Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

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.

See my reply to "why me." If one follows the evidence, the conclusion seems to me inescapable that Anthon was telling the truth when he claimed that the characters were, at least to him, untranslatable. Your speculations about the motivations of Harris and Anthon are easily refutable, but there is no need to do so, as the hard evidence is overwhelming that Anthon could not have verified any translation of the characters.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

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.

I have already thoroughly refuted your claim that I am presuming to tell God how to do anything. The fact that you keep bringing up this red herring shows you are simply unwilling to let go of this anti-anti-Mormon canard.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

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

This isn't "the same problem" at all. We not only have no originals for the Book of Mormon, we have no copies. (The Anthon transcript is not a copy of any portion of the Book of Mormon; at best it is a copy of some characters from the lost 116 pages, so it is not possible to compare the transcript with a translation.) By contrast, we have multitudes of copies of every book of the Bible.

That's just one obvious difference; there are other significant differences, but this one difference is enough to invalidate your comparison.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

I had written:

"...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)."

You commented:

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.......

Farmers? What in the world does that have to do with anything?

Joseph had time to tell numerous people about the gold plates. He supposedly had them in his possession for that period of nearly two years. No one is suggesting he should have posted pictures of them on the Internet two minutes after obtaining them. But the fact is that he supposedly had them for nearly two years (roughly one year and nine or ten months) before showing them to anyone. He didn't even show them to people in his own house!

I'm afraid you simply are not following my reasoning at all. My reasoning is not "God wouldn't do it this way, therefore he didn't do it this way with Joseph." My reasoning is, rather, that what Joseph did has all the marks of a man manipulating people and things around him, and therefore Joseph's machinations are a more plausible explanation of the facts than God's inscrutable will. Notice, even in the short part of my comments that you quoted, that the two years do not stand alone as a single argument but are part of a larger group of facts that all point in the same direction.

For example, Jesus apparently "waited" several months and perhaps over a year after his resurrection before appearing to Saul of Tarsus. However, this appearance took place totally outside human controls, unlike the disclosure of the gold plates to the eleven witnesses, and resulted in the conversion of a former enemy of the faith, unlike the viewing of the gold plates which merely rewarded Joseph's already staunchest male supporters. Also, Saul of Tarsus's testimony was not written for him by, say, James or Peter. Rather, Saul (Paul) gave us his testimony directly in his epistles (especially Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 15).

Naturally, in the broadest sense possible any assessment of a religious claim is going to make some assumptions about what God would not do. For example, I assume that God would not endorse lying for the Lord. I assume that God would not arrange his revelations to make them appear to be the work of a scheming human being. If this is what you mean by me assuming what God would or would not do then I happily plead guilty.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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.

I am embarrassed for you, tearing down the factual evidence for the most important event in human history in order to bring it down to evidential parity with specific Mormon claims.

All historians agree that a fairly large number of individuals sincerely believed that they had seen the risen Jesus. This point has been conceded even by some leading skeptics. Christianity simply would not have gotten started if Peter, James, and John, for example, had not had experiences that they thought were encounters with Jesus risen from the dead. The Gospel accounts of the first witnesses to the empty tomb being women are widely acknowledged by critical biblical scholars to be authentic reports. That Saul of Tarsus (Paul) had an experience he believed was an encounter with the risen Jesus is almost universally admitted. These are facts that any serious historian must and does acknowledge.

You wrote:

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

You are changing the subject. The issue is the alleged experiences of witnesses other than Joseph Smith himself.

You wrote:

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.

No, you haven't got it at all. The attested witnesses to the risen Jesus do include people related to one another, but no more than about two or three from any single family. The eleven disciples came from at least half a dozen families, probably eight or ten families. The women who went to the tomb came from at least three or four different families (only two of which included members of the eleven). Saul of Tarsus was not related to any of the other witnesses.

By contrast, the twelve men (counting Joseph) who claimed to have seen the gold plates included Martin Harris; six members of the Whitmer family; and five members of the Smith family (counting Oliver Cowdery, a distant relative). That is, eleven of the twelve men were from two families!

You wrote:

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

Got it.

If God really had spoken from heaven, and if an angel really had appeared, then of course Joseph would not have had any control over those occurrences. Yet it is undeniable that these allegedly happened only in an encounter for which Joseph was the mediator.

You wrote:

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

Which I have had, thank you very much.

Since that "evidence" is not open to public examination, it is of no relevance in this discussion, as relevant as it may be to you personally.

[Vance]

I am embarrassed for you, tearing down the factual evidence for the most important event in human history in order to bring it down to evidential parity with specific Mormon claims.

You are the one that should be embarrased, propping up by exageration the evidence to the resurrection in the NT in order to make it greater than the evidence of the restoration.

The actual number of eyewitnesses to the resurrection that ACTUALLY documented their witness is fewer than that of the restoration.

The "claims" that many more were witnesses are simply that, claims.

We only have the records from 8, (possible 9, if you assume Hebrews was written by someone other than Paul) individuals in the NT. And some of these claim only to be passing on hearsay.

All historians agree that a fairly large number of individuals sincerely believed that they had seen the risen Jesus.

As claimed by no more than 8 individuals.

This point has been conceded even by some leading skeptics.

Do I need to point out the logical fallacies you are committing here?

Christianity simply would not have gotten started if Peter, James, and John, for example, had not had experiences that they thought were encounters with Jesus risen from the dead.

And just where did James(Jacobus) record his witness?

The Gospel accounts of the first witnesses to the empty tomb being women are widely acknowledged by critical biblical scholars to be authentic reports.

And just where did these women record their witness?

And where are That Saul of Tarsus (Paul) had an experience he believed was an encounter with the risen Jesus is almost universally admitted. These are facts that any serious historian must and does acknowledge.

Paul is one of the few that actually provides a first hand account.

You are changing the subject. The issue is the alleged experiences of witnesses other than Joseph Smith himself.

I thought you were aware that angelic visitation was part of the witness experience for some of the witnesses.

No, you haven't got it at all. The attested witnesses to the risen Jesus do include people related to one another, but no more than about two or three from any single family.

A distinction without a difference.

Saul of Tarsus was not related to any of the other witnesses.

I never claimed otherwise.

If God really had spoken from heaven, and if an angel really had appeared, then of course Joseph would not have had any control over those occurrences.

And there it is.

If it really happened as recorded then JS did not have control over the situation.

So you are using circular logic again.

Yet it is undeniable that these allegedly happened only in an encounter for which Joseph was the mediator.

It is nice to see you concede that JS was not in control of the situation. He, indeed, was the mediator between the heavens and the witnesses in arranging the meeting which Heaven commanded.

Since that "evidence" is not open to public examination, it is of no relevance in this discussion, as relevant as it may be to you personally.

Just as your opinion on this subject is also of no relevance.

The fact remains that the firsthand witness accounts of the restoration are far stronger than the firsthand witnesses accounts of the resurrection found in the NT.

Thank God for the addition witness accounts of the resurrection recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Vance

[cdowis]

Rob,

I give you the last word.

Edited December 19, 2012 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

You are the one that should be embarrased, propping up by exageration the evidence to the resurrection in the NT in order to make it greater than the evidence of the restoration.

Only in your prejudiced anti-evangelical mind could you come up with such a howler. My view of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is entirely independent of any opinion I have of Mormonism. I studied the historical evidence for the resurrection assiduously for many years before the issue of comparing that evidence to the evidence for Mormonism ever came up in my thinking. The same would be true for practically any evangelical on the planet other than perhaps former Mormons who converted to evangelicalism. Try reading some good evangelical treatments of the subject of the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection before spouting any more nonsense about it. The go-to treatment for serious scholars is now Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (InterVarsity Press, 2010), but you can also go back and read older treatments by such scholars as Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig.

You wrote:

The actual number of eyewitnesses to the resurrection that ACTUALLY documented their witness is fewer than that of the restoration.

The "claims" that many more were witnesses are simply that, claims.

We only have the records from 8, (possible 9, if you assume Hebrews was written by someone other than Paul) individuals in the NT. And some of these claim only to be passing on hearsay.

We don't have that many independent writings produced by members of the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon. The "Testimonies" of the Three and Eight Witnesses were both written by Joseph or Oliver (or the two working together), no one else. Both men, of course, wrote other texts affirming their testimonies. David Whitmer wrote a book and gave many interviews in the 1870s and 1880s affirming his witness. There are brief written testimonies produced later by John Whitmer and Hiram Page. Some of the other witnesses (Martin Harris, Joseph Smith Sr.) gave oral interviews written down by the interviewers. Thus, to the best of my knowledge, we have written statements from five men -- Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Hiram Page -- and oral testimonies from Martin Harris and Joseph Smith Sr. written down by others. Other than the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses," we apparently have no documentary evidence for the testimonies of Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Hyrum Smith, or Samuel H. Smith.

More important than the number of documents personally written by witnesses to either event is the quality of the testimonies they give. Quality in this context involves such issues as whether the testimonies were independent, the nature of the event they claim to have witnessed, the way in which their testimonies came to be reported in the literature we do have, etc.

You wrote:

I thought you were aware that angelic visitation was part of the witness experience for some of the witnesses.

Yes, I am. The Three Witnesses claimed to have seen an angel. I have already acknowledged that point.

[Vance]

Only in your prejudiced anti-evangelical mind could you come up with such a howler.

Actually, it is your prejudiced anti-mormon mind that fabricates the howlers around here.

<Snip the irrelevancies> Try reading some good evangelical treatments of the subject of the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection before spouting any more nonsense about it.

Quite frankly, LDS scripture provides plenty of evidence for the resurrection. Plus it has the added benefit of have the Holy Spirit's stamp of approval.

The go-to treatment for serious scholars is now Michael Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (InterVarsity Press, 2010), but you can also go back and read older treatments by such scholars as Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig.

Yea, yea, yea.

And what of the several books on the witnesses to the Book of Mormon? Should I not assume as much credence for them as you assume for theses?

We don't have that many independent writings produced by members of the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

Again, attempting to minimize the greater witness to the Book of Mormon.

We don't need "many independent writings", we already have more from them than the NT provides. After all they put their own signatures to the document.

The "Testimonies" of the Three and Eight Witnesses were both written by Joseph or Oliver (or the two working together), no one else.

Again, attempting to minimize the greater witness to the restoration. All eleven witnesses put their own names to the documents, making the evidence far, far stronger than that provided by the NT.

Both men, of course, wrote other texts affirming their testimonies. David Whitmer wrote a book and gave many interviews in the 1870s and 1880s affirming his witness. There are brief written testimonies produced later by John Whitmer and Hiram Page. Some of the other witnesses (Martin Harris, Joseph Smith Sr.) gave oral interviews written down by the interviewers. Thus, to the best of my knowledge, we have written statements from five men -- Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Hiram Page -- and oral testimonies from Martin Harris and Joseph Smith Sr. written down by others.

Yup, thus adding even more weight to the Book of Mormon side of the balance.

Other than the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses," we apparently have no documentary evidence for the testimonies of Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Hyrum Smith, or Samuel H. Smith.

So?

We do have their signature from their own hand, which is far more than nearly all of the "claimed" witnesses in the NT.

More important than the number of documents personally written by witnesses to either event is the quality of the testimonies they give.

Agreed.

And the quality of witnesses to the restoration are far greater than the quality found in the NT.

Quality in this context involves such issues as whether the testimonies were independent, the nature of the event they claim to have witnessed, the way in which their testimonies came to be reported in the literature we do have, etc.

Each witness to the restoration INDEPENDENTLY provided his own signature. That is independent enough.

Here you go again, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, you are claiming coercion was involved, in you feeble attempt to minimize the strength of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

All of the witnesses had ample time and opportunity to claim they were coerced, yet NOT A SINGLE ONE did so.

You have absolutely NO BASIS for your claim of coercion.

Yes, I am. The Three Witnesses claimed to have seen an angel. I have already acknowledged that point.

And just Who is in control of the angels, and the voice from heaven?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Actually, it is your prejudiced anti-mormon mind that fabricates the howlers around here.

You're very good at deflection, but not so good at acknowledging when you have made a mistake. Granted you don't like my view of Mormonism, the fact is that I don't exaggerate the evidence for Jesus' resurrection in order to make the evidence for Mormonism look paltry by comparison. Why not just admit that comment to have been a mistake?

You wrote:

We don't need "many independent writings", we already have more from them than the NT provides. After all they put their own signatures to the document.... We do have their signature from their own hand, which is far more than nearly all of the "claimed" witnesses in the NT.... Each witness to the restoration INDEPENDENTLY provided his own signature. That is independent enough.

Did they? Do we? I would love to see some documentation confirming this claim.

The Joseph Smith Papers have published an image of the page from the Book of Mormon printer's manuscript with the Testimonies and the names of the supposed signatories. You can see the image here. It is obvious looking at the names that they were all written by one man, Cowdery. I suppose he was copying the original; is a copy of that original extant? I have never seen it. If you could provide a reference for where that document can be found with the actual signatures of the eleven men are written I would be grateful for the information.

You wrote:

Here you go again, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL, you are claiming coercion was involved, in you feeble attempt to minimize the strength of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

All of the witnesses had ample time and opportunity to claim they were coerced, yet NOT A SINGLE ONE did so.

You have absolutely NO BASIS for your claim of coercion.

You have absolutely no basis for your claim that I claimed coercion was involved! I said no such thing.

[mathonihah]

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

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.

Whether you believe he had them or not is a matter of faith, like other faith based principles. Whether he was commanded not to show them to others or not is a matter of in his own record; but whether you believe that he was or not is again a matter of faith. I believe that he both had them, as well as being commanded not to show them, according to his own statements.

You wrote:

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?

The righteous were allowed to see them, but not the wicked.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

Whether you believe he had them or not is a matter of faith, like other faith based principles. Whether he was commanded not to show them to others or not is a matter of in his own record; but whether you believe that he was or not is again a matter of faith. I believe that he both had them, as well as being commanded not to show them, according to his own statements.

"His own statements" were doctored after the fact, as I have documented. When he originally produced D&C 10, for example, he did not refer to the Urim and Thummim, or to any other instruments as interpreters or translators' aids. He back-dated a reference to them in D&C 10 in the 1835 edition of D&C, upon a suggestion by W. W. Phelps. Joseph didn't even come up with the name for these supposed instruments!

I agree that in your case you accept Joseph's word as a simple matter of faith. You apparently do not mind if the evidence doesn't fit too well with the claims made (as for instance the fact that Joseph misrepresented what happened with Charles Anthon, a fact I have also documented in this thread). I have faith, too, but I don't think it is wise to base my faith on such shaky testimonies from individuals who don't seem to have been straightforward or candid about what they were doing or what really happened. My disbelief in Joseph Smith's claims is not based on a simple faith commitment that disposes me against his claims; if I thought there was something legitimate to his claims I would alter my faith position accordingly. Rather, I disbelieve Joseph Smith's claims because on examination the facts rather clearly show he was not telling the truth.

Regarding the claim that Woodruff saw the Urim and Thummim even though no one else seems to have seen them, you replied:

The righteous were allowed to see them, but not the wicked.

Apparently, in the 1820s and 1830s a righteous man was awfully hard to find.

[mathonihah]

"His own statements" were doctored after the fact, as I have documented. When he originally produced D&C 10, for example, he did not refer to the Urim and Thummim, or to any other instruments as interpreters or translators' aids. He back-dated a reference to them in D&C 10 in the 1835 edition of D&C, upon a suggestion by W. W. Phelps. Joseph didn't even come up with the name for these supposed instruments!

Editing your own work is not "doctoring". There is no doubt that according to his own record he was commanded not to show them:

"And I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I commanded you; and you have no power over them except I grant it unto you." (D&C 5:3)

"Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it." (JS-H 1:42)

Apparently, in the 1820s and 1830s a righteous man was awfully hard to find.

I agree.

"Marvel not that I said unto you: Here is wisdom, show it not unto the world—for I said, show it not unto the world, that you may be preserved.

"Behold, I do not say that you shall not show it unto the righteous;

"But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter." (D&C 10:35-37)

This of course refers to the translated manuscripts, not the original artefacts. His commandments concerning those were stricter still.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

Editing your own work is not "doctoring".

It is when the editing is misleading. In this case it is misleading because it makes it appear to the reader that Joseph knew in 1829 that he had something called the Urim and Thummim. As I have shown, this is not the case. The name was actually suggested by one of Joseph's followers, not something he received by divine revelation.

There are other even more egregious examples of misleading editing of Joseph's revelations. The best example is the supposed earliest revelation concerning the appearances of John the Baptist and of Peter, James, and John to bestow the priesthood orders on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in D&C 27:5-13, a three-hundred word text added in 1835 to what was Book of Commandments 28 by being literally spliced into the middle of a sentence. By inserting this material into that earlier text Joseph back-dated to 1830 his revelation concerning these supposed events of 1829, even though no one had ever heard of these events or of Joseph and Oliver having these priesthood orders in 1830 or even for the following three years or so. Joseph not only inserted this three-hundred word text into the middle of a sentence, he did so in a revelation that had nothing to do with priesthood or visitations; it was originally a "revelation" not to buy wine for the sacrament!

[cdowis]

It is when the editing is misleading. In this case it is misleading because it makes it appear to the reader that Joseph knew in 1829 that he had something called the Urim and Thummim. As I have shown, this is not the case. The name was actually suggested by one of Joseph's followers, not something he received by divine revelation.

There are other even more egregious examples of misleading editing of Joseph's revelations. The best example is the supposed earliest revelation concerning the appearances of John the Baptist and of Peter, James, and John to bestow the priesthood orders on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in D&C 27:5-13, a three-hundred word text added in 1835 to what was Book of Commandments 28 by being literally spliced into the middle of a sentence. By inserting this material into that earlier text Joseph back-dated to 1830 his revelation concerning these supposed events of 1829, even though no one had ever heard of these events or of Joseph and Oliver having these priesthood orders in 1830 or even for the following three years or so. Joseph not only inserted this three-hundred word text into the middle of a sentence, he did so in a revelation that had nothing to do with priesthood or visitations; it was originally a "revelation" not to buy wine for the sacrament!

Once again, we ask you about your assumptions on revelation. Is a revelation received as a single event, and no changes or additions made, or are you able to see the possibility that a revelation is a living document. Additions and corrections are made as new information and light is discovered. As the revelation goes to the world, goes into publication, those changes are encorporated into the published revelation, as opposed to its "raw" form.

May I suggest that you assume that a revelation is a "dead" event -- given one time, in a complete form. The Bible is a fixed, continous book, not a living document. For us who accept modern revelation, it is a living process. As you say, "if I were God, I would not allow changes and updates to any revelation that I give a prophet. Once given, it is written in stone. I know how God thinks, and that is how it is."

Again, you can have the final word on the subject.

Edited December 20, 2012 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Once again, we ask you about your assumptions on revelation. Is a revelation received as a single event, and no changes or additions made, or are you able to see the possibility that a revelation is a living document. Additions and corrections are made as new information and light is discovered. As the revelation goes to the world, goes into publication, those changes are encorporated into the published revelation, as opposed to its "raw" form.

May I suggest that you assume that a revelation is a "dead" event -- given one time, in a complete form. The Bible is a fixed, continous book, not a living document. For us who accept modern revelation, it is a living process. As you say, "if I were God, I would not allow changes and updates to any revelation that I give a prophet. Once given, it is written in stone. I know how God thinks, and that is how it is."

Joseph's addition to BC 28 in D&C 27:5-13 doesn't meet your own explanation or rationale for such additions. If Joseph received any "new information" after the publication of the 1833 edition of the BC, that would only mean that he did not in fact have information about John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John visiting him and Oliver in 1829 to bestow on them the priesthood orders. The material in D&C 27:5-13 is not presented as new information, new light, or updating of the earlier revelation. It is presented as if it were given in 1830 as part of the revelation published in the 1830 and 1833 editions. Furthermore, in no reasonable or plausible sense can one argue that the three-hundred word addition was made to clarify, correct, augment, supplement, enlarge upon, explain, or build on the material to which it was added. Again, the addition was spliced into the middle of a sentence that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of priesthood orders or visitations from dead prophets or apostles.

Had Joseph simply issued a new revelation to the effect "The Lord now wants me to inform the Saints that six years ago John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John appeared to Oliver and me on two occasions and imparted to us the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods," that would have at least been a straightforward statement of the "new light" Joseph purported to present. But that's not what he did.

Thus, the point is not, as you keep trying to argue, that I am telling God what to do, or specifically here that I am claiming that God would not add anything to his earlier revelations. Granting for the sake of argument that God might issue new revelations in modern times and even that he might issue clarifying or supplemental revelations to be added to earlier ones, what we have in D&C 27:5-13 simply doesn't comport with such claims.

You wrote:

Again, you can have the final word on the subject.

That is gracious of you, but I encourage you to grapple more directly with the issue I have raised here, and I would welcome any further response from you that tackles the problem as I have stated it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[canard78]

Cdowis and Rob, if I may join the conversation, you said:

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.

See my reply to "why me." If one follows the evidence, the conclusion seems to me inescapable that Anthon was telling the truth when he claimed that the characters were, at least to him, untranslatable. Your speculations about the motivations of Harris and Anthon are easily refutable, but there is no need to do so, as the hard evidence is overwhelming that Anthon could not have verified any translation of the characters.

There's a very interesting article at NAMI about Harris' trip, after which he came back and funded the Book of Mormon. The Editor says: "If you have ever wondered why Martin Harris would return from his visit with Charles Anthon and promptly commit to support the publication of the Book of Mormon, Professor Richard E. Bennett has produced an answer."

Based on Bennet's research, Harris didn't only visit Anthon. On the same trip he went on to visit Samuel L. Mitchill (at Anthon's recommendation). A Professor of Columbia College who studied the history of the Indians, Mitchill reached the conclusion that groups from east Asia/China (the Tartars), Polynesia (Malays) and Europe (Celts) lived in North America. He concluded that the Malays and Europeans were a “more delicate race”, and “[had greater proficiency] in the arts, particularly of making cloths, clearing the ground, and erecting works of defence.”

Despite this refinement, he believed the Tartars encroached and “overwhelmed and destroyed both peoples in a long series of terrible conflicts centered primarily in upstate New York.” Mitchill had been lecturing about this for over 10 years when Harris met him.

During his visit in Feb 1828, Harris showed Mitchill hieroglyphs copied from the Gold plates, he said “they were the characters of a nation now extinct which he named.”

The article concludes:

“It can now be proven that Professor Mitchill, one of the leading proponents of the ancient American peoples theory, and Martin Harris met together in February 1828, that Mitchill showed more than a passing interest in what Harris had to show and say, and that he went so far as to identify these people.”

Many of Mitchill's theories have since fallen out of favour and debunked... but given the message that Harris seems to have taken from the meeting it's not hard to see why Harris came back confident in the plates. It also means Anthon didn't need to be the person who enthused Harris. Harris may have, in reality, got nothing of merit from Anthon and instead been convinced by his meeting with Mitchill.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=20&num=2&id=609

[cdowis]

For some reason, two separate revelations were cobbled together. There was an article in the Ensign on the historical background, but it was over a decade ago and I would have to search around.

Your assumption: JS was writing down revelations in such a way to convince others that he was a prophet. So he "tidied up", or polished up the revelations to avoid showing the "raw" revelation. He was struggling to sound "prophet like", and now we caught him faking prophecy.

BTW, I have been "grappling" with these issues when you were still in diapers. I have nothing to prove, and little interest in getting in major debate.

Edited December 20, 2012 by cdowis

[Vance]

You're very good at deflection, but not so good at acknowledging when you have made a mistake.

You are projecting again.

Granted you don't like my view of Mormonism, the fact is that I don't exaggerate the evidence for Jesus' resurrection in order to make the evidence for Mormonism look paltry by comparison.

Sure you do. I have demonstrated so.

Why not just admit that comment to have been a mistake?

And deny the truth?

Nah!!

Did they? Do we? I would love to see some documentation confirming this claim.

Another howler. We have their signitures which is far more than we have for nearly all of the witnesses you claim.

The Joseph Smith Papers have published an image of the page from the Book of Mormon printer's manuscript with the Testimonies and the names of the supposed signatories. You can see the image here. It is obvious looking at the names that they were all written by one man, Cowdery. I suppose he was copying the original; is a copy of that original extant? I have never seen it. If you could provide a reference for where that document can be found with the actual signatures of the eleven men are written I would be grateful for the information.

Duh!! You are looking at at copy of the orginal. What evidence do you have that they didn't sign the orginal? I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

You have absolutely no basis for your claim that I claimed coercion was involved! I said no such thing.

What other possible motive are you implying then?

You claimed JS had CONTROL of the witnesses. If that isn't coercion then what is it?

[Vance]

Once again, we ask you about your assumptions on revelation. Is a revelation received as a single event, and no changes or additions made, or are you able to see the possibility that a revelation is a living document. Additions and corrections are made as new information and light is discovered. As the revelation goes to the world, goes into publication, those changes are encorporated into the published revelation, as opposed to its "raw" form.

May I suggest that you assume that a revelation is a "dead" event -- given one time, in a complete form. The Bible is a fixed, continous book, not a living document. For us who accept modern revelation, it is a living process. As you say, "if I were God, I would not allow changes and updates to any revelation that I give a prophet. Once given, it is written in stone. I know how God thinks, and that is how it is."

And let's not even get into how language changes over time.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Another howler. We have their signitures which is far more than we have for nearly all of the witnesses you claim.

Duh!! You are looking at at copy of the orginal. What evidence do you have that they didn't sign the orginal? I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

You were the one who made the assertion, and you have repeated it here, that "we have their signitures [sic]." I asked very politely for documentation, and instead you demand that I provide evidence of a negative. So now I will have to issue a formal Call For Reference. Please provide documentation showing the signatures of the eleven witnesses.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

For some reason, two separate revelations were cobbled together. There was an article in the Ensign on the historical background, but it was over a decade ago and I would have to search around.

Aw.

You wrote:

Your assumption: JS was writing down revelations in such a way to convince others that he was a prophet. So he "tidied up", or polished up the revelations to avoid showing the "raw" revelation. He was struggling to sound "prophet like", and now we caught him faking prophecy.

Please stop making up assumptions for me to hold. You haven't gotten even one right so far. Just give it up. What you say here isn't even close to what I said; in fact, some of it is directly contrary to what I said.

You wrote:

BTW, I have been "grappling" with these issues when you were still in diapers.

Well then, by all means share the wisdom of your evidently considerable years.

You wrote:

I have nothing to prove, and little interest in getting in major debate.

Charles, you challenged me. You made wildly false statements about my assumptions and completely misunderstood my arguments. I'm simply responding. If you don't want to do intellectual combat, don't throw down the gauntlet.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

You claimed JS had CONTROL of the witnesses.

No. I never said that. I said that he had control over the circumstances and conditions under which the witnesses were permitted to see the gold plates (and for the three, the angel). That's different from claiming he had some kind of coercive control over the men themselves.

[Rob Bowman]

canard,

You wrote:

Cdowis and Rob, if I may join the conversation....

By all means, and thanks for doing so.

You wrote:

Many of Mitchill's theories have since fallen out of favour and debunked... but given the message that Harris seems to have taken from the meeting it's not hard to see why Harris came back confident in the plates. It also means Anthon didn't need to be the person who enthused Harris. Harris may have, in reality, got nothing of merit from Anthon and instead been convinced by his meeting with Mitchill.

http://maxwellinstit...20&num=2&id=609

I'd be interested in hearing some opinions on this viewpoint from the Mormons here. I personally think this argument undermines the account in Joseph Smith--History.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

You were the one who made the assertion, and you have repeated it here, that "we have their signitures [sic]." I asked very politely for documentation, and instead you demand that I provide evidence of a negative. So now I will have to issue a formal Call For Reference. Please provide documentation showing the signatures of the eleven witnesses.

You already provided a copy of the witness statement which had the signitures copied as well. NONE of the witnesses ever gave any indication that they did not sign the original. Sorry, but photo copiers weren't available at the time.

Are you claiming that because we don't have the original autograph, the witnesses are invalid?

You really are just being silly.