Avatar4321 Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Well why don't you admit the Book of Mormon is true? Must more important than sharing every account of the translation process of which we know little except it was done by the power of God.
ALarson Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) There is the statement in the Pearl of Great Price, which isn't very detailed, but it does say he translated by the urim and thummin. I don't doubt the other statements when used as what they (David whitmer, emma etc saw). I just don't find their statements reliable when it comes to their conclusions about what they saw being the only way, when they were not involved in the process day after day. Are you aware that the seer stone was referred to as the Urim and Thummim too? As far as you stating that the firsthand, eye witness accounts aren't as reliable as a hearsay statement from Oliver Cowdery would be, that makes no sense at all. Do you remember that David Whitmer is one of the three witnesses? Do you still want to call him an unreliable witness? Edited August 10, 2015 by ALarson
ttribe Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Are you aware that the seer stone was referred to as the Urim and Thummim too? Correct. The terms were used rather interchangeably and loosely over the years. I recall a quote on this issue (perhaps even from HofC), but it's been a number of years since I dug it up.
Teancum Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Because if we didn't give people like you something innocuous to complain about endlessly you might complain about something important and actually cause harm.Checkmate.A typical non answer because likely you don't have a rational one. 1
Teancum Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Tell me EVERYTHING you know. I have a minute. If you can't you're being dishonest.Another non answer that bears no bearing on the question asked. 1
Teancum Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Members do indeed blame others for their own inability to remain faithful to their covenants. Not all - but some do. I've seen it here and I've seen it in real life. To build on my example: My wife was abused (in a non-member home) but she never blamed her parents for her own difficulties in being a good parent. And she is a damn good parent having taken the good they taught her, and rejected the bad, swearing that would never touch another generation. If anyyone's expectation is that the Brethren should have been perfect in the telling of our history, warts and all. And in publishing faith promoting history, along with more detailed history in materials for mature members (Institutes and histories) that nothing should be missed; at the same time they were trying to publish Sunday School materials that even the newest member could learn from, than their expectations are too cut and dry, too lofty, unrealistic. If the argument is that they intentionally lied to people about our history that doesn't jive with what our own church historians have said about their level of knowledge of events, and the fact that history is not always clear from years out.A covenant is similar to a contract. Contracts that are based on false information or lack of disclosure about critical information are typically null and void. Members who reject the church due to lack of tranparency and less that full disclosure are not seeking to blame anyone other than who the blame lays with. 2
Danzo Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 You do know who Emma Smith and David Whitmer were, correct? Are you saying they're not reliable witnesses?They may be reliable for what they saw, but not for what they didn't see. Oliver Cowdrey was the one who was present for the majority of the translation process of the book of Mormon.
Teancum Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) The information has been available long before the internets were invented. I can't help it if someone is too lazy to read a book.It was not readily accessible to most members. If the church knew about how the BoM was translated, if is possessed the seer stone, yet promulgated a different narrative it was plain and simply dishonest. Why do apologist insist on a standard of honesty from the church different than what the church demands from it members? Edited August 10, 2015 by Teancum 2
ALarson Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 They may be reliable for what they saw, but not for what they didn't see. Oliver Cowdrey was the one who was present for the majority of the translation process of the book of Mormon. Where was Emma during this time? Her statement is specific regarding the method of translation after the loss of the 116 pages:"Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he [my husband] used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color.”
Danzo Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Are you aware that the seer stone was referred to as the Urim and Thummim too? As far as you stating that the firsthand, eye witness accounts aren't as reliable as a hearsay statement from Oliver Cowdery would be, that makes no sense at all. Do you remember that David Whitmer is one of the three witnesses? Do you still want to call him an unreliable witness?I wouldn't Call Oliver Cowdery's statement hearsay(do you even know what hearsay is?). Why would you call his statement hearsay?. He writes what he witnessed. David Whitmer may be a reliable witness of what he saw, but he wasn't the primary scribe for the book of Mormon. Unless you have some document stating that David Whitmer stood over Joseph and Oliver's shoulder during the entire translation, The only thing David could testify to is the part of the translation he witnessed. As an example; if you walked in my office and saw me picking my nose, you could reliably testify that I pick my nose on occasion. Unless you are with me all day, you couldn't reliably testify that all I do nothing but pick my nose all day.
Teancum Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 CFR that they "purposely" promulgated a false narrative. I think it is clear that a false narrative was promulgated. But I am not sure you can attach "purposely" to it.CFR that they didn't. they had the stone. They had the records. You can argue that they did now know that JS used the stone in the hat rather then the method they allowed to be taught and exhorted for 180 years of course but that seems nonsensical. So know they church is being more open because as unpopular as this position is here they really have no choice. Can I prove they promulgated a false narrative. Nope. But the connection of the dots sure leans that way. 1
rpn Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Isn't what you are really asking is why the church used Friberg's paintings, and other art that are not fully accurate? I'd be willing to wager that those picking the pictures, just as those making the pictures, had no idea at all that it wasn't 100% or exactly like the pictures. Brother Bushman said recently that for a long time and even up until they started wrestling with them, the Brethren did not all know even what is in the essays. And now that we know are we really going to strike the Title of Liberty picture that has inspired many, including one of my own sons, because it is highly unlikely that that is what the people actually looked like? Are we going to quit using pictures of Jesus because the truth is that the people we know saw Them and even described hem, were not specific enough for us to know exactly what He looks like (and what if we therefore don't recognize Him when we see Him? Why do we assume that Michaelango's depictions on the Sistine Chapel are factual? We don't (though it is entirely possible that those who saw it during the first fifty years after it was painted thought it was).
Danzo Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Where was Emma during this time? Good question, where was she? The answer to that question would be helpful in determining how accurate a blanket statement on translation would be. If she only watched occasionally, her statement (although certainly her opinion) would have less probative value as the final statement on the only method of translating.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Can I prove they promulgated a false narrative. Nope. But the connection of the dots sure leans that way.No the connection of the dots doesn't lean that way. See how easy that was to rebutt.
Zakuska Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) No the connection of the dots doesn't lean that way. See how easy that was to rebutt. Not to mention that his 180 year claim has already been disproven on the thread. Edited August 10, 2015 by Zakuska
ALarson Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 I wouldn't Call Oliver Cowdery's statement hearsay(do you even know what hearsay is?). Why would you call his statement hearsay?. He writes what he witnessed. David Whitmer may be a reliable witness of what he saw, but he wasn't the primary scribe for the book of Mormon. Unless you have some document stating that David Whitmer stood over Joseph and Oliver's shoulder during the entire translation, The only thing David could testify to is the part of the translation he witnessed. You are the one who mentioned a "hearsay" statement from Oliver Cowdery. David Whitmer's statement is a firsthand (eye witness) statement. If that's not reliable, then why do you put any credence into his statement as one of the 3 witnesses?
Danzo Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 CFR that they didn't. they had the stone. They had the records. You can argue that they did now know that JS used the stone in the hat rather then the method they allowed to be taught and exhorted for 180 years of course but that seems nonsensical.So know they church is being more open because as unpopular as this position is here they really have no choice.Can I prove they promulgated a false narrative. Nope. But the connection of the dots sure leans that way. Generally the one making the accusation has to present clear and convincing evidence of the accusation. Only then does the burden of proof shift to the other party. At least that is how it works in court.
Danzo Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 You are the one who mentioned a "hearsay" statement from Oliver Cowdery. Really, where is the hearsay in Oliver's statement?
ALarson Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Good question, where was she? Wow. Are you serious or are you just joking around here? (And, that is a serious and sincere question because from what you've posted so far, it's difficult to tell). 1
ALarson Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Really, where is the hearsay in Oliver's statement?Again. Wow. You are the one who mentioned a hearsay statement from Oliver.
The Nehor Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 A typical non answer because likely you don't have a rational one.I don't accept the premises of the OP about rampant dishonesty so I would contend no answer is possible and thus the only valid answer is mockery. 3
Danzo Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Again. Wow. You are the one who mentioned a hearsay statement from Oliver. I think we are talking past each other. perhaps we don't use hearsay the same way. Oliver's statement (In the pearl of Great Price) is Oliver stating what he saw, not repeating what he heard someone else say.
ALarson Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 I think we are talking past each other. perhaps we don't use hearsay the same way. Oliver's statement (In the pearl of Great Price) is Oliver stating what he saw, not repeating what he heard someone else say.I know exactly what hearsay means. For the last time, you are the one who mentioned hearsay (post #120), you stated:"All of these quotes exclude the person who was the primary witness of the translation of the book of mormon, Oliver Cowdrey. They do not even contain hearsay from him." And once again, the seer stone was referred to as the Urim and Thummim.
Danzo Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Wow. Are you serious or are you just joking around here? (And, that is a serious and sincere question because from what you've posted so far, it's difficult to tell).I'm serious. Do we have any statements on how frequently she was a witness to the translation? Did she drop in occasionally?Was she there constantly?
Danzo Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) I know exactly what hearsay means. For the last time, you are the one who mentioned hearsay (post #120), you stated:"All of these quotes exclude the person who was the primary witness of the translation of the book of mormon, Oliver Cowdrey. They do not even contain hearsay from him." And once again, the seer stone was referred to as the Urim and Thummim.I said the do not even contain hearsay. (no statements about what Oliver said) Edited August 10, 2015 by Danzo
Recommended Posts