My Response To Jeremy Runnells Part 4 Book Of Mormon Witnesses

[tonie]

FairMormon is correct in its claim (which, by the way, is what the Church claims). The CES Letter author is incorrect. Here's a list of statements made by Martin Harris, or statements that others report that he made. Martin's reported "spiritual eye," "pencil-case" and "city through a mountain" statements are in the minority.

Here's a page with a list (more are being added): http://en.fairmormonevidence.org/Category:Martin_Harris/Witness_to_the_Book_of_Mormon.

The following is sincerely offered constructively and intended to help refine the rebuttal to the Jeremy Runnell's JR.  Personally, whether a visionary experience or not,  I firmly believe Harris statements are true. I do not doubt the Harris saw the plates. His lifelong commitment to his belief is enough for me not to doubt him. It matters not whether he saw the plates with a “spiritual eye” or in a visionary experience; he saw the plates.

Responsive, but do not necessarily disprove CES incorrect nor Fairmormon correct:

 

 

Martin Harris's response to George Godfrey, after Godfrey suggested that Harris had been deceived,

I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen, and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates....An angel appeared to me and others.[5]

This quote does not prove Jeremy Runnell's JR claim is in error. Harris could “know what [he had] seen” even if the experience was a vision.

 

 

Martin Harris said in the presence of 12-year-old William Glenn:

Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.[6]

This quote is much better and goes to more to demonstrate the actuality and physicality of the experience. However if it was a “visionary” experience Harris would still have the same conviction.

 

 

Martin Harris told Robert Aveson,

 It is not a mere belief, but is a matter of knowledge. I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me.[7]

This quote is much better and goes to more to demonstrate the actuality and physicality of the experience. However if it was a “visionary” experience, why wouldn’t Harris would still have the same conviction.

 

 

Mr. Harris replied and said —"I was the right-hand man of Joseph Smith, and I know that he was a Prophet of God. I know the Book of Mormon is true." The smiting his fist on the table, he said—"And you know that I know that it is true." I know that the plates have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice declared it unto us; Therefore I know of a surety that the work is true. For," continued Mr. Harris, "did i not at one time hold the plates on my knee an hour-and-a-half, whilst in conversation with Joseph, when we went to bury them in the woods, that the enemy might not obtain them? Yes, I did. And as many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled with my hands, plate after plate." Then describing their dimensions, he pointed with one of the fingers of his left hand to the back of his right hand and said, "I should think they were so long, or about eight inches, and about so thick, or about four inches; and each of the plates was thicker than the thickest tin."[9]

This quote would tend to show that Harris saw the plates in a non-visionary experience. And thus show Jeremy Runnell's JR claim is incorrect. A potential weakness with this quote would be the full context. Would Harris have handled the plates “uncovered” at the time – both on his knee and “as many as” were translated?

 

 

Well, just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates; and sooner than I would deny it I would lay my head upon that chopping block and let you chop it off.[12]

This quote is much better and goes to more to demonstrate the actuality and physicality of the experience. However if it was a “visionary” experience Harris would still have the same conviction.

 

Responsive and tend demonstrate the visionary nature of Harris experience.

 

The Painesville Telegraph published the following on 15 March 1831:

[Martin Harris] told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith—He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God.[2]

This quote does more to support the claim of Jeremy Runnell's JR. It does not disprove the “visionary” stipulation from the CES letter.

 

 

William Harrison Homer on Martin Harris: "For I saw the angel, I heard his voice. I saw and handled the plates upon which the Book of Mormon was written"

This quote is much better and goes to more to demonstrate the actuality and physicality of the experience. However if it was a “visionary” experience, why wouldn’t Harris would still have the same conviction.

 

 

Martin Harris wrote the following in a letter to Hanna B. Emerson in January 1871:

[Question: Did you go to England and lecture against Mormonism?]

 I answer emphatically, No, I did not;—no man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the administration of the angel that showed me the plates; nor the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, under the administration of Joseph Smith Jun., the prophet whom the Lord raised up for that purpose, in these the latter days, that he may show forth his power and glory. The Lord has shown me these things by his Spirit—by the administration of holy angels—and confirmed the same with signs following, step by step, as the work has progressed, for the space of fifty-three years. [10]

This quote demonstrates the “visionary” nature or “spiritual eye” of Harris experience.  

Non-Responsive quotes – thus, in my opinion should not be appealed to in trying to demonstrate the author CES letter is in error about Harris experience.

 

 

George A. Smith wrote the following in a letter dated 30 March 1838:

Martin Harris then bore testimony of its truth and said all would be damned that rejected it.[3]

This is non-responsive. This quote does not show Jeremy Runnell's JR is in error.

 

 

Joseph Fielding stated on 20 June 1841 in the Millennial Star:

Martin Harris...gave me a particular description of the plates and of the Urim and Thummim, &c.[4]

This is non-responsive. This quote does not show Jeremy Runnell's JR is in error.

 

 

George Mantle recalls what Martin Harris said while he was in Birmingham on a mission for the Strangites. This was well after Martin had left the Church:

When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting that he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when he was asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: 'Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God.'[8]

 

This is non-responsive. This quote addresses  Joseph Smith as a Prophet and Divine power of translation. This quote does not show Jeremy Runnell's JR is in error.

Edited September 12, 2014 by tonie

[MormonFreeThinker]

I have some questions about the Shakers, it will be great if someone can help me find answers. I suspect that the critics are not making fair comparisons. 

 

 

Jeremy copied and pasted, "The Shakers, of course, did not believe in the Book of Mormon, but they had a book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth. More than 60 individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of them tell of many angels visiting them. One woman told of eight different visions.Here is the testimony statement: We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standingupon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book. Betsey Boothe. Louisa Chamberlain. Caty De Witt. Laura Ann Jacobs. Sarah Maria Lewis.S arah Ann Spencer. Lucinda McDoniels. Maria Hedrick. Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the Sacred Roll and Book. There are over a hundred pages of testimony from "Living Witnesses." "

 

My questions

1.  Did only 8 women claim to see angels? 

2  How old were they? 

3. Did they see someone in a dressed as an angel? 

4. How frequent  were the visions? 

5. Did they continue to believe in their visions for the rest of their lives? 

6. Were the 8 women chosen before they had their experience?  

 

Reason for my questions 1 and 2 

"About 15 percent of the population experience one or more hallucinations during their lifetime. Research has shown that some personality types are more prone to experiencing them. Women are more likely to experience them than men. And the older we get, the more likely we are to experience a hallucination. So, it should come as no surprise to discover that senior adults who are in the midst of bereaving the loss of a loved one belong to a group that experiences one of the highest percentage of hallucinations; a whopping 50 percent! (See Aleman and Larøi, Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic Perception, American Psychological Association, 2008.)" 

 

We know that Book of Mormon witnesses were 

1. Men

2. Most were young

3. They did not see someone dressed as an angel, I already explained why. 

4. Their experience only happened once

5. They believed for the rest of their lives

6. They were chosen before they had their experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

. 

Edited September 12, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Calm]

Tonie, a minor quibble…it is not CES which is the Church Educational System, but a letter sent to a CES director/teacher iirc.  Perhaps a better abbreviation would be or since it is Jeremy Runnell's JR.

[Robert F. Smith]

OK Bob, fess up.

 

How do you come up with all these fantastic references at the drop of a hat???

 

You always impress me, but this is simply outrageous! 

It's no drop of the hat, Mark,

I've been working on some of these issues for a lifetime and have written several books and articles on them, with a great deal more unpublished.  I have my own private FairWiki . . . 

And I keep adding to my store of material by carefully reading the entries here by you and others who provide substantive responses.  I wouldn't be here if I were not learning something new everyday.

[Tacenda]

It's no drop of the hat, Mark,

I've been working on some of these issues for a lifetime and have written several books and articles on them, with a great deal more unpublished.  I have my own private FairWiki . . . 

And I keep adding to my store of material by carefully reading the entries here by you and others who provide substantive responses.  I wouldn't be here if I were not learning something new everyday.

And I was the lucky one you responded to with this reservoir?  Nice.... 

[Wiki Wonka]

The following is sincerely offered constructively and intended to help refine the rebuttal to the CES letter.  Personally, visionary or not,  I firmly believe Harris statements are true. I do not doubt the Harris saw the plates. His lifelong commitment to his belief is enough for me not to doubt him. It matters not whether he saw the plates with a “spiritual eye” or in a visionary experience; he saw the plates.

Responsive, but do not necessarily disprove CES incorrect nor Fairmormon correct:

 

 

This quote does not prove the CES claim is in error. Harris could “know what [he had] seen” even if the experience was a vision.

 

This quote is much better and goes to more to demonstrate the actuality and physicality of the experience. However if it was a “visionary” experience Harris would still have the same conviction.

 

 

This quote is much better and goes to more to demonstrate the actuality and physicality of the experience. However if it was a “visionary” experience, why wouldn’t Harris would still have the same conviction.

 

 

This quote would tend to show that Harris saw the plates in a non-visionary experience. And thus show the CES letter claim is incorrect. A potential weakness with this quote would be the full context. Would Harris have handled the plates “uncovered” at the time – both on his knee and “as many as” were translated?

 

This quote is much better and goes to more to demonstrate the actuality and physicality of the experience. However if it was a “visionary” experience Harris would still have the same conviction.

 

Responsive and tend demonstrate the visionary nature of Harris experience.

 

This quote does more to support the CES. It does not disprove the “visionary” stipulation from the CES letter.

 

This quote is much better and goes to more to demonstrate the actuality and physicality of the experience. However if it was a “visionary” experience, why wouldn’t Harris would still have the same conviction.

 

This quote demonstrates the “visionary” nature or “spiritual eye” of Harris experience.  

Non-Responsive quotes – thus, in my opinion should not be appealed to in trying to demonstrate the author CES letter is in error about Harris experience.

 

This is non-responsive. This quote does nothing to prove CES is in error

 

 

This is non-responsive. This quote does nothing to prove CES is in error.

 

 

 

This is non-responsive. This quote addresses  Joseph Smith as a Prophet and Divine power of translation. This quote does nothing to prove CES is in error.

 

 

Thanks. I appreciate your feedback. (Right now we are simply gathering all quotes, but I do want to further categorize them as you have done above).

 

I think that any time that one of the witnesses mentions "the power of God," someone will use that to claim that the experience was "simply" visionary. That is what is so fascinating about the difference in the experience between the three and the eight witnesses.

 

The Three Witnesses clearly had a visionary experience - they saw an angel, and you don't see angels unless you have a visionary experience. The angel showed them the plates - they saw them. The problem (at least for critics) comes when one tries to define what "visionary" means. Believers don't have a problem with a vision of an angel who showed them physical objects. Critics, on the other hand,  want to equate "visionary" with "imaginary."

 

And, the Lord knew that this would be the case, so He provided a second witness, the Eight Witnesses, which had absolutely no "visionary" element - they went out into the woods and were shown the physical plates - they didn't see an angel, so their experience was purely physical.

 

The two sets of witnesses work quite well together - the "spiritual" and the "physical". If we only had one set of witnesses or the other, it would be much easier to dismiss just the Three as "imaginary" or just the Eight as the result of viewing a faked object. When you have both sets of witnesses, however, it provides a critical conundrum. One has to assume both "imaginary" and "faked". It moves the explanation further away from Occam's razor because one now has to assign different sets of motives for 12 different men for sticking to their testimonies throughout their lives.

[tonie]

Thanks. I appreciate your feedback. (Right now we are simply gathering all quotes, but I do want to further categorize them as you have done above).

 

I think that any time that one of the witnesses mentions "the power of God," someone will use that to claim that the experience was "simply" visionary. That is what is so fascinating about the difference in the experience between the three and the eight witnesses.

 

The Three Witnesses clearly had a visionary experience - they saw an angel, and you don't see angels unless you have a visionary experience. The angel showed them the plates - they saw them. The problem (at least for critics) comes when one tries to define what "visionary" means. Believers don't have a problem with a vision of an angel who showed them physical objects. Critics, on the other hand,  want to equate "visionary" with "imaginary."

 

And, the Lord knew that this would be the case, so He provided a second witness, the Eight Witnesses, which had absolutely no "visionary" element - they went out into the woods and were shown the physical plates - they didn't see an angel, so their experience was purely physical.

 

The two sets of witnesses work quite well together - the "spiritual" and the "physical". If we only had one set of witnesses or the other, it would be much easier to dismiss just the Three as "imaginary" or just the Eight as the result of viewing a faked object. When you have both sets of witnesses, however, it provides a critical conundrum. One has to assume both "imaginary" and "faked". It moves the explanation further away from Occam's razor because one now has to assign different sets of motives for 12 different men for sticking to their testimonies throughout their lives.

 

You are welcome. And I just want to add that it is a great collection of quotes. What is clear from the totality of the quotes is Martin Harris testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

FairMormon is correct in its claim (which, by the way, is what the Church claims). The CES Letter author is incorrect. [snip]

 

Wow! The CES letter author is not just incorrect but embarrassingly so.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Wow! The CES letter author is not just incorrect but embarrassingly so.

 

His Book of Mormon Response is so bad, it is terrible, the FairMormon wiki refutes all his points. 

[tonie]

Wow! The CES letter author is not just incorrect but embarrassingly so.

you should not be so enthusiastic, Fairmormon has not demostrated Runnells is in error. The quotes provided are not conclusive; some of the quotes were not even applicable to Runnells claim.

In my opinion the evidence supports Runnells claim regarding Harris. And it does not matter one bit that Runnells is correct. Our scriptures tell us that the natural eye can not see certain things. So we should expect that Harris and many others expiences were "visionary" in nature. The problem for Runnells is the negative spin he puts on visions.

Edited September 13, 2014 by tonie

[Wiki Wonka]

Here's what the original CES Letter (the one that was included on FutureMissionary.com) says about the witnesses:

 

“While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates.”
– Martin Harris, (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71)

(This quote is from "Martin Harris Interview with Anthony Metcalf," EMD Volume 2:347. Vogel gives the original source "Ten Years Before the Mast." This quote and the one right below are the same source)

 

“I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.” – EMD 2:346-47

(I looked this up in EMD Volume 2. This is ALSO "Martin Harris Interview with Anthony Metcalf," the same guy who gives the "entrancement" quote above,  BTW the citation is wrong - this quote is only page 346. I think that this quote and the one above were originally listed together, because then the citation EMD 2:346-47 would be correct. Why did the CES Letter editor take a single source, break it into two parts and cite different sources, making it look like it came from two different people?)

 

“He only saw the plates with a spiritual eye” – Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, 1958

(This is Wilford C. Wood's book. He lived in the 20th century - he didn't interview any of the witnesses. And which witness is he referring to? He's paraphrasing someone, so who is his source?)

 

“As shown in the vision” – Zenas H. Gurley, Jr., Interview with David Whitmer on January 14, 1885

(Here is a quote from an interview with David Whitmer. Why not include the dozens of Whitmer quotes where he said that he say them with his eyes??)

 

“Never saw the plates with his natural eyes but only in vision or imagination”
– Letter from Stephen Burnett to “Br. Johnson,” April 15, 1838, in Joseph Smith Letter Book, p. 2

(NOTE: For some reason he quotes this Stephen Burnett quote twice - a more extensive quote which includes this same line is included below)

 

“I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock.” – EMD 1:497

(This quote describes William Smith seeing the covered plates after Joseph first brought them home. This does not describe his experience as a witness. William Smith wasn't even one of the Three or Eight Witnesses. I think that the CES Letter author may have removed this after we pointed this out.)

 

“They were shown to me by a supernatural power”
– History of the Church Vol. 3, Ch. 21, p. 307-308

(This is John Whitmer, one of the Eight witnesses. Let's look at the entire quote, where he says that he "handled those plates" right before he says "they were shown to me by a supernatural power":

 

“[Theodore] Turley said, ‘Gentlemen, I presume there are men here who have heard [John] Corrill say, that Mormonism was true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and inspired of God. I now call upon you, John Whitmer: you say Corrill is a moral and a good man; do you believe him when he says the Book of Mormon is true, or when he says it is not true? There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false.’ Whitmer asked, ‘Do you hint at me?’ Turley replied, ‘If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith.’ Whitmer replied: ‘I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them;’ and he described how they were hung [on rings], and [said] ‘they were shown to me by a supernatural power;’ he acknowledged all.”

 

So why does the CES Letter editor only use the portion of the quote that serves his purpose? My guess is that he never looked up the full quote and didn't know what it said.)

 

“…when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundation was sapped & the entire superstructure fell in heap of ruins, I therefore three week since in the Stone Chapel…renounced the Book of Mormon…after we were done speaking M Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city throught [sic] a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, if it had not been picked out of—–—[him/me?] but should have let it passed as it was…”

– Letter from Stephen Burnett to “Br. Johnson,” April 15, 1838, in Joseph Smith Letter Book, p. 2

(Again, a line from this quote is repeated above, so the CES Letter author takes a single quote, and then displays part of it as if it were a completely separate quote. He's "stacking the deck")

 

The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris “used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and ‘seeing with the spiritual eye,’ and the like.” – Mormonism:  Its Origin, Rise, and Progress, p.71

(This is Pomeroy Tucker, a valid source. He is, however, repeating what John H. Gilbert says below.)

 

Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with “the eye of faith” or “spiritual eyes” – EMD 2:270 and 3:22

(He's quoting two sources here. EMD 2:270 is the "Interviews with John A. Clark." Clark didn't hear this quote from Harris himself, he said that heard it from "a gentleman in Palmyra". This is the "pencil-case" reference. The second EMD 3:22 is a Letter from Jesse Townsend to Phineas Stiles.Townsend says "Joe visited a visionary fanatic by the name of Martin Harris.")

 

 

John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the Book of Mormon, said that he had asked Harris, “Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?”  According to Gilbert, Harris “looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, ‘No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” – EMD 2:548

(This is a statement from John H. Gilbert, who printed the Book of Mormon. This is where Pomeroy Tucker got his "spiritual eye" statement.)

 

If these witnesses literally really saw the plates like everyone else on the planet sees tangible objects…why strange statements like, “I never saw them only as I see a city through a mountain”?  What does that even mean?  I’ve never seen a city through a mountain.  Have you?

 

Why all these bizarre statements from the witnesses if the plates were real and the event literal?  Why would you need a vision or supernatural power to see real, physical plates that Joseph said were in a box that he carried around?  When Martin Harris was asked, “But did you see them [plates] with your natural, your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.” Martin answered, “I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me, though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.”

(Origin and History of the Mormonites, p. 406)

 

Why couldn’t Martin just simply answer “yes”?

 ---------------------

So that is an interesting question. Why couldn't Martin just simply say "yes?" Could it be because the CES Letter author ignored every statement from Harris where he actually did say "yes?"

 

I am going to make sure that every one of the quotes that is cited in the CES Letter (without the "stacking the deck" duplications noted above) gets added on this Wiki page: http://en.fairmormonevidence.org/Category:Martin_Harris/Witness_to_the_Book_of_Mormon

 

Now, will the CES Letter author address every one of the quotes on that page which he ignored in the CES Letter?

Edited September 14, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[tonie]

Wiki Wonka other than showing the limited source and duplicate quotes that the author the CES Letter relied on (and thus showing shoddy "research"), what is there to gain by challenging the claim regarding Martin Harris visionary experience?  In consideration of one of the Whitmers statement about seeing the plates (do not recall the exact verbiage) should we Saints expect the Witnesses to have had a non-visionary or even "natural eye" experiences? Shouldn't we expect a visionary experience to be as real to the witness,  as would a chopping be a real to the person using it?

Edited September 14, 2014 by tonie

[mfbukowski]

Wiki Wonka other than showing the limited source and duplicate quotes that the author the CES Letter relied on (and thus showing shoddy "research"), what is there to gain by challenging the claim regarding Martin Harris visionary experience?  In consideration of one of the Whitmers statement about seeing the plates (do not recall the exact verbiage) should we Saints expect the Witnesses to have had a non-visionary or even "natural eye" experiences? Shouldn't we expect a visionary experience to be as real to the witness,  as would a chopping be a real to the person using it?

If I understand you, I tend to agree.  How exactly would one differentiate a "visionary experience" from a "real" one?  What would be the basis of comparison?

 

If you see something, you see it.  We know dreams are dreams because we wake up, are there any indications of what qualifies these experiences as being characterized as "visionary"?

 

I don't know about you but I don't have a whole lot of "visions", and I think if I had one I would regard it as no less supernatural, in fact more so, than if I just walked in a room and saw the plates sitting on a table.  People just don't have hallucinations without being ill, or drugged or having some odd sensations;  if I had a "vision" without having a fever or feeling drugged, etc, I would be totally baffled and tend to attribute it to a supernatural experience, since I had no reason to believe otherwise.

[tonie]

We speak of Joseph Smith's "First Vision". I would expect that Joseph Smith would say "Are sure you see the sun, I saw God and His Son." (Or take any vision)  I would expect for Joseph Smith to speak with the assurity that Harris speaks with. Even if, it was a vision for Harris, he saw what he saw, he heard the voice of God.

There are more important things to argue about. Conceeding the point (Harris experience was spiritual or visionary), does not diminish Harris's testimony.  Focus the energy to point out that vision is no less real.

Edited September 14, 2014 by tonie

[Tacenda]

We speak of Joseph Smith's "First Vision". I would expect that Joseph Smith would say "Are sure you see the sun, I saw God and His Son." (Or take any vision)  I would expect for Joseph Smith to speak with the assurity that Harris speaks with. Even if, it was a vision for Harris, he saw what he saw, he heard the voice of God.

There are more important things to argue about. Conceeding the point (Harris experience was spiritual or visionary), does not diminish Harris's testimony.  Focus the energy to point out that vision is no less real.

Yes, JS calls it a vision, and here we are all saying it happened in the physical sense, when in actuality it may have been a dream like sense.  Has the church gone and done this and perpetuated something that it wasn't or have I been neglectful in reading or remembering that Joseph said it was in a physical sense?

[Wiki Wonka]

Yes, JS calls it a vision, and here we are all saying it happened in the physical sense, when in actuality it may have been a dream like sense.  Has the church gone and done this and perpetuated something that it wasn't or have I been neglectful in reading or remembering that Joseph said it was in a physical sense?

 

Actually, Joseph called it a "visitation." His 14 November 1835 journal entry states "I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14". (This isn't in Joseph's handwriting - he always used a scribe, but it is his journal).

 

However, I have no issue with Joseph's experience being a vision, nor do I have any problem with Martin's experience being a vision. The only issue I have is when one equates "vision" with "imagination," as the CES Letter does. One can have a vision and state that they saw things in that vision. To equate that with "imagination" means that they created the experience within their own mind, whereas those who believe in Martin's or Joseph's visions believe that those experiences originated from God. That's the actual distinction, not whether we call something a "visitation" or a "vision" or "dream" or "spiritual" or "literal."

[MormonFreeThinker]

Actually, Joseph called it a "visitation." His 14 November 1835 journal entry states "I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14". (This isn't in Joseph's handwriting - he always used a scribe, but it is his journal).

 

However, I have no issue with Joseph's experience being a vision, nor do I have any problem with Martin's experience being a vision. The only issue I have is when one equates "vision" with "imagination," as the CES Letter does. One can have a vision and state that they saw things in that vision. To equate that with "imagination" means that they created the experience within their own mind, whereas those who believe in Martin's or Joseph's visions believe that those experiences originated from God. That's the actual distinction, not whether we call something a "visitation" or a "vision" or "dream" or "spiritual" or "literal."

 

 

Did the Book of Mormon witnesses see angels after they left the church? Any evidence that they had visions?

Edited September 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Wiki Wonka]

Did the Book of Mormon witnesses see angels after they left the church? Any evidence that they had visions?

 

I am not aware of any claimed visits by angels (someone more knowledgeable may correct me if they know of some).

 

David Whitmer said that he heard the voice of God commanding him to leave the company of the Saints in Far West. This occurred after he had already been excommunicated.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I am not aware of any claimed visits by angels (someone more knowledgeable may correct me if they know of some)

 

That is strong evidence the witnesses did not imagine Moroni or the plates, because imaginations happen all the time. 

[mfbukowski]

We speak of Joseph Smith's "First Vision". I would expect that Joseph Smith would say "Are sure you see the sun, I saw God and His Son." (Or take any vision)  I would expect for Joseph Smith to speak with the assurity that Harris speaks with. Even if, it was a vision for Harris, he saw what he saw, he heard the voice of God.

There are more important things to argue about. Conceeding the point (Harris experience was spiritual or visionary), does not diminish Harris's testimony.  Focus the energy to point out that vision is no less real.

Absolutely.

 

How could anyone argue that an experience which changes one's life, personality, beliefs, hopes and values forever is not "real"?

 

Especially when there is no such thing as a religious experience which can be scientifically verified anyway?

 

Why don't religious believers understand that there is NO other justification for ANY religious belief than changing one's life?

[mfbukowski]

Actually, Joseph called it a "visitation." His 14 November 1835 journal entry states "I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14". (This isn't in Joseph's handwriting - he always used a scribe, but it is his journal).

 

However, I have no issue with Joseph's experience being a vision, nor do I have any problem with Martin's experience being a vision. The only issue I have is when one equates "vision" with "imagination," as the CES Letter does. One can have a vision and state that they saw things in that vision. To equate that with "imagination" means that they created the experience within their own mind, whereas those who believe in Martin's or Joseph's visions believe that those experiences originated from God. That's the actual distinction, not whether we call something a "visitation" or a "vision" or "dream" or "spiritual" or "literal."

The only problem with this position is that it is impossible to verify either way.  If it floats your boat, fine, but the  "reality" of God, angels, and the like is impossible to prove.

 

The sooner we all grow up and understand that since it cannot be proven either way anyway, the argument that there is a distinction between "imagination" and "reality" IN SUCH A CONTEXT is totally irrelevant.

 

It is what it is.  If it changes your life, it is as "real" as it possibly can be.    Thinking that there IS such a distinction is an illusion. 

 

Your seeing your computer screen at this moment is being "created within your own mind" as well as everything else in your life.  There is no distinction that can be proven between reality and appearances as we experience things.  "Reality" IS what we experience- it is as simple as that.

 

Cartesian dualism is a very problematic way to understand the philosophy of mind.

Edited September 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That is strong evidence the witnesses did not imagine Moroni or the plates, because imaginations happen all the time. 

How is this any "evidence" whatsoever?

 

Your presumption - because you are LDS, as of course am I as well, that because they had no further "visions" contradicting their earlier visions, those earlier visions must have been sent from God.

 

But suppose they DID have further visions you would call "imaginings" which told them to leave the church?

 

Why would you conclude that the early visions were from God and the latter from Satan?  Strictly because you already PRESUME that anything "verifying" the church is of God and anything "against" the church is NOT from God.

 

We LDS really need to get better arguments on these matters.  As a former atheist, let me tell you, these arguments do not hold water.

 

I am LDS because I had an experience that God told me to follow this path, and I have absolutely no doubt that it happened and it was "real"

 

I know this in my heart, and there is no possible way that can be expressed to anyone else.   Period.

 

Going back and looking at hearsay evidence of what someone said to someone else, possibly, over a hundred years ago, is totally a fruitless pursuit in determining what "really" happened in someone's mind.   To me, it is just a silly pursuit, and the quicker we see that and get over it and get on with a reasonable theology, the better.

[Tacenda]

How is this any "evidence" whatsoever?

 

Your presumption - because you are LDS, as of course am I as well, that because they had no further "visions" contradicting their earlier visions, those earlier visions must have been sent from God.

 

But suppose they DID have further visions you would call "imaginings" which told them to leave the church?

 

Why would you conclude that the early visions were from God and the latter from Satan?  Strictly because you already PRESUME that anything "verifying" the church is of God and anything "against" the church is NOT from God.

 

We LDS really need to get better arguments on these matters.  As a former atheist, let me tell you, these arguments do not hold water.

 

I am LDS because I had an experience that God told me to follow this path, and I have absolutely no doubt that it happened and it was "real"

 

I know this in my heart, and there is no possible way that can be expressed to anyone else.   Period.

 

Going back and looking at hearsay evidence of what someone said to someone else, possibly, over a hundred years ago, is totally a fruitless pursuit in determining what "really" happened in someone's mind.   To me, it is just a silly pursuit, and the quicker we see that and get over it and get on with a reasonable theology, the better.

What makes you so special to get that firm answer, does God just hate me, so far it feels like it. 

[mfbukowski]

What makes you so special to get that firm answer, does God just hate me, so far it feels like it. 

Don't doubt yourself - THAT is the problem.  Pray earnestly and let the spirit wash over you and feel his love for you.

[Wiki Wonka]

What makes you so special to get that firm answer, does God just hate me, so far it feels like it. 

 

I cannot imagine God hating any of his children, regardless of their state of belief or disbelief. I have children who do not believe, and I still love them.

 

I spent many years searching for a spiritual confirmation of the gospel. I tried and tried to obtain a "conversion experience" of my own. I was born in the Church, and I actually envied the convert who received such a definite answer. I had ultimately decided that I would simply be a believer based upon the experiences of others. That changed about a year into my mission. I actually promised someone that they would receive an answer if they prayed and asked about it. After I made that promise, I could have kicked myself for making it - I had not yet received such an experience myself. However, when we got down on our knees and prayed, everyone in the room received a spiritual experience. The person that I promised would receive an answer gained a testimony that day. What I wasn't expecting, however, was that I would receive that experience myself. That is the day I became a "convert." That was over a quarter of a century ago, and the experience is just as powerful for me now as it was then. I am a true believer, and I will always be a believer. Everyone has their own path to follow, and I believe that God has a huge amount of patience with us as we follow it.