Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[mfbukowski]

"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.

Yep.

Like Joseph said "I knew it and I knew that God knew it"

Busted! No going back from that!

Edit: And incidentally I did not read that passage until after this happened- when I first discovered that in Joseph Smith history- I absolutely laughed out loud and found it hilarious! I knew exactly precisely what he meant by that!

Edited December 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

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.

Perhaps you are right, but if he was using them, nobody would have seem them as he was behind the curtain. Joseph claims to have used them, that is good enough for me.

[cdowis]

"interpreter stones"

It does not matter whether JS used the stones. The critics still have the problem of explaining what was in that hat while JS was dictating the translation of the BOM. If not the stones, what was he using, a manuscript?

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I wrote: "Your response merely repeated your jaundiced view of my motivation and perspective, ignoring the reasoning I presented.:" You replied:

You really think so?

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

You weren't even close. You began your attempt to channel Rob Bowman as follows:

"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.

I do hold that opinion, but it played no part whatsoever in my reasoning presented in this thread.

You continued:

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.

Joseph Smith being a farm boy and Martin Luther being a biblical scholar have nothing to do with any criticism I have of Mormonism, let alone with the reasoning I presented in this thread. I only bring up Joseph's lack of biblical scholarship when he tries to play biblical scholar, as in his egregiously wrongheaded pretense to know something scholars don't know about the plural of elohim in Genesis 1 or about the word paradise in Luke 23:43. But again, this has nothing to do with my reasoning in this thread.

You continued:

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.

False dichotomy: the biblical text is divine revelation. But again, irrelevant to my reasoning in this thread.

You wrote:

This whole JS thing is not how God would do things -- a farmboy in America, visions, angels, gold plates, visiting apostles, etc.

No, no, no, no, no, no, etc. I do not object to any of these things on the grounds that God would not do things that way. And as I keep saying, this has nothing to do with the reasoning I have presented in this thread. I reject this particular farm boy's visions, his claimed interactions with angels, and his claim to have translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates, but I do not reject any of these things a priori.

You wrote:

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."

Not even close to being on the radar screen of anything I have said in this thread. I don't even agree with this view. It is a Mormon idea, not a Protestant one, that God corrects his church only from within and only from the top down.

You concluded:

Now, please make additions or corrections as necessary.

See above. Now, here's a fun idea: why don't you try reading my posts? See posts #15, 16, 29, 33, 58, 88, 89, 101, 106, 115, and the two posts from the earlier thread that I cited for you in post #51. You won't find me making the sort of argument you claimed in any of those posts.

[Rob Bowman]

pogi,

You wrote:

Perhaps you are right, but if he was using them, nobody would have seem them as he was behind the curtain. Joseph claims to have used them, that is good enough for me.

I appreciate your candor.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

"interpreter stones"

It does not matter whether JS used the stones. The critics still have the problem of explaining what was in that hat while JS was dictating the translation of the BOM. If not the stones, what was he using, a manuscript?

When he was dictating in view of other people, he probably had nothing in his hat other than the (singular) seer stone.

[cdowis]

When he was dictating in view of other people, he probably had nothing in his hat other than the (singular) seer stone.

OK, so where was he getting his material from. The seer stone?

Edited December 16, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Your argument is based on certain assumptions, and those assumptions are generally hidden in the verbage. I made an effort to tease out what I assumed to be a reasonable statement of those assumptions, but you did not like the results.

No, no more guessing game, so let's get basic.

Let's make it easy, regardless of your thoughts on JS himself, is the Bible a closed canon. Is it possible that God would call a living prophet in our day to give us revelations?

Edited December 16, 2012 by cdowis

[mathonihah]

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...ith/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.

The Urim and Thummim, along with the gold plates, were among the sacred artefacts that Joseph was commanded not to show to others, hence the explanation for why so few people reported actually seeing them; whereas the seer stone was not subject to the same restrictions. There is a report of Wilford Woodruff having seen them when Joseph Smith was using them to translate the Egyptian papyri. Joseph Smith himself, however, states that he translated the Anthon transcript by the Urim and Thummim:

“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 Urim 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.” (JS-H 1:62)

And the Lord affirms that the 116 lost pages of the Book of Mormon (at least) were also translated by means of the Urim and Thummim:

“Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.” (D&C 10:1)

When he was dictating in view of other people, he probably had nothing in his hat other than the (singular) seer stone.

The story of the hat may have been overstated. I don’t think that it was a continuous observation throughout the translation process. All the indications are that once Joseph had gained sufficient experience, he could dispense with any physical medium for receiving revelations. That is how most of the D&C was received (the first few were received by the Urim and Thummim), as well as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST).

Elsewhere I recall Joseph Smith stating that he translated all the BoM by the Urim and Thummim. I think that the sacred instruments are inextricably bound with the gift of seership itself. The instruments are not the gift itself, which is spiritual, but are inextricably bound with it. In other words, one need not necessarily be physically using the instruments to be exercising the gift; but one may legitimately claim to have exercised the gift by means of the instruments even though they may not have been physically used in the process.

Edited December 17, 2012 by mathonihah

[canard78]

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.

I would agree that most of our faith (and others) fits together logically once you have got past a few of the illogical parts.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Your argument is based on certain assumptions, and those assumptions are generally hidden in the verbage. I made an effort to tease out what I assumed to be a reasonable statement of those assumptions, but you did not like the results.

No, no more guessing game, so let's get basic.

Let's make it easy, regardless of your thoughts on JS himself, is the Bible a closed canon. Is it possible that God would call a living prophet in our day to give us revelations?

You are the one playing games, all on your own. Instead of simply reading my posts and addressing something I wrote, you tried to change the subject. You are still trying to change the subject. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that you misconstrued what I wrote, even though I have made this abundantly clear. Instead you attempt to deflect your own failure to listen by saying that you tried but I "did not like the results."

Since you either cannot or will not understand me, or even acknowledge that you have misunderstood me after I have made that plain, there is simply no point in me agreeing to open a new subject with you.

[mfbukowski]

Since you either cannot or will not understand me, or even acknowledge that you have misunderstood me after I have made that plain, there is simply no point in me agreeing to open a new subject with you.

And another refusal to carry on discussion.

How many is that on this thread alone? Somebody should start keeping track of this. Pretty soon he will ignore everyone's comments and just keep posting unopposed.

That's an interesting technique. Not very convincing but interesting.

[why me]

pogi,

You wrote:

Yes, if the plates could be translated by scholars, which I think we have been told would prove to be impossible.

We have the charles anthon problem. What happened between him and martin and who to believe?

[Gervin]

And another refusal to carry on discussion.

How many is that on this thread alone? Somebody should start keeping track of this. Pretty soon he will ignore everyone's comments and just keep posting unopposed.

That's an interesting technique. Not very convincing but interesting.

I would like to challenge your reading comprehension skills by asking you to show the readers of this thread exactly where Rob Bowman is refusing to carry on the discussion.

Your technique, and that of many others here, is obvious; attack Bowman the person as compensation for not being able to make a cogent point about your faith. Rather sad, but very revealing.

[mfbukowski]

I would like to challenge your reading comprehension skills by asking you to show the readers of this thread exactly where Rob Bowman is refusing to carry on the discussion.

Your technique, and that of many others here, is obvious; attack Bowman the person as compensation for not being able to make a cogent point about your faith. Rather sad, but very revealing.

LOL. You want to see not being able to make a cogent point about one's faith and refusing to discuss it?

Since you either cannot or will not understand me, or even acknowledge that you have misunderstood me after I have made that plain, there is simply no point in me agreeing to open a new subject with you.

This is the sort of comment that has led me to avoid discussions with you.

I gave you links to posts in which I thoroughly refuted the objection you raised; if you aren't going to engage the arguments I presented, our little exchange has run its course.

Of course that's only this thread.

And notice this, his first post here where he clearly limits what he is even willing to discuss.

Okay, after keeping myself out of these discussions for a while, I'm game to discuss this issue.

Edited December 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

LOL. You want to see not being able to make a cogent point about one's faith and refusing to discuss it?

Of course that's only this thread.

Poor mfbufkowski. You've shown that Bowman doesn't want to engage with people who are interested in making him the topic but you've not shown that he is avoiding discussion. As examples of the LDS-discussion capabilities I refer you to

#99: Your basic argument is "I know how God thinks and what he would do., and if it contradicts my understanding how God works, it is not from God. Using this unassailable logic, I will cleverly prove JS a false prophet."

#110: These are silly questions. You are bringing excuses for not believing.

#123: Keep it up Rob. As much as you are trying your arguments out here, we are learning how to counter yours. Thanks for the help.

#125: 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.

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

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

#132: You reject modern revelation and then make up your own plans and devices.

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

#138: You don't have a whole lot of buddies around here- did you ever notice that?

Of course, that's only this thread.

[cdowis]

We have the charles anthon problem. What happened between him and martin and who to believe?

As they say on CSI, follow the evidence. Who contradicted himself. Look at the motives for each. Harris was checking to see if there was a credible reason to invest his mortgage, while Anton had his professional reputation at stake. I personally believe Harris, and think Anton had been "fooled" by the circumstances. He assumed that that the translation of the plates was done by a scholar, and was merely doing a courtesy. He did not realize until after giving his opinion the circumstances surrounding the translation.

I feel sympathy for Anton, that he acted hasty in giving an unfounded opinion, and he ended up with egg on the fact. He desperately tried to protect his reputation, but could not even get his story straight. Harris account is rather straightforward and IMO credible.

[mfbukowski]

Poor mfbufkowski. You've shown that Bowman doesn't want to engage with people who are interested in making him the topic but you've not shown that he is avoiding discussion. As examples of the LDS-discussion capabilities I refer you to

#99: Your basic argument is "I know how God thinks and what he would do., and if it contradicts my understanding how God works, it is not from God. Using this unassailable logic, I will cleverly prove JS a false prophet."

#110: These are silly questions. You are bringing excuses for not believing.

#123: Keep it up Rob. As much as you are trying your arguments out here, we are learning how to counter yours. Thanks for the help.

#125: 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.

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

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

#132: You reject modern revelation and then make up your own plans and devices.

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

#138: You don't have a whole lot of buddies around here- did you ever notice that?

Of course, that's only this thread.

Uh huh.

Great point.

"Everybody's stupid so why even be here?" Ever look in a mirror? I suggest you lead the way by example and stop posting here.

So na na nee naa naa right back atcha.

Now THERE is some really good argumentation!

You asked for examples of Rob avoiding issues, I come back with them, and you come back with THIS? Heavy dude. Really heavy. Why don't you answer FOR Rob so we can see what you've got instead of hiding in the background and whining about how poorly we allegedly treat him?

[Gervin]

Uh huh.

Great point.

"Everybody's stupid so why even be here?" Ever look in a mirror? I suggest you lead the way by example and stop posting here.

Thanks for making my point for me.

So na na nee naa naa right back atcha.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Now THERE is some really good argumentation!

Thanks for making my point for me.

You asked for examples of Rob avoiding issues, I come back with them, and you come back with THIS? Heavy dude. Really heavy.

You didn't provide any examples of Rob avoiding an issue. Thank you for making my point for me.

Why don't you answer FOR Rob so we can see what you've got instead of hiding in the background and whining about how poorly we allegedly treat him?

You aren't being consistent; asking me to stop posting here and then asking me to answer for someone else (in the same post). I'll do neither. The fact that I don't live on this board hardly constitutes hiding and my noting your behaviour is not whining - it's stating the obvious. Feel free to continue to rail against me if it makes you feel good about yourself. Call it Christian love for all I care.

[cdowis]

Rob,

If you want to give God advice on how to run His business, I would suppose that you would at least be willing to give your assumptions behind those suggestions. I do not consider it a "change of subject", but fundamental to your arguments.

You seem to think that you must know something that He has missed, but until you give us your assumptions, we can only speculate. "If I were God, this is how I would do things... I would leave the plates available for everyone to see and examine (for example)."

Now it is not possible to address your arguments, "I am giving counsel to God", without knowing those assumptions. Your assumptions ARE your arguments. Are you asking that I pretend to think like Divinity to respond to your arguments -- only God can do that. Why He would take away the plates is something that YOU need to ask Him, not for us to explain to you.

And all of these arguments revolved around YOUR understanding of the Plan of Salvation and how it is implemented. These all come from your assumptions on how that works.

Edited December 17, 2012 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

The same problem exists with the Bible. We don't have the originals. Only someones interpretation of them.

[Vance]

The testimonies of multiple human witnesses gain credibility when they are independent of one another, or at least not coordinated or controlled by one individual. In the case of the witnesses to the resurrection, Jesus was seen on many different occasions by individuals, small groups, and large groups; by both women and men; by his closest followers, skeptical family members, and one hostile opponent.

This assessment is not accurate.

Jesus is "CLAIMED" to have been seen on many different occasions . . .

We really only have written accounts from a few people. Even fewer of which actually claim to have first hand experience.

No mortal arranged these encounters, which took place unannounced and generally surprised the witnesses.

As if mortals aranged the angelic visitations of the restoration or the visitation of the Father and the Son.

In the case of the witnesses to the gold plates, all but one (Martin Harris) were relatives of Joseph or of David Whitmer; all of them were already supporters of Joseph's work;

Yes, and James the Lord's brother wasn't a relative, nor were Andrew and Peter related, nor were James and John. /s

So, by your standard we can eliminate these people from the reliable witness pool.

Got it.

. . . the encounters took place only after nearly two years of refusing to allow anyone to see the plates even though they were supposedly in Joseph's possession; the witnesses saw the plates on just two occasions, both arranged and controlled by Joseph Smith; and their affidavits were composed for them by someone else (either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery).

So, JS controlled God's voice from heaven and the appearance of the angel.

Got it.

The person who is seeking to know the truth about the Book of Mormon must take into consideration all of the evidence, which includes but is not limited to the testimonies of the witnesses.

Actually, the ONLY evidence that needs to be considered is the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Which I have had, thank you very much.

[cdowis]

. . . the encounters took place only after nearly two years of refusing to allow anyone to see the plates even though they were supposedly in Joseph's possession; the witnesses saw the plates on just two occasions, both arranged and controlled by Joseph Smith; and their affidavits were composed for them by someone else (either Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery).

Here is an example of an argument based on an assumption. Who made that decision to wait the two years? Was this a decision by JS or by the Lord? Basically you are telling us, "if I were God, I would not have waited those two years to show the plates." Your assumption is that this waiting period indicates a human hand at work, a decision by JS. And that is based on what assumption? Is two years so long that this would be impossible in God's timeframe? Or,your understanding of the Plan of Salvation demands an immediate viewing of the plates to satisfy their curiosity and bring them to a faster conversion?

Rob, what exactly is your point about the two years, and how do your assumptions drive those arguments. In our day of instant everything -- computers, TV, news, etc, this two years is forever, but in the day of farmers.......

Edited December 17, 2012 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

Sorry I haven't posted here for a couple of days. You wrote:

The Urim and Thummim, along with the gold plates, were among the sacred artefacts that Joseph was commanded not to show to others, hence the explanation for why so few people reported actually seeing them; whereas the seer stone was not subject to the same restrictions.

This is an explanation in the sense that it is a claim made to justify the paucity of witnesses to the objects. It assumes that Joseph really had these objects and that he really was commanded by the Lord not to show them to others. In any case, my point was that we don't have any eyewitness testimonies corroborating the claim that Joseph ever used the Urim and Thummim to translate any portion of the gold plates. What information we have indicates that Joseph claimed to use them for the lost 116 pages but not for any portion of the Book of Mormon itself.

You wrote:

There is a report of Wilford Woodruff having seen them when Joseph Smith was using them to translate the Egyptian papyri.

How does this report cohere with the claim that the Urim and Thummim were sacred artifacts that were not allowed to be seen by others?

You wrote:

Joseph Smith himself, however, states that he translated the Anthon transcript by the Urim and Thummim:

“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 Urim 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.” (JS-H 1:62)

And the Lord affirms that the 116 lost pages of the Book of Mormon (at least) were also translated by means of the Urim and Thummim:

“Now, behold, I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them.” (D&C 10:1)

This is exactly what I stated above. Joseph claimed to use them to translate the gold plates until the 116 pages were lost. During that time no one actually observed Joseph handling the Urim and Thummim or the gold plates. Then after the incident with the gold plates, Joseph purported to do the translation work with his seer stone, and various witnesses observed him dictating with the seer stone in his hat.

It should be noted that both of these references to the Urim and Thummim come years after Joseph published the Book of Mormon. The reference in JS-H dates from his 1839 autobiographical account. The reference in D&C 10 was added to that revelation after 1833; it is not found in the 1833 Book of Commandments (chap. IX) and first appears in the 1835 edition (sect. XXXVI). Again, no one ever called the interpreters "the Urim and Thummim" before the Book of Mormon was published. The first such reference to the Urim and Thummim is in January 1833, when W. W. Phelps speculated that the interpreters might have been known in the Old Testament "as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim" (Evening and Morning Star 1, 8 [independence, MO, Jan. 1833], 2).

You wrote:

The story of the hat may have been overstated. I don’t think that it was a continuous observation throughout the translation process. All the indications are that once Joseph had gained sufficient experience, he could dispense with any physical medium for receiving revelations. That is how most of the D&C was received (the first few were received by the Urim and Thummim), as well as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST).

Elsewhere I recall Joseph Smith stating that he translated all the BoM by the Urim and Thummim.

As I have documented above, the references to Joseph using the Urim and Thummim were written into the record years after the Book of Mormon was published.

You wrote:

I think that the sacred instruments are inextricably bound with the gift of seership itself. The instruments are not the gift itself, which is spiritual, but are inextricably bound with it. In other words, one need not necessarily be physically using the instruments to be exercising the gift; but one may legitimately claim to have exercised the gift by means of the instruments even though they may not have been physically used in the process.

By this reasoning, one may claim to have translated gold plates even if they were never physically used in the process. The evidence shows this was in fact the case: Joseph never examined the gold plates as part of the work of producing his translation.

[Rob Bowman]

why me,

I had written: "Yes, if the plates could be translated by scholars, which I think we have been told would prove to be impossible." You replied:

We have the charles anthon problem. What happened between him and martin and who to believe?

I assume you mean that Martin Harris claimed that Anthon confirmed the accuracy of an English translation that Joseph Smith had provided on the paper he had given Martin with characters from the gold plates. But we know Anthon could not have done any such thing. You see, in 1828 no one in America could read any ancient text written in Egyptian characters. European scholars had just made an initial breakthrough in translating the Rosetta Stone, but the knowledge gained from that find was still in its preliminary stages and no one in America had yet been made privy to that information.

Furthermore, there is a paper in the possession of the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS Church) that most Mormon scholars agree was the actual "Anthon transcript," and two facts are outstanding here: (1) there is no English translation on the paper, and (2) no one can translate the characters or even identify the language they are supposed to represent!

These facts settle the question beyond reasonable doubt, as far as I can tell. Anthon told the truth when he said he could not translate the characters.