Golden Plates

[Jim Stiles]

1 hour ago, Pa Pa said:

First the "Dead Sea Scrolls" were hidden and centuries later found, and many other text. Second, because of the scrolls that are known there are 1,000's of translations of the Bible. The KJV, that we use was retranslated to become the foundation of the Church of England, the Jehovah's Witness did the same to establish their faith. For the most part we have one translation for the Book of Mormon. There is no source to go back to a retranslate to create 1,000's of denominations, we do have some offshoots, but only a few. 

The Church of England (1534) predates the King James Version of the Bible (1611).  The COE was late to the idea of every Christian owning Bible and knowing how to read it, but once they got on board, they authorized printing of the Great Bible (1539).  Later on, they created their own new translation (KJV, 1611) in a partially successful attempt to outstage the Geneva Bible (1560).

These Wikipedia articles may be of some value:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm following better each time you explain your paradigm.  Thanks for the detailed explanation for people like me without training in philosophy.  I'd like to understand better why you say BELIEF counts.  Does it matter because that is what GOD wants out of us?  God wants us to believe in something because our belief transforms us and causes us to do things that we wouldn't otherwise do without a strong belief? 

What if the cause that we believe in is immoral and unjust?  Racism or prejudice against particular segments of society.  Like your earlier Vietnam war analogy, did those soldiers that died, die for a just cause for their country?  What about the soldiers fighting for Germany in WWII.  Did they die for a just cause?  

Or are you saying that the outcome doesn't matter, just the process?  The process of belief is important, and if that's the case, then why? Why is that process of belief so important, especially if the beliefs we have are immoral and causing harm to society. 

Excellent questions!

As I see it our purpose here is to answer these exact questions on our own, for ourselves.  As godlings in embryo, we create our own "worlds" from matter unorganized based on beliefs which God reveals to us.  I believe that God is a loving Father, and that he reveals to each of us what he wants us to do and which path to follow.  But this itself is a manifestation of our church's belief system- and that is why that even the belief that we need to find our beliefs through personal revelation is the "one true belief".

So I believe it is God's will that each of us learn their path through earnest prayer and personal revelation.

So if for example, an individual person really DOES neeed to be a Buddhist, say, for some reason, for a period of time, one could receive a "valid" personal revelation that that was what he really need to learn.    What I personally learned from Buddhism was the importance of meditation in my life- the dedication to the practice of clearing my mind and allow what I now call "the spirit" to deliver the messages I needed to know.  So to me, that was part of my journey along the "true path" for ME personally.  I needed to learn that.

I needed to be an atheist to learn the "loopholes" in atheist beliefs- that indeed, it is an untenable position on its own philosophically.  But even as an atheist, I was on the "true path" for me, because I was essentially an "LDS atheist" following the spirit as He guided me.  As a Catholic, I learned the importance of ritual and what we call "ordinances", and now see the influence of that knowledge in my understanding of our temple.

So that is how I see it for all.  We are all creating our own worlds from matter unorganized by following God's revelations to us

But because he is the perfect teacher, the process, if we are earnest, will eventually all result in leading us closer to Him.

He WANTS us to find him and mature spiritually by doing so.  So yes, you may have a true "testimony" which does not correspond to what is "true" for me at that moment in time.

You may need to be a Calvinist to understand what it means to be among the "elect" or to be predestined to find the true path.  Or a Zoroastrian to understand the dichotomy between good and evil, light and darkness.

But because Mormonism incorporates aspects of all truth, due to our flexibility in "doctrine", we can incorporate all these beliefs as part of becoming godlike- and creating our won worlds.

So eventually all roads lead to LDS beliefs, in my opinion.  We continue our progression after we die- we are the only church wh8ich believes in Christ which believes that.  It enables us to be virtual universalists, and allows us to make mistakes- even affirms them through our understanding of a "fortunate fall" which allows us to make mistakes and yet be made clean through repentance, and our savior's infinite sacrifice.

I see the LDS faith as the one into which all other views can be incorporated when those views are viewed in the proper perspective.

Even fundamentalist absolutism can teach us the principle that there ARE absolute values- like for example the Golden rule. and the 10 commandments.  All civilized societies must affirm these rules- in the last 100 years or so we have seen examples of totalitarian societies which systematically killed their own people, resulting in the downfalls of those societies.  By not following the commandments, the societies themselves essentially committed suicide.   Their society does not have "survival value"- living its principles lead to death, not life.

So were the soldiers who died for unjust cultural wars doing God's will?

That is unknowable and we cannot judge individual cases.  Certainly murdering innocents is always absolutely wrong.  But if they truly believed they were doing what was righteous, could they be redeemed for their mistaken beliefs?

No doubt in my mind that they could.  We get second chances and learn by mistakes.  That is an essential part of the LDS belief system- we must have knowledge of good AND evil.  That was the purpose of the Fall.  It allows us to grow.

And perhaps there were aspects of military discipline and obedience which those individuals needed to learn.  We tend to believe that after we die- that it is all over and our progression ends, and we are either on the right or wrong side, but that is NOT an LDS belief.

For us, death is a simple re-assignment from one side of the veil to the other, where all the learning and progression continues.

So I think we can learn individual lessons and be progressing even if working for an "unjust cause".  If nothing else, we may be in a position to better understand why the cause is "unjust".

Beliefs are more important than an unknown  "reality" precisely because it is throug belief that we progress.  We try on one set of beliefs and find out if they work or not.  I was once a communist and found out that it didn't work at all.  I was engaged in revolution against our government- or at least as a hippie radical, I convinced myself I was a "revolutionary" though looking back- I had no clue what that even meant.

But I learned the errors of my ways- and that was a step in my progression.

At the time we believe something that belief IS the reality for us. We cannot see it any other way.  There is no objective way to establish a "reality" beyond that, so we are stuck with what we believe.

Look at Republicans and Democrats in this crazy election cycle we have in the US right now.  Crazy.  Everybody has conflicting beliefs and are confident they are right.  Everyone knows the others are absolutely nuts.  Where is the objective way to measure these beliefs?  There is none  What is the "reality"?  There is none that is knowable.

Your worst nightmare of a president could be elected- and amazingly it might end up all right- or end up being your worst nightmare.  But it would be YOUR worst nightmare- not everyone's.  But it WILL be a "learning opportunity" for everyone.

I think that is the way we need to look at this.  Only a few absolutes, and they are of a moral nature.  Everybody gets to learn by making mistakes.  "There is no other way"

Our Dear Savior has made this plan of finding our own happiness through revelation and creating our own universe out of matter unorganized- metaphorically and in reality- has made this possible.  And I submit that this is the reason for our flexible doctrine- why orthopraxy is the only system which allows us to progress on our own.

We MUST obtain our own revelation for every principle or we cannot even know that this plan itself is "true".

Gosh this is long and gosh that's enough!   Back to my created reality, real work to do!

 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

They would not be allowed to see the plates because the plates did not exist.

 

You want to disprove Mormonism so badly that you're suspending critical thinking and missing the obvious. Why didn't the resurrected Lord appear to Caiaphus, or to Herod Antipas, or to Pilate, or to Caesar, or to the many corrupt sign-seekers who callously challenged him to come down from the cross? Why -- with the lone exception of Paul -- did the risen Christ appear only to those who already loved and believed in him? Is it because the Lord wasn't really raised from the dead, and those who wanted to perpetuate the lying myth that he was raised knew they could only count on the deluded followers of Jesus to help them spread the lie? But following the same approved pattern of the true witnesses of the risen Christ, the Lord was only willing to allow those who had a testimony of Joseph Smith's latter-day work to see the plates. The following words of Nephi set forth the Lord's will on the matter;

 12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

 13 And there is none other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from the dead.

 14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God! (2 Nephi 27)

So in a manner very similar to the mission of the witnesses of the Lord's resurrection, the Lord wanted witnesses who possessed the power of God and who would not only testify to the reality of the physical existence of the plates, but would testify to the divine authenticity to the contents of the Book of Mormon.

Here's something for you to think about: In your present state of mind, I believe it's highly likely that if you were shown the plates you would most certainly declare them to be a blatant forgery and an obvious hoax. So who in their right mind, most especially God, would want an unbeliever to see the Book of Mormom plates when, as it were, such an unbelievers would consider the plates to be a thing of naught and would employ the powers of their persuasion to convince men that the plates were fake?  Give the Lord a little more credit than to do something so unwise and foolish.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Jim Stiles]

23 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

You want to disprove Mormonism so badly that you're suspending critical thinking and missing the obvious. Why didn't the resurrected Lord appear to Caiaphus, or to Herod Antipas, or to Pilate, or to Caesar, or to the many corrupt sign-seekers who callously challenged him to come down from the cross? Why -- with the lone exception of Paul -- did the risen Christ appear only to those who already loved and believed in him? Is it because the Lord wasn't really raised from the dead, and those who wanted to perpetuate the lying myth that he was raised knew they could only count on the deluded followers of Jesus to help them spread the lie? But following the same approved pattern of the true witnesses of the risen Christ, the Lord was only willing to allow those who had a testimony of Joseph Smith's latter-day work to see the plates. The following words of Nephi set forth the Lord's will on the matter;

 12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

 13 And there is none other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from the dead.

 14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that rejecteth the word of God! (2 Nephi 27)

So in a manner very similar to the mission of the witnesses of the Lord's resurrection, the Lord wanted witnesses who possessed the power of God and who would not only testify to the reality of the physical existence of the plates, but would testify to the divine authenticity to the contents of the Book of Mormon.

Here's something for you to think about: In your present state of mind, I believe it's highly likely that if you were shown the plates you would most certainly declare them to be a blatant forgery and an obvious hoax. So who in their right mind, most especially God, would want an unbeliever to see the Book of Mormom plates when, as it were, such an unbelievers would consider the plates to be a thing of naught and would employ the powers of their persuasion to convince men that the plates were fake?  Give the Lord a little more credit than to do something so unwise and foolish.

Quote

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -- Carl Sagan

None of the apostles believed in the resurrection before Jesus appeared to them.  Thomas did not even take the claims of his fellow apostles seriously until Jesus appeared to him, until he saw him with his natural eyes.

Joseph Smith Jr.'s claims are extraordinary; for evidence, he can present none.  All of the witnesses to the Golden Plates were in such a religious fervor, they would have said that they saw just about anything, if Smith had told them to see it.  This is the same Smith who put silver coins in a box on top of some straw (Wyl, Wilhelm, Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886)) to convince others that his bank was solvent.

Quote

Lining the shelves of the [Kirtland Safety Society] bank vault… were many
boxes, each marked $1,000. Actually these boxes were filled with ‘sand, lead,
old iron, stone, and combustibles’ but each had a top layer of bright fifty-cent
silver coins. Anyone suspicious of the bank’s stability was allowed to lift and
count the boxes. ‘The effect of those boxes was like magic;’ said C.G. Webb.
‘The created general confidence in the solidity of the bank and that beautiful 
paper money went like hot cakes. For about a month, it was the best money in
the country. (Wyl, 1886)

God did not want to save Caiaphas, Herod Antipas, Pilate, and Caesar Tiberius.  Just as God did not want to save Joseph Smith, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, or the King of Egypt.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

They wouldn't be ALLOWED to see the plates with their natural eyes. Nevertheless, seeing the plates with their natural eyes was less important than simultaneously seeing them as being authentic holy relics with their spiritual eyes.

Well, color me intrigued.  How do you know that no-one could see the plates with their natural eyes?  Let me posit an individual, call him Patrick, who is very curious about the plates and somehow manages to find his way into the home where the plates are being kept, and he finds them, covered by a cloth.  You're saying that if he were to lift the cloth, he would see nothing?  

 

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, color me intrigued.  How do you know that no-one could see the plates with their natural eyes?  Let me posit an individual, call him Patrick, who is very curious about the plates and somehow manages to find his way into the home where the plates are being kept, and he finds them, covered by a cloth.  You're saying that if he were to lift the cloth, he would see nothing?  

 

Very funny  

(And, Patrick could see them.  Just not Tom, ****, or Harry!)

Edited April 14, 2016 by JulieM

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

None of the apostles believed in the resurrection before Jesus appeared to them.  Thomas did not even take the claims of his fellow apostles seriously until Jesus appeared to him, until he saw him with his natural eyes.

Joseph Smith Jr.'s claims are extraordinary; for evidence, he can present none.  All of the witnesses to the Golden Plates were in such a religious fervor, they would have said that they saw just about anything, if Smith had told them to see it.  This is the same Smith who put silver coins in a box on top of some straw (Wyl, Wilhelm, Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886)) to convince others that his bank was solvent.

God did not want to save Caiaphas, Herod Antipas, Pilate, and Caesar Tiberius.  Just as God did not want to save Joseph Smith, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, or the King of Egypt.

Nice work, Jim!  Comparing Joseph Smith to Stalin and Pol Pot.  Hmm, so how many millions of people did Joseph Smith murder?

The Tribune Printing and Publishing company would publish anything at all to attack the Church, irrespective of the merits with regard to truth.  So excuse me if I find anything that it would publish to be worthy of my consideration.  No doubt you think of it as a slam dunk.

http://www.fairmormon.org/Misc/KSS.pdf

Quote

There was an accusation that Joseph Smith tried to deceive people about the amount of specie in the Safety Society’s reserves.

Lining the shelves of the [Kirtland Safety Society] bank vault… were many boxes, each marked $1,000. Actually these boxes were filled with ‘sand, lead, old iron, stone, and combustibles’ but each had a top layer of bright fifty-cent silver coins. Anyone suspicious of the bank’s stability was allowed to lift and count the boxes. ‘The effect of those boxes was like magic;’ said C.G. Webb. ‘The created general confidence in the solidity of the bank and that beautiful paper money went like hot cakes. For about a month, it was the best money in the country. (Wyl, 1886)

This claim can be easily discounted. Firstly, Safety Society notes started trading at significant discounts within two weeks of opening day, not a month as Webb said. Secondly, if Webb was aware of this fraudulent behaviour, why did he wait until after the Safety Society failed to say anything? Finally, the claim is impossible. The bank “vault” was a safe measuring 25” x 24” x 29” (Anderson, 1989). There was hardly enough room for the number of boxes suggested by Webb’s account. It would be sufficient for the $21,000 the Safety Society actually had, and little else.

Nice try.

And it was good to meet you!  (Not really)

Edited April 14, 2016 by Stargazer

[Jim Stiles]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Nice work, Jim!  Comparing Joseph Smith to Stalin and Pol Pot.  Hmm, so how many millions of people did Joseph Smith murder?

The Tribune Printing and Publishing company would publish anything at all to attack the Church, irrespective of the merits with regard to truth.  So excuse me if I find anything that it would publish to be worthy of my consideration.  No doubt you think of it as a slam dunk.

http://www.fairmormon.org/Misc/KSS.pdf

Nice try.

And it was good to meet you!  (Not really)

Would you prefer that I compare him to Christopher Hitchens?

Do you studiously avoid reading the Chicago Tribune?

[Bobbieaware]

57 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

None of the apostles believed in the resurrection before Jesus appeared to them.  Thomas did not even take the claims of his fellow apostles seriously until Jesus appeared to him, until he saw him with his natural eyes.

Joseph Smith Jr.'s claims are extraordinary; for evidence, he can present none.  All of the witnesses to the Golden Plates were in such a religious fervor, they would have said that they saw just about anything, if Smith had told them to see it.  This is the same Smith who put silver coins in a box on top of some straw (Wyl, Wilhelm, Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886)) to convince others that his bank was solvent.

God did not want to save Caiaphas, Herod Antipas, Pilate, and Caesar Tiberius.  Just as God did not want to save Joseph Smith, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, or the King of Egypt.

Again, in your zeal you're forgetting to think critically. If Thomas needed to see the Lord before even he -- one of the disciples who had witnessed his many mighty miracles -- would believe he rose from the dead, then why has the Lord appeared to no one else for nearly two-thousand years? Why should the multiple billions who've lived since the days of the apostles be expected to believe in the most extraordinary claim that Christ rose from the dead without being provided with equally extraordinary evidence? As they say, people who live in glass houses shouldn't engage in rock throwing fights. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

45 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, color me intrigued.  How do you know that no-one could see the plates with their natural eyes?  Let me posit an individual, call him Patrick, who is very curious about the plates and somehow manages to find his way into the home where the plates are being kept, and he finds them, covered by a cloth.  You're saying that if he were to lift the cloth, he would see nothing?  

 

You misunderstood me (perhaps I could have been clearer). I believe the plates are just as material as any other material thing. My point is based on in 2 Nephi 27, wherein Nephi testifies that the plates would, by the commandment of God, be kept hidden from the eyes of the world (Joseph Smith is the one who kept the plates literally hidden and under wraps). The only ones who would be permitted to see the unwrapped plates would be witnesses who were chosen of God. Nephi goes on to say that the prerequisite virtue needed in order for one to be able see the unwrapped plates would be testimony of the Spirit that Joseph Smith's latter-day work is of God. So the plates weren't invisible in some mystical way, rather they were hidden from the eyes of the world and wrapped in a cloth.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

Would you prefer that I compare him to Christopher Hitchens?

Do you studiously avoid reading the Chicago Tribune?

So... you're placing him into the same category as Hitchens?  You're saying that he's an atheist?

Last time I looked, and especially in 1886, the Chicago Tribune did not operate a book publishing operation in Salt Lake City.  You've never heard of the Salt Lake Tribune?  Although it has become far milder these days, the Trib used to be a scurrilously anti-Mormon newspaper.  Since 1871.  Look it up.