern revelation and then make up your own plans and devices.

God disagrees with you. Jesus could have appeared to Caesar and remained with his for eternity, since He "has no boundaries" -- for all eternity if He wished. Caesar could have examined Him at his leasure. But that is not how God works, but you can make that suggestion to him.

I don't think it is wise to tell God how to run His business, and that is a common failing of the antimormons "God wudda done this.. He wudda done that..."

This is one consequence of rejecting modern revelation, a profound lack of divine knowledge on God's plan. All of the arguments brought up center not on "proof of physical presence" but on God's plan of salvation. You do not understand that Plan, so your conclusions are based on deeply flawed understand of that Plan. I tried to bring that up with the questions on the appearance to Pilot and Caesar.

That is one piece of the puzzle. There is also the fact that they were supposedly present in the room with various supporters of Joseph on many occasions and yet he would not let anyone see the plates for nearly two years.

And that is somehow significant for someone who seems to know the mind of God. I find it significant that you continue to pretend to be intimitately knowledgeable on how He works things. Nothing personal, but I think perhaps we members orfthe church know something in this regard that is beyond your ken.

There is the fact that when people were finally allowed to see the plates this happened under Joseph's control: he arranged for them to see the plates and guided the whole process. And all of the other points I made in earlier posts here, with the contrasting facts about the resurrection appearances. You cannot refute my argument without looking at how these various pieces come together in context.

You likely suppose that this criticism would or at least should shame me into sheepishly admitting that I am not in a position to know how God thinks or what he would do. Actually, though, I do know something about how God thinks and what he would do, because I have his revelation in the Bible. So I can compare what God supposedly did with Joseph Smith to what I already know God did in the Bible. When I do this, I come up with a lot of reasons to be skeptical of Joseph Smith's claims.

Your whole argument is based on your proposal that you know how God would move and act under certain situations. If you are comforable with that, there is nothing I can say except some day we will then know what we will know.

Edited December 14, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

There are a lot of people who participate here whose arguments I am happy to counter. If I choose not to engage you in discussion after you characterize my argument as "stupid," it doesn't mean that you are so much more dauntingly brilliant than all of the other Mormons here I do answer.

You don't choose to engage me BEFORE I characterize your arguments as "stupid" either, so what difference does it make?

Of course my saying that gives you a convenient excuse but that is about all.

[cdowis]

mfbuikowski,

So JS was a fake. No angel Moroni, no Mormon, no plates, no real translation. A fraud, but an "inspired" fraud.

While it may be intellectually satisfying, getting rid of all those "prophet" issue, it is spiritually unsatisfying, and, to me at least, it merely makes JS a liar of the first sort without deserving any respect or attention.

Sorry, I can't follow that line of reasoning. Just does not make sense.

Edited December 14, 2012 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

You don't choose to engage me BEFORE I characterize your arguments as "stupid" either, so what difference does it make?

Of course my saying that gives you a convenient excuse but that is about all.

For the sake of those who may be new here: We have a long history on this forum, and I explained to you quite some time ago why I was no longer going to respond to your posts. You have simply continued to behave in the same way as you did previously, confirming the wisdom of my decision. Of course, I would be very happy if the situation could change, but it will require you to treat me with civility.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

Your response merely repeated your jaundiced view of my motivation and perspective, ignoring the reasoning I presented. But thanks for commenting; I do find your point of view interesting.

[mfbukowski]

mfbuikowski,

So JS was a fake. No angel Moroni, no Mormon, no plates, no real translation. A fraud, but an "inspired" fraud.

While it may be intellectually satisfying, getting rid of all those "prophet" issue, it is spiritually unsatisfying, and, to me at least, it merely makes JS a liar of the first sort without deserving any respect or attention.

Sorry, I can't follow that line of reasoning. Just does not make sense.

Nobody said that, least of all me. I said that God gave Joseph what he needed and that included all you listed.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

For the sake of those who may be new here: We have a long history on this forum, and I explained to you quite some time ago why I was no longer going to respond to your posts. You have simply continued to behave in the same way as you did previously, confirming the wisdom of my decision. Of course, I would be very happy if the situation could change, but it will require you to treat me with civility.

For those who are new here, all they need to do is read this thread to see why you do not answer the arguments I present and how you treat the arguments of others. You don't have a whole lot of buddies around here- did you ever notice that?

[pogi]

If the plates were taken to upstate New York for our benefit, then there would be no reason not to allow the plates to remain in human custody here on earth. There would still be plenty of room for faith (skeptics would simply conclude that yes, some Israelites apparently found their way to the Americas, but that doesn't mean their religion is true).

The skeptics would have to conclude way more than that. They would also have to conclude that some little uneducated kid translated them correctly by sticking his head in a hat. If that were the case, there would be little room to doubt his other testimonies, including the first vision and how he found the plates.

Edited December 14, 2012 by pogi

[pogi]

This is a more plausible-sounding explanation, though it doesn't quite match the historical information we have.

From JS History:

"By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the aUrim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following."

"Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim."

Would not this be considered "historical information"?

[canard78]

Hey thanks!

I really think this approach takes care of all the alleged anachronisms etc and the need for the plates and all the "problems" in the Book of Abraham. These documents are historic documents delivered directly to Joseph and "filtered" though his human mind, including his prejudices and perspectives and his understanding of the bible and all the Lord had shown him.

He used the word "horse" because what he understood was an animal like a horse in certain ways, etc. God spoke to him in the spirit, but what he wrote was what he knew and understood of what the spirit was saying.

This is the way I am convinced all the biblical prophets spoke as well- and we see evidence of them trying to describe the modern times they saw in vision using ancient languages. They, like Joseph wrote in terms they understood even if what they saw was in some ways totally unintelligible to them.

Nahum 2:

Prophets see what they see, and write it in their own terms. So it has always been and always will be.

The challenge this throws up is to those who don't get a spiritual confirmation of the book's divinity will find the contradictions in the story illogical.

Despite sincer attempts to do so the Lord, in wisdom, does not give everyone the spiritual certainty you or I may end up relying on. When I meet Him I'll ask him about that. I don't presume it's due to the seeker lack of faith, sincerity or righteousness.

Logic has little role to play any religious commitment I guess. Some critics say JS's story is contradictory and illogical (without a spiritual witness this is understandable). But they also believe in a man who returned from the dead, fed 1000s from a kid's picnic, walked on water etc. Without their spiritual confirmation this would also be illogical.

In other words... Most religious belief is illogical. I guess it just depends what portion of light and knowledge we seek or are given through spiritual insights and experience.

[Rob Bowman]

pogi,

You wrote:

The skeptics would have to conclude way more than that. They would also have to conclude that some little uneducated kid translated them correctly by sticking his head in a hat. If that were the case, there would be little room to doubt his other testimonies, including the first vision and how he found the plates.

Yes, if the plates could be translated by scholars, which I think we have been told would prove to be impossible. But you do have a point in that if someone concluded that the plates were written by Israelites in America that would tend to validate Joseph Smith's claims. However, people can have compelling evidence of supernatural realities staring them in the face and choose not to believe. And there are people who accept Joseph's translation of the Book of Mormon but not his First Vision story, which he told later.

[Rob Bowman]

pogi,

You wrote:

From JS History:

"By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the aUrim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following."

"Oliver Cowdery describes these events thus: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim."

Would not this be considered "historical information"?

Here is the rest of what I wrote:

If I remember correctly, there are no testimonies from any of Joseph's associates who actually saw him using the Urim and Thummim to examine the gold plates. At first Joseph seems to have dictated his translation from behind a curtain of some sort. This is apparently how the translation was done for the lost 116 pages with Martin Harris as the scribe. After the 116 pages fiasco, Joseph claimed that the angel had taken away the Urim and Thummim. According to eyewitnesses, Joseph used his seer stone in his hat to dictate the translation of the Book of Mormon (mostly to Oliver Cowdery), never looking at the gold plates--which often were not even in the room.

I believe the general consensus of LDS scholars is that Joseph dictated to Oliver using the seer stone, not the interpreters that were said to have been in the stone box with the gold plates. Oliver's statement is then usually understood to be using the term "urim and thummim" loosely to refer to the seer stone, not to the crystal interpreters. Here is a pro-LDS web page that admits all this but tries to argue that there was nothing wrong with Joseph using the seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

Again, to my knowledge no one ever saw Joseph use the crystal interpreters in the course of dictating any translation from the gold plates. I would be open to correction on this point.

[Calm]

.

In other words... Most religious belief is illogical. I guess it just depends what portion of light and knowledge we seek or are given through spiritual insights and experience.

I would disagree. I think most religious faiths are for the most part internally logical, iow once one agrees with their fundamental assumptions many, if not most, of their beliefs follow from those assumptions.

You may be correct that the initial connection/commitment to a faith is illogical, but I would disagree that all that follows is illogical as well.

Edited December 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

The challenge this throws up is to those who don't get a spiritual confirmation of the book's divinity will find the contradictions in the story illogical.

That doesn't bother me- if you don't have a spiritual confirmation the story IS illogical as you point out in the rest of your post.

No one is going to believe a man coming back from the dead, angels and golden plates anyway without a spiritual confirmation.

You may be correct that the initial connection/commitment to a faith is illogical, but I would disagree that all that follows is illogical as well.

Exactly. And my goal is to help others put it all together into a logical picture.

Edited December 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

And my goal is to help others put it all together into a logical picture.

Then you should be willing to look at your logic.

I need to understand a few details==

1. Tell us about the angel Moroni. Did JS lie about his visits and conversations with JS, was it just his imagination (a Tinkerbell experience) or was this a real divine being.

2. Tell us about those plates -- basically the same question. JS lied, imagination, or they really existed.

Telling us that God "gave JS what he needed" is really not sufficient. To me, JS needed a real angel and real plates for translation, but you have some other idea in mind.

I want to see where your logic leads us. You already rejected my "logical picture" that this leads us to the conclusion that JS was a fraud, so let's see what else you got up your sleeve.

Thanks.

Edited December 15, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Charles,

Your response merely repeated your jaundiced view of my motivation and perspective, ignoring the reasoning I presented. But thanks for commenting; I do find your point of view interesting.

You really think so?

Well, let me try to give your viewpoint in an accurate and respectful manner. Please correct me as necessary.

"Charles, this whole First Vision thing just doesn't make sense, as I see it. God has given us everything we need to know and understand His plan, the plan of salvation as you call it. It's all right there in the Bible.

But let's even assume that the Christian church had gone astray, and it were possible, especially during the Middle Ages. It was not necessary to wait several thousand years to give a direct vision to some farmboy in America, when God had everything necessary to make those corrections. Martin Luther was a great Biblical scholar and could see the errors creeping into the church. A careful reading of Paul's epistles lead him to the conclusion that the church had moved somewhat in the wrong direction, and he was able, ***thru the Biblical text, not thru visions or divine revelation** to move the church back on the right path.

This whole JS thing is not how God would do things -- a farmboy in America, visions, angels, gold plates, visiting apostles, etc. It makes more sense that God would use what He already had available == a courageous priest with an intimate knowledge of the Bible to move things back on course. It would be done within the structure of the church and not imposed by some interloper from the outside claiming special visions and authority."

Now, please make additions or corrections as necessary.

Edited December 15, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Then you should be willing to look at your logic.

I need to understand a few details==

1. Tell us about the angel Moroni. Did JS lie about his visits and conversations with JS, was it just his imagination (a Tinkerbell experience) or was this a real divine being.

Of course he did not lie and yes Moroni is a real being who visited Joseph Smith

2. Tell us about those plates -- basically the same question. JS lied, imagination, or they really existed.

Of course they really existed - and still do somewhere in the universe.

Telling us that God "gave JS what he needed" is really not sufficient. To me, JS needed a real angel and real plates for translation, but you have some other idea in mind.

Nope. They were real.

I want to see where your logic leads us. You already rejected my "logical picture" that this leads us to the conclusion that JS was a fraud, so let's see what else you got up your sleeve.

God knew that mfbukowski need to become an atheist and then be led to some "philosophies of men" which would show that humans are divine beings who are here to become the best humans possible, and that all existing churches (that I knew of) were wrong.

Basically secular humanism became my "religion". I worshiped Man. Man is the highest being who ever existed and in some spiritual sense we existed before we came here and were sent by the Universe here to earth to fulfill our destiny of becoming fully self-realized Beings, like some of the great yogis of the East etc, and like Jesus and Mohammad and Buddha were. Further, metaphysically, we organize our own little worlds and self-create our own little "universes" by creating a consistent picture of our experience here on earth which enables us to become self-realized and completely fulfilled. That was my view of our destiny.

I was a Marxist. The greatest hope for man was a utopia where all were equal and all had what they needed. Here mankind could re-create itself in the image of the Ideal Man and we all could reach a heaven right here on earth- no need for all this spiritual stuff- yes of course there might be something to it, but after all who could know anything about that? What was needed was to re-create humanity into the Ideal where all could be fulfilled equally and we could all re-create ourselves as perfect beings- at least as perfect as we can get. That should be the goal of all humanity.

Then I met a Mormon. I read up a teeny bit on Mormonism- it sounded fascinating. Eternal progression- that God was a Man, that we should be the best people we can be, that the Millenium will come and there will be a utopia where everyone does there best at becoming better humans- that we existed before we came here- sounded pretty interesting. A little odd- with that gold plate mumbo jumbo, but worth checking out.

Then someone gave me a Book of Mormon.

Why not read it? Wasn't it like the Avesta or Bhagavad Gita, or the Koran, or one of those other great books of the world religions? What was the harm?

In the front was Moroni 10: 4-5. That scripture hit me the way, I think James 1: 5 hit Joseph Smith. I could not get it out of my mind. I would try to think about other things- but the idea that if I prayed with real intent, that God could TALK to me and tell me He was real?

I prayed with all the power of my soul to know if this was true.

God saw fit- for his own reasons because to this day I do not understand why- to give me a powerful powerful spiritual experience confirming that it was all TRUE. A numinous experience- nearly out of body- love and warmth filled my soul and I was drenched in peace and love. God existed. Jesus was his son and my savior. The gospel was restored through Joseph Smith. Christianity as taught by Joseph was the path God wanted me to take.

Long story a little shorter, if God could do that for ME- because I needed it- who am I to question if God could send angels and plates to Joseph?

I am just some silly twerp full of self-importance and ego, and if God could do that for me, what would he do for his chosen one- who was destined to restore his true gospel to the earth? Send some plates and angels? Are you kidding me? Could God do that??

I totally surrendered and here I am

[mfbukowski]

No logic there.

God zapped me. What can I say?

So I put it all together in the way I understand reality- the epistemology of Pragmatism. The pooled experience of all humanity- including our own- is what makes up what we know about "reality". Period.

There is no argument that I have seen after 40 years of studying it- which can be made to contradict that. To me it is about as close to self-evident as anything can be.

Edited December 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cesc101]

"The scripture hit me the way, I think James 1:5 hit Joseph Smith"

That experience is the one thing no anti-mormon criticism, no pressure from within & without the church, can take away from us.