Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[Vance]

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.

So then, the witnesses WERE independent then. You're quibbleing about them being family just for quibbleing's sake. Got it.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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.

You said, and I quote, "we have their signitures [sic]." (The word is signatures, by the way.) You made a big deal about this, claiming that in this respect the evidence for their testimonies is superior to that of the apostles who testified to seeing the risen Jesus, specifically because we supposedly have the witnesses' testimonies with their signatures. Yet of course Paul signed his epistles, as everyone acknowledges, even though we no longer have the originals. So where is the supposed superiority of the testimonies to the gold plates?

Face it. You made a claim that was bogus, and now you are desperately trying to deflect attention away from your error.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

You said, and I quote, "we have their signitures [sic]." (The word is signatures, by the way.) You made a big deal about this, claiming that in this respect the evidence for their testimonies is superior to that of the apostles who testified to seeing the risen Jesus, specifically because we supposedly have the witnesses' testimonies with their signatures. Yet of course Paul signed his epistles, as everyone acknowledges, even though we no longer have the originals. So where is the supposed superiority of the testimonies to the gold plates?

Face it. You made a claim that was bogus, and now you are desperately trying to deflect attention away from your error.

Keep quibbling away. We both KNOW that they signed the original. They proudly put their own names to the document.

So, keep up the quibbling. It is all you've got.

[canard78]

Keep quibbling away. We both KNOW that they signed the original. They proudly put their own names to the document.

So, keep up the quibbling. It is all you've got.

Hi Vance - out of interest, is there a document where we can see their actual signatures?

I know they didn't revoke their testimonies - but do we have a copy of the testimony with their signatures anywhere?

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I find divinity in the words of the Book of Mormon. I hope it is a historical document (I hope to meet some of its heroes in the next life), but I don't need it to be. On that basis, even though I have doubts about the Book of Mormon's histrocity, I still embrace it as from God.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Keep quibbling away. We both KNOW that they signed the original. They proudly put their own names to the document.

So, keep up the quibbling. It is all you've got.

I'll make this really easy for you. Forget about everything else and answer this simple question: Does your belief that the witnesses to the gold plates signed the original documents of the two "Testimonies" make the evidence for the gold plates in your eyes in some way superior to the evidence for the resurrection from the testimonies of the apostles? That was your original claim. Do you stand by it?

[Calm]

I'll make this really easy for you. Forget about everything else and answer this simple question: Does your belief that the witnesses to the gold plates signed the original documents of the two "Testimonies" make the evidence for the gold plates in your eyes in some way superior to the evidence for the resurrection from the testimonies of the apostles? That was your original claim. Do you stand by it?

Totally wasting time here so probably won't get back into the thread after this post, but now that I think of it, we have a document signed by witnessess that are completely independent of the artifact they are witnessing to (though not independent of the context the artifact is present in) while as far as the biblical witnesses, the witnesses are part of the story of the bible itself, not independent of it, so in that sense I would say that the witnesses for the plates are superior to the biblical witnesses of the Bible.

However, the witnesses are not what proves the value of either, it is the Spirit so at best that superiority means only that someone has a bit more reason based on the various witnesses to seek out the Spirit for the BoM as opposed to the Bible....but there may be other reasons in someone's life that present the Bible first and foremost over the BoM as a cause to seek out the Spirit.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Totally wasting time here so probably won't get back into the thread after this post, but now that I think of it, we have a document signed by witnessess that are completely independent of the artifact they are witnessing to (though not independent of the context the artifact is present in) while as far as the biblical witnesses, the witnesses are part of the story of the bible itself, not independent of it, so in that sense I would say that the witnesses for the plates are superior to the biblical witnesses of the Bible.

The eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon are just as much a part of the story of Mormonism found in the LDS scriptures as the apostolic witnesses to the resurrection of Christ are part of the story of Christianity found in the biblical scriptures. The apostles were not witnesses to a book; they were witnesses to the risen Son of God. The eleven LDS witnesses were witnesses to the existence of metal plates that looked golden, and three of them were witnesses to seeing what they believed was an angel. Other than the claim that three of them saw an angel, there is really not much that can be based on their testimonies even if one takes them at face value and as sincere. They cannot tell us, based on what they saw, what the gold plates said, let alone whether its contents were factually true, though they affirmed the belief that the Book of Mormon was true. The testimonies of the apostles and other eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus are evidentially superior for a number of other reasons that I have set forth in previous posts.

[Calm]

The eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon are just as much a part of the story of Mormonism found in the LDS scriptures

They are however separate from the Book of Mormon itself which is the thing they were witnessing.

[Rob Bowman]

Calmoriah,

You wrote:

They are however separate from the Book of Mormon itself which is the thing they were witnessing.

Right. And the apostles were also separate from the Resurrection; it was something to which they were witnesses by seeing Jesus after his resurrection.

[Storm Rider]

This topic seems to be a bit inane...sorry. For the life of me I don't understand why anyone would want to debate the merits of the witnesses of either event. For the vast majority of the world both events are the stuff of sheer fantasy. For me personally, these are topics of faith and no amount of debate, research, study, or any other analysis will result in a conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus or the plates were real events. Because an individual will believe in one and not the other is irrelevant to the reality of either. A topic of faith is nothing more than a topic of faith; one either has faith or does not.

[cdowis]

For me personally, these are topics of faith and no amount of debate, research, study, or any other analysis will result in a conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus or the plates were real events. Because an individual will believe in one and not the other is irrelevant to the reality of either. A topic of faith is nothing more than a topic of faith; one either has faith or does not.

Very good.

Details, research, logic come down to whether you believe, or not believe. You can make up a rationale--excuses, but it comes down to faith. Rob attempts to show that he has gotten it "all figured out", since he knows how God would do things.

Wait two years? Nope, He would do no such thing. Take away the plates? Nope, but leave them on public display.

This is just sound and fury.

Edited December 21, 2012 by cdowis

[Vance]

I'll make this really easy for you. Forget about everything else and answer this simple question: Does your belief that the witnesses to the gold plates signed the original documents of the two "Testimonies" make the evidence for the gold plates in your eyes in some way superior to the evidence for the resurrection from the testimonies of the apostles? That was your original claim. Do you stand by it?

The witnesses to the plates/Book of Mormon are greater because of quality and quantity those found in the NT for the resurrection.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Rob attempts to show that he has gotten it "all figured out", since he knows how God would do things.

Wait two years? Nope, He would do no such thing. Take away the plates? Nope, but leave them on public display.

When a man guesses incorrectly what another man believes, it is called ignorance or a mistake. When a man repeatedly asserts that another man believes something even after he has repeatedly and clearly told the first man he believes no such thing, it is called something else.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

The witnesses to the plates/Book of Mormon are greater because of quality and quantity those found in the NT for the resurrection.

You didn't answer my question, which had to do with the matter of the eleven witnesses having signed the Testimonies. Please answer the question. Does their having signed the Testimonies, in your view, in some way make their witness better evidence for the Book of Mormon than the available evidence for the Resurrection?

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, because of independence.

[Vance]

You didn't answer my question, which had to do with the matter of the eleven witnesses having signed the Testimonies. Please answer the question. Does their having signed the Testimonies, in your view, in some way make their witness better evidence for the Book of Mormon than the available evidence for the Resurrection?

I am not sure what part of "The witnesses to the plates/Book of Mormon are greater because of quality and quantity those found in the NT for the resurrection" you are not grasping.

[cdowis]

You have the last word.

Edited December 21, 2012 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Once again I find the gamesmanship of some of the most regular participants here awfully wearying. Apparently it is too much to expect some of you to answer simple questions or to choose either to retract your statement or defend it after it has been challenged. Instead of dialogue and discussion, I'm seeing little more than posturing and prevarication.

If anyone says something in response that is serious, I'll be happy to reply. Meanwhile, I anticipate some gnashing of teeth at the above comment. Enjoy yourselves.

[Vance]

Once again I find the gamesmanship of some of the most regular participants here awfully wearying.

Mere projection.

Apparently it is too much to expect some of you to answer simple questions or to choose either to retract your statement or defend it after it has been challenged. Instead of dialogue and discussion, I'm seeing little more than posturing and prevarication.

Still more projection.

[mfbukowski]

This topic seems to be a bit inane...sorry. For the life of me I don't understand why anyone would want to debate the merits of the witnesses of either event. For the vast majority of the world both events are the stuff of sheer fantasy. For me personally, these are topics of faith and no amount of debate, research, study, or any other analysis will result in a conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus or the plates were real events. Because an individual will believe in one and not the other is irrelevant to the reality of either. A topic of faith is nothing more than a topic of faith; one either has faith or does not.

Please stop making sense.

This thread has doing very nicely without it since the beginning and it undoubtedly will continue to go on for quite a while to come without anyone thinking these issues through, and then you come in and have to spoil it for everyone.

Cheesh!

Clearly we should be discussing the witnesses for the Koran. Now THERE would be a great discussion!

[mfbukowski]

Once again I find the gamesmanship of some of the most regular participants here awfully wearying. Apparently it is too much to expect some of you to answer simple questions or to choose either to retract your statement or defend it after it has been challenged. Instead of dialogue and discussion, I'm seeing little more than posturing and prevarication.

If anyone says something in response that is serious, I'll be happy to reply. Meanwhile, I anticipate some gnashing of teeth at the above comment. Enjoy yourselves.

Oh yeah.

Gnash gnash.

[canard78]

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

I think this question is a really interesting one - especially in light of recent research by Richard E Bennett about one of the other men Harris visited on the trip. I've opened a new thread to discuss it.

[canard78]

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.

CDowis (or Charles?)

I've quoted you in a new thread about Harris, Anthon and Mitchill as it's a topic I'd like to discuss further and don't think this is the thread for it. I hope that quoting in a different thread is ok by board rules. I'd welcome your perspectives.

[canard78]

canard,

You wrote:

By all means, and thanks for doing so.

You wrote:

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.

I think this was always going to be passed by in the witness debate. I've started a new thread to discuss it. I'd welcome your perspectives.

FWIW, I agree that you've been badly treated in this thread.

[Storm Rider]

When a man guesses incorrectly what another man believes, it is called ignorance or a mistake. When a man repeatedly asserts that another man believes something even after he has repeatedly and clearly told the first man he believes no such thing, it is called something else.

This is a statement that I firmly support; it just surprises me that you are saying it. Context and priority of some beliefs should always be taken into consideration. It is like talking about Kolob in LDS teaching. It has virtually no significance, but tell me how often it is talked about as if it is a core belief/doctrine. What is the amount of time Joseph was hired by others to hunt for treasure and how much that incredibly small amount of time is focused on by critics? Rob, we are men of faith and we both believe firmly in the value and importance of truth; in brief, we both belief that truth is eternal. The great thing is that we both have focused our lives on following Jesus Christ and standing as a witness for him. Our expressions of our discipleship are very different, but I hope that God is guiding all who call upon him. It is my prayer that this Christmas season will be a time of peace and joy for you, your family, and for all those with whom you come in contact. Never let your zeal for knowing truth become so important that you cannot see the wayfarer beside the road of life that simply needs a hand of fellowship. The good Samaritan took the time when all the supposed righteous men passed him by. May we each follow his example, a man not of the House of Israel, but one that lived the Way of the Master.