Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Benjamin Seeker]

59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Tin plate does not match the physical descriptions of the Book of Mormon plates. While the witnesses describe them as the thickness of common tin plate, the color is wrong, they are not pliable, nor do they rustle like thick paper when rubbed by the thumb. Tin can be perforated and stamped, but it would be daunting to engrave plates on both sides with very small characters. Witnesses would have been very familiar with tin and would have spotted the fraud immediately. Sheets of tin in the described volume of the plates would probably not be as heavy as those who lifted them said. I don't think tin is a good suggestion. But anything is possible with visionaries.

Just to be ultra-clear, I believe that every time the plates were viewed (except for Josiah Stowell's description of the corner of the plates being a stone of greenish caste), they were seen in vision, so the color and exact nature of the engravings of the physical artifact wouldn't matter in my view.

However, I definitely agree that the pliability/rustling and weight would matter, since they were felt under a handkerchief or cloth covering in ordinary circumstances. That being the case, I might agree with you that tin is unlikely. I would need to learn more about the lack of pliability/rustling factor to have an informed opinion on the matter. Maybe Josiah Stowell's description might point in the right direction.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700218869/John-Whitmer-left-church-but-kept-testimony-of-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all

""I desire to testify to all that will come to the knowledge of this address, that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, Jr., has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. And in this thing the wisdom of the wise most assuredly has perished. Therefore, know ye, O ye inhabitants of the earth, wherever this address may come, that I have in this thing freed my garments of your blood, whether you believe or disbelieve.""

"During an 1839 exchange with Theodore Turley, the Latter-day Saint business agent who had bravely stayed behind in Missouri to settle financial affairs there after the Mormon expulsion, John confessed to doubts about the Book of Mormon. Speaking of the original text on the plates, he said, "I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not." 

Nonetheless, he insisted, "I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.""

Doesn't sound very "visionary" to me.

That is the same 1839 interview where Whitmer said that the plates ‘were shown to me by a supernatural power” (History of the Church 3:307). Tricky stuff, and I say that in all seriousness.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Just to be ultra-clear, I believe that every time the plates were viewed (except for Josiah Stowell's description of the corner of the plates being a stone of greenish caste), they were seen in vision, so the color and exact nature of the engravings of the physical artifact wouldn't matter in my view.

However, I definitely agree that the pliability/rustling and weight would matter, since they were felt under a handkerchief or cloth covering in ordinary circumstances. That being the case, I might agree with you that tin is unlikely. I would need to learn more about the lack of pliability/rustling factor to have an informed opinion on the matter. Maybe Josiah Stowell's description might point in the right direction.

Tumbaga, if the gold facing was rubbed off due to wear and tear, would as far as I know show a greenish tinge due to its copper content.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That is the same 1839 interview where Whitmer said that the plates ‘were shown to me by a supernatural power” (History of the Church 3:307). Tricky stuff, and I say that in all seriousness.

If by tricky, you mean ambiguous, I would agree to some extent.

I do find it unlikely that 8 men would see the same vision where they were all believing they were handling, turning the plates, and viewing the engravings upon them.  I known of visual shared visions, but do you have examples of where not only sight, but tactile experience was shared?

Edited November 25, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

"The key to properly understanding the nature of the alleged 1839 John Whitmer statement is to see it in its historical context. The quotation in question is not a contemporaneous declaration, but was instead reported by eyewitness Theodore Turley about six years after the information was relayed by Whitmer.[1] Three years prior to giving this verbal account, however, John Whitmer published a firsthand explanation of his experience. It is reproduced here because its content is crucial to analyzing the Turley reminiscence.

ca. 27 March 1836

“I desire to testify unto all . . . that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon [was] translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.”[2]

It is plainly manifest in this primary source that John Whitmer not only saw the Book of Mormon plates without any hint of spiritual overtones but he also physically “handled” them. More importantly, for this discussion anyway, is the phraseology that Whitmer uses next. He indicates that he knew beyond doubt that Joseph Smith translated the plates “by the gift and power of God” – i.e., by a supernatural power.

Theodore Turley states that John Whitmer saw the plates by a "supernatural power"

Now for the Turley statement that is so dearly cherished by detractors of the faith. It reads:

5 April 1839

“[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.”[3]

Whitmer clearly states that he "saw and handled" the plates

At first glance it may appear that this statement scores significant points for the opposing team. But any ground that seems to be gained is effectively nullified by comparing this John Whitmer statement with another one made by him which was recorded by Myron Bond only about seven months after the information was verbalized. It reads:

21 December 1877–21 March 1878

“John Whitmer told me last winter . . . [that he] ‘saw and handled’ [the plates and] . . . helped to copy [the Book of Mormon manuscript] as the words fell from Joseph’s lips by supernatural or [A]lmighty power.”[4]

Again, John Whitmer testified that he “saw and handled” the golden plates without any spiritual or visionary overtones. He also used language with regard to the translation process that unmistakably matches what Theodore Turley reported in his late recollection. The connection in phraseology must not be overlooked - both quotations speak of a supernatural power. But the more recent reminiscence of Myron Bond matches the firsthand published information provided by John Whitmer in 1836. Both of these sources identify the supernatural power as the power of God which was manifest through the translation process. (And, since John was one of the scribes for Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon, it is not surprising that he would choose to repeatedly emphasize that the translation was done with divine aid. This aspect of his witness is conceptually distinct from his witness of the plates' reality.)"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Eight_witnesses/Shown_to_me_by_a_supernatural_power

[Benjamin Seeker]

Just now, Calm said:

If by tricky, you mean ambiguous, I would agree to some extent.

I do find it unlikely that 8 men would see the same vision where they were all believing they were handling, turning the plates, and viewing the engravings upon them.  I known of visual shred visions, but do you have examples of where not only sight, but tactile experience was shared?

It's Martin Harris who first suggested this, right? According to Burnett: "...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..."

Lucy's report that an ancient nephite/Angel was involved is also indicative of vision, and that the witnesses gathered in a location previously used for spiritual purposes is at least consistent with the idea:  "In a few days we were follow by Joseph and Oliver and the whitmers who came to make us a visit and also to make some arrangements about getting the book printed soon after they came They all that is the male part of the company repaired to a little grove where it was customary for the family to offer up their secret prayers. as Joseph had been instructed that the plates would be carried there by one of the ancient Nephites. Here it was that those 8 witnesses recorded in the Book of Mormon looked upon the plates and handled them of which they bear witness in the following words. . . . After the witnesses returned to the house the Angel again made his appearance to Joseph and received the plates from his hands. We commenced holding meetings that night in the which we declared those facts that we knew to be true."

And yes, by tricky I meant that there is evidence supporting both of our conclusions.

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

"The key to properly understanding the nature of the alleged 1839 John Whitmer statement is to see it in its historical context. The quotation in question is not a contemporaneous declaration, but was instead reported by eyewitness Theodore Turley about six years after the information was relayed by Whitmer.[1] Three years prior to giving this verbal account, however, John Whitmer published a firsthand explanation of his experience. It is reproduced here because its content is crucial to analyzing the Turley reminiscence.

ca. 27 March 1836

“I desire to testify unto all . . . that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon [was] translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.”[2]

It is plainly manifest in this primary source that John Whitmer not only saw the Book of Mormon plates without any hint of spiritual overtones but he also physically “handled” them. More importantly, for this discussion anyway, is the phraseology that Whitmer uses next. He indicates that he knew beyond doubt that Joseph Smith translated the plates “by the gift and power of God” – i.e., by a supernatural power.

Theodore Turley states that John Whitmer saw the plates by a "supernatural power"

Now for the Turley statement that is so dearly cherished by detractors of the faith. It reads:

5 April 1839

“[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.”[3]

Whitmer clearly states that he "saw and handled" the plates

At first glance it may appear that this statement scores significant points for the opposing team. But any ground that seems to be gained is effectively nullified by comparing this John Whitmer statement with another one made by him which was recorded by Myron Bond only about seven months after the information was verbalized. It reads:

21 December 1877–21 March 1878

“John Whitmer told me last winter . . . [that he] ‘saw and handled’ [the plates and] . . . helped to copy [the Book of Mormon manuscript] as the words fell from Joseph’s lips by supernatural or [A]lmighty power.”[4]

Again, John Whitmer testified that he “saw and handled” the golden plates without any spiritual or visionary overtones. He also used language with regard to the translation process that unmistakably matches what Theodore Turley reported in his late recollection. The connection in phraseology must not be overlooked - both quotations speak of a supernatural power. But the more recent reminiscence of Myron Bond matches the firsthand published information provided by John Whitmer in 1836. Both of these sources identify the supernatural power as the power of God which was manifest through the translation process. (And, since John was one of the scribes for Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon, it is not surprising that he would choose to repeatedly emphasize that the translation was done with divine aid. This aspect of his witness is conceptually distinct from his witness of the plates' reality.)"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Eight_witnesses/Shown_to_me_by_a_supernatural_power

Only, if the eight witness's experience was at least partially in vision, as Martin Harris indicated, then that visionary aspect would have been a secret. In other words, the eight witnesses may have been "persuaded" to sign a document that omitted the visionary aspect, and it only makes sense that they would continue to do so, including the 1836 account. If Whitmer was experiencing doubts in 1839, he may have wanted to be more upfront about his experience in that moment. My main point here, is that my positions is defensible and plausible. It is by no means the only interpretation of the evidence (It's just the one I find most consistent with all of the data).

Edited November 25, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It's Martin Harris who first suggested this, right? According to Burnett: "...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..."

Lucy's report that an ancient nephite/Angel was involved is also indicative of vision, and that the witnesses gathered in a location previously used for spiritual purposes is at least consistent with the idea:  "In a few days we were follow by Joseph and Oliver and the whitmers who came to make us a visit and also to make some arrangements about getting the book printed soon after they came They all that is the male part of the company repaired to a little grove where it was customary for the family to offer up their secret prayers. as Joseph had been instructed that the plates would be carried there by one of the ancient Nephites. Here it was that those 8 witnesses recorded in the Book of Mormon looked upon the plates and handled them of which they bear witness in the following words. . . . After the witnesses returned to the house the Angel again made his appearance to Joseph and received the plates from his hands. We commenced holding meetings that night in the which we declared those facts that we knew to be true."

And yes, by tricky I meant that there is evidence supporting both of our conclusions.

Your quote suggests it was Burnett who first suggested it, he may or may not have been accurately describing Harris' comments about his own experience, which was significantly different than the experience of the Eight.

The Eight did not see an angel, the angel (assuming Lucy is not mixing up the two accounts) only engaged with Joseph.  There was no reason for them to assume a vision was needed to see the plates anymore when they were left out on the table, covered with a cloth.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Only, if the eight witness's experience was at least partially in vision, as Martin Harris indicated, then that visionary aspect would have been a secret. In other words, the eight witnesses may have been "persuaded" to sign a document that omitted the visionary aspect, and it only makes sense that they would continue to do so, including the 1836 account. If Whitmer was experiencing doubts in 1839, he may have wanted to be more upfront about his experience in that moment. My main point here, is that my positions is defensible and plausible. It is by no means the only interpretation of the evidence (It's just the one I find most consistent with all of the data).

Martin wasn't part of the 8, why should we apply his own experience to theirs, let allow someone else's report of his comments that are not, if I remember correctly, either consistent with what else he said about the 8 or any of the 8s' own descriptions.

Burnett was not exactly an unbiased observer and his own certainty that JS and OC were liars very well could have compromised his understanding of what Martin claimed. One third hand source as opposed to multiple others, including firsthand besides the written testimony iirc.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/evaluating-book-mormon-witnesses

"McLellin described his own repeated readings of the Book of Mormon before noting his personal experiences with some of the witnesses. “When I first joined the church in 1831,” he wrote, “soon I became acquainted with all the Smith family and the Whitmer family, and I heard all their testimonies, which agreed in the main points; and I believed them then and I believe them yet. But I don’t believe the many stories (contradictory) got up since, for I individually know many of them are false.”[37]

It is hard to imagine someone better positioned to evaluate the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses than William McLellin. He spent much of his life disaffected from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and had no interest in sustaining it. Yet as he wrote of his 1831 experience with the Book and its witnesses, he was bound by the evidence to acknowledge its truth and validity. He not only knew the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses, he knew some of them personally and interviewed them intimately. He was no fool, no dupe. And he was positioned to know whether the witnesses were fools, dupes, or conspirators. So well informed, McLellin chose to believe the testimonies of the witnesses were truthful. Why not make the same satisfying choice? Why not opt to believe in the direct statements of the witnesses and their demonstrably lifelong commitments to the Book of Mormon? This choice asks us to have faith in the marvelous, the possibility of angels, spiritual eyes, miraculous translation, and gold plates, but it does not require us to discount the historical record or create hypothetical ways to reconcile the compelling Book of Mormon witnesses with our own skepticism."

Edited November 25, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I admit to the presence of Hebrew word-play (though I'm not clear on what using ancient linguistic sources refers to) and ancient literary tropes in the Book of Mormon. I am open to the possibility that they made it there by "supernatural" or spiritual means. Personally, I believe that revelation can occur in conjunction with creative process, and that instead of being controlled by God, it may be directed by some innate gift, that perhaps God gifts or maybe humans can just tap into...........................................

........................................   

If that is the case,  then how could you ever differentiate real events from fictional ones?  Also, in the economy of God, would it make sense to create fictional stories in fictional books?  What purpose would that serve?

15 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

All of that being said, I'm also open to more skeptical secular explanations.

What do you mean by your last questions: "I don't have a problem with this, but I do wonder what you mean in the application phase:  Is that what Bob Dylan meant when he attributed the source of his poetry to God?"

Same problem:  Anyone can cop out and say that God it the author of this or that, but that only begs the question with an utterly facile and meaningless answer.

[James Tunney]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If that is the case,  then how could you ever differentiate real events from fictional ones?  Also, in the economy of God, would it make sense to create fictional stories in fictional books?  What purpose would that serve?

Same problem:  Anyone can cop out and say that God it the author of this or that, but that only begs the question with an utterly facile and meaningless answer.

Is God really that economical from a mormon apologist's point of view?  Why supposedly command Mormon and Moroni to make plates that Joseph Smith didn't use?  Why didn't God restore all the gospel at once?  He gave Moses, supposedly, the law a lot quicker, why not Joseph Smith?  Why wasn't God/Jesus more specific in the D&C revelations that Joseph Smith wrote down in Jesus' voice, as if Jesus was actually saying them, then Joseph Smith changes them after the fact, forcing apologists to make the awkward claim that the revelations were just impressions, not verbatim quotes.  A more economical God would have given the quote verbatim in the D&C, as it stands today, in order to avoid having to change the sections after the fact, right?

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Is God really that economical from a mormon apologist's point of view?  Why supposedly command Mormon and Moroni to make plates that Joseph Smith didn't use?  Why didn't God restore all the gospel at once?  He gave Moses, supposedly, the law a lot quicker, why not Joseph Smith?  Why wasn't God/Jesus more specific in the D&C revelations that Joseph Smith wrote down in Jesus' voice, as if Jesus was actually saying them, then Joseph Smith changes them after the fact, forcing apologists to make the awkward claim that the revelations were just impressions, not verbatim quotes.  A more economical God would have given the quote verbatim in the D&C, as it stands today, in order to avoid having to change the sections after the fact, right?

I wonder if Mormon or Moroni have smiled upon Joseph while thinking...we carried these plates and wrote on them for a long time in our journey...and so you use a stone and hat.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Jeanne

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Again, this is the way I now see the atonement: the physical suffering and death Yeshua endured at the time was answering the needs of justice. That is the usual answer I got when I said I did not understand the atonement as a young man. That is what Hansen is calling the objective atonement. If one accepts that atonement for them, they can repent and be forgiven and saved. I believe most Christians get this, and that the atonement has been available to them, and that some form of salvation is offered them.

Now, I personally believe that there was more to the atonement than just offering to meet the demands of justice on everyone's behalf. I believe Christ was making an example of Himself as to how we can follow Him. To what end I ask? I believe this is what Hansen is calling the "subjective atonement." Why subjective? Because there is not a hard and fast rule attached to it. If we do choose to follow Jesus is He obligated to offer us co-rule with Him? I do believe He does reward those who follow, but heaven has an order. This seems contrary to what most Christians think. Not everyone will receive the celestial kingdom. Not everyone will receive the highest orders of heaven. This is at least partially due to this subjective nature of the atonement which is what I believe you are calling it. It is dependent upon their understanding and willingness to follow, and upon Christ's willingness to offer His hand of brotherhood. It is not like everyone in this world can meet some rule, and automatically make it. There is a limited number of seats...by the design of the Father. Not everyone is chosen. Not everyone is foreordained. There is an element of subjectivity here. That is the way I see it. I am sure that is not quite what you are trying to communicate, but it is the reality of the atonement as I see it. I don't normally talk about it this way, and Jesus didn't flat out talk about it this way. He just went about a did it. He lived it, and asked others to follow. He led by inspiration, and promised eternal life to all who followed. There was not much in the way of "limiting language" which came from Him. However, there are some examples:

Mark 10:36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?

 37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

 38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

 39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

 40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

That's a great scripture I had not noticed in that context before- it's allusion to exaltation is unmistakable, at least for me

Well I think we kind of agree and kind of disagree on this issue of the atonement, but I do respect your views and so felt I needed to answer you on this one.

Here are some notes, I doubt they are intelligible to most without being amplified considerably with notes or detailed amplification of the ideas behind them, but that is not to be for a while at least- but these are the basis for my idea of the atonement.  For me this is a social constructivist view of the atonement including God and Christ as glorified Humans and infinitely above us but nevertheless part of our human "community" and helping us define reality as we know it and being in some sense transcendent but in the major sense immanent in the universe or multiverse with us.

It is a view taken from the standpoint that there is no need for the idea that "Justice" balances "Mercy" which I find .......  too confusing for my little brain.

I don't know if this will make sense to you but I see what we know about anything- including the atonement or any religious matter is a combination of what we know for ourselves and what we know because we are part of a given culture.  THAT is social constructivism.  Society - including God for me, constructs reality as we know it through defining chaos or "matter unorganized" into knowable worlds without number, using intelligence.

I know Antarctica exists because of my culture- I have never been there for myself.  I have no doubt it exists but I have no personal experience of it.  We call these experiences "objective" experiences- because someone or many people have had those experiences and they "verify" each other.

I have had religious experiences which have taught me much, but no one else knows these but me. I call these "subjective" experiences.

In some sense Objective experiences are also Subjective- because I share the experiences of others.   In a sense I have "empathy" with others who have been to Antarctica and really do KNOW it exists even though I have never been there

Yet all knowledge is what humans have experienced or what humans know- including God as a Human.  We say God is "omnicient" because He has experienced all humans can experience and therefore "Knows" every experience humans can possibly have.

God knows for example, all the species which can be known to humans, on earth, even if we, his children have not yet "discovered" them.  He knows other species throughout the universe which we mortals may or may not ever know about that.  

The Word is the "definer" of all things knowable to humans. and reality AS WE HUMANS KNOW IT is defined by human experience socially- for mortals- and through God's infinite 

Because of God's infinite empathy and through Christ's atonement, just as He knows all experiences humans are capable of knowing, he also knows all our pains and suffering.  He understands perfectly our guilt and the pain caused to us.

As believers, we take upon ourselves the belief that God is greater than ourselves and that sin is deviation from God's will.  Deviation from what we know is right produces guilt, sometimes even "unto death".  Some people are in so much pain that they actually would rather die than undergo the psychological pain, for example.  They have no mechanism to dispose of that pain because they have not taken upon themselves fully the realization that Christ can take it upon himself if we but believe he has.

Depression and mental illness is caused by conflict within ourselves and a lack of harmony resulting from horrible anger with a loved one, for example. We love the person but because of their behavior or ours, we hate them.  This is spiritual conflict.

Sin causes us spiritual conflict and pain.  Living a sinful lifestyle can lead to death through addiction etc.  Adultery leads to pain and anger and conflict and is part of a path to death instead of being the path to life.  Sinful living leads to death.  Righteousness leads to health and life.

Through a correct understanding of the atonement- the BELIEF that Christ has taken all pain of sin and other pains upon himself due to his perfect empathy- we can know that he has experienced being through any possible pain the humans can feel or understand.   He has undergone all so that he can overcome all

Christ has overcome the world and all the evil and pain that humans can experience.  He has taken that upon himself so that all we need to do is believe in him and make the sacrifice of repentance to replicate his infinite sacrifice to the best of our ability.  Our sacrifice is giving up sin.   Not easy.  Giving up anger with forgiveness, giving up addictions, giving up all evil to the absolute best of our abilities.  After all we can do to make our sacrifices, His sacrifice, though his empathy "absorbs" that pain though us.

Our very finite empathy in some sense helps us individually to "take upon us" the pain of others.  We hear of some horrible even and our "hearts go out" to those people, we respond with our "thoughts and prayers" in some tiny imitation of what Christ has done for us.  When the spouse of a loved one dies, we "feel their pain" to some extent.  We take upon ourselves, in some limited way, their sorrow.   If we have undergone the same experience, our empathy is more complete.  We can be more comforting, we can raise them up if we have been through it ourselves.  Socially we have empathy for others which can help them.  Our empathy can send clothes to Japan because of an earthquake which action comforts others, etc.

Thus also is the comfort of the savior -the second comforter- - but infinitely above what we can imagine.  He can literally take away our pain if we give it up to him.

Hansen makes the brilliant point that Nephites KNEW that they were saved by the atonement and were able to put their pain and suffering onto the savior BEFORE the physical atonement actually happened.  

It was the BELIEF in the coming of Christ which was sufficient!!

And so it has been for me in my life, that I see the belief in the atonement of Christ as sufficient to take away my sins.  And of course that is what many others believe to in their constant quoting of John 3: 16, perhaps not even being conscious of what that quote literally says

Quote

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It is the belief in the marvelous sacrifice of Jesus Christ who made up for all the little sacrifices we can do to repent "after all we can do" to save us from the spiritual effects of sin and death that takes away our guilt and pain.

And that is my belief and has been for some time.  
 

Edited November 25, 2016 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

That's a great scripture I had not noticed in that context before- it's allusion to exaltation is unmistakable, at least for me

Well I think we kind of agree and kind of disagree on this issue of the atonement, but I do respect your views and so felt I needed to answer you on this one.

Here are some notes, I doubt they are intelligible to most without being amplified considerably with notes or detailed amplification of the ideas behind them, but that is not to be for a while at least- but these are the basis for my idea of the atonement.  For me this is a social constructivist view of the atonement including God and Christ as glorified Humans and infinitely above us but nevertheless part of our human "community" and helping us define reality as we know it and being in some sense transcendent but in the major sense immanent in the universe or multiverse with us.

It is a view taken from the standpoint that there is no need for the idea that "Justice" balances "Mercy" which I find .......  too confusing for my little brain.

I don't know if this will make sense to you but I see what we know about anything- including the atonement or any religious matter is a combination of what we know for ourselves and what we know because we are part of a given culture.  THAT is social constructivism.  Society - including God for me, constructs reality as we know it through defining chaos or "matter unorganized" into knowable worlds without number, using intelligence.

I know Antarctica exists because of my culture- I have never been there for myself.  I have no doubt it exists but I have no personal experience of it.  We call these experiences "objective" experiences- because someone or many people have had those experiences and they "verify" each other.

I have had religious experiences which have taught me much, but no one else knows these but me. I call these "subjective" experiences.

In some sense Objective experiences are also Subjective- because I share the experiences of others.   In a sense I have "empathy" with others who have been to Antarctica and really do KNOW it exists even though I have never been there

Yet all knowledge is what humans have experienced or what humans know- including God as a Human.  We say God is "omnicient" because He has experienced all humans can experience and therefore "Knows" every experience humans can possibly have.

God knows for example, all the species which can be known to humans, on earth, even if we, his children have not yet "discovered" them.  He knows other species throughout the universe which we mortals may or may not ever know about that.  

The Word is the "definer" of all things knowable to humans. and reality AS WE HUMANS KNOW IT is defined by human experience socially- for mortals- and through God's infinite 

Because of God's infinite empathy and through Christ's atonement, just as He knows all experiences humans are capable of knowing, he also knows all our pains and suffering.  He understands perfectly our guilt and the pain caused to us.

As believers, we take upon ourselves the belief that God is greater than ourselves and that sin is deviation from God's will.  Deviation from what we know is right produces guilt, sometimes even "unto death".  Some people are in so much pain that they actually would rather die than undergo the psychological pain, for example.  They have no mechanism to dispose of that pain because they have not taken upon themselves fully the realization that Christ can take it upon himself if we but believe he has.

Depression and mental illness is caused by conflict within ourselves and a lack of harmony resulting from horrible anger with a loved one, for example. We love the person but because of their behavior or ours, we hate them.  This is spiritual conflict.

Sin causes us spiritual conflict and pain.  Living a sinful lifestyle can lead to death through addiction etc.  Adultery leads to pain and anger and conflict and is part of a path to death instead of being the path to life.  Sinful living leads to death.  Righteousness leads to health and life.

Through a correct understanding of the atonement- the BELIEF that Christ has taken all pain of sin and other pains upon himself due to his perfect empathy- we can know that he has experienced being through any possible pain the humans can feel or understand.   He has undergone all so that he can overcome all

Christ has overcome the world and all the evil and pain that humans can experience.  He has taken that upon himself so that all we need to do is believe in him and make the sacrifice of repentance to replicate his infinite sacrifice to the best of our ability.  Our sacrifice is giving up sin.   Not easy.  Giving up anger with forgiveness, giving up addictions, giving up all evil to the absolute best of our abilities.  After all we can do to make our sacrifices, His sacrifice, though his empathy "absorbs" that pain though us.

Our very finite empathy in some sense helps us individually to "take upon us" the pain of others.  We hear of some horrible even and our "hearts go out" to those people, we respond with our "thoughts and prayers" in some tiny imitation of what Christ has done for us.  When the spouse of a loved one dies, we "feel their pain" to some extent.  We take upon ourselves, in some limited way, their sorrow.   If we have undergone the same experience, our empathy is more complete.  We can be more comforting, we can raise them up if we have been through it ourselves.  Socially we have empathy for others which can help them.  Our empathy can send clothes to Japan because of an earthquake which action comforts others, etc.

Thus also is the comfort of the savior -the second comforter- - but infinitely above what we can imagine.  He can literally take away our pain if we give it up to him.

Hansen makes the brilliant point that Nephites KNEW that they were saved by the atonement and were able to put their pain and suffering onto the savior BEFORE the physical atonement actually happened.  

It was the BELIEF in the coming of Christ which was sufficient!!

And so it has been for me in my life, that I see the belief in the atonement of Christ as sufficient to take away my sins.  And of course that is what many others believe to in their constant quoting of John 3: 16, perhaps not even being conscious of what that quote literally says

It is the belief in the marvelous sacrifice of Jesus Christ who made up for all the little sacrifices we can do to repent "after all we can do" to save us from the spiritual effects of sin and death that takes away our guilt and pain.

And that is my belief and has been for some time.  
 

So you are saying the mere belief in Christ is the subjective atonement, and that therefore one doesn't need to rely on an "objective atonement?"

I guess I am looking at the atonement from Christ's point of view. I see an objective act to meet the demands of justice available to all. Our belief in this act is sufficient - yes.

But I see the atonement being bigger, greater, and more important than this. My questions are ones like why does God need a third party to do this for us? Why doesn't he just take our sins upon Himself instead? It seems like He could impose the penalties of justice, and then forgive us - thus obviating the need for a third party Savior. But to do things this way, would not give us an example to strive for to make ourselves better. The way Christ has performed the atonement for us calls to us to strive to understand Him. It contains a hope that we will try to understand Him and be more like Him for some reason. These things get to the "subjective atonement" I am speaking of. It's a realm that does not contain "objective rules." It's a realm in which God or our Savior chooses His servants... "many are called, but few are chosen."

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

So you are saying the mere belief in Christ is the subjective atonement, and that therefore one doesn't need to rely on an "objective atonement?"

I guess I am looking at the atonement from Christ's point of view. I see an objective act to meet the demands of justice available to all. Our belief in this act is sufficient - yes.

But I see the atonement being bigger, greater, and more important than this. My questions are ones like why does God need a third party to do this for us? Why doesn't he just take our sins upon Himself instead? It seems like He could impose the penalties of justice, and then forgive us - thus obviating the need for a third party Savior. But to do things this way, would not give us an example to strive for to make ourselves better. The way Christ has performed the atonement for us calls to us to strive to understand Him. It contains a hope that we will try to understand Him and be more like Him for some reason. These things get to the "subjective atonement" I am speaking of. It's a realm that does not contain "objective rules." It's a realm in which God or our Savior chooses His servants... "many are called, but few are chosen."

We disagree.

Edited November 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

A news story:  17 year old daughter comes home and finds her mother murdered.

Relative, crying says "I would do ANYTHING if I could just take that off her (daughter) if I could turn back the clock and experience that instead of her doing it.  I would do ANYTHING".

Such is the empathetic urge to "take upon the pain" of others.

Yet the savior WILL do that if we but believe he can. He will take on all our pain and sorrow and the consequences of our sins- he already has, if we allow him to do so.

Edited November 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It's Martin Harris who first suggested this, right? According to Burnett: "...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..."

No, this is Burnett saying that Martin Harris said it. Can you point to any signed statement by Martin Harris that will corroborate that statement by Burnett?

When one reads all of the statements by the witnesses that were gathered over the years, the preponderance tells of a literal, physical set of plates. David Whitmer's statements are pretty definitive and emphatic. And Whitmer explained the "spiritual" aspect of the plates thusly: "In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation." (Anthony Metcalfe in "Ten Years Before the Mast")

As far as the plates being made of tin, is there any evidence to back up that speculation? As Bernard Gui has pointed out, hand engraving tin is a nontrivial task. Try it sometime, using only a hand powered engraving tool.

Besides which arguing for a spiritual experience where people only thought they saw and handled what they said they saw and handled, then arguing for a set of home made tin plates is sort of arguing out of both sides of the mouth.

Glenn

[Gervin]

On 11/23/2016 at 4:19 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

No discussion. 

Ok.

What, specifically, is the biggest obstacle keeping mainstream anthropologists from accepting a Mesomarican setting for the Book of Mormon as posited by LDS scholars?

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Your quote suggests it was Burnett who first suggested it, he may or may not have been accurately describing Harris' comments about his own experience, which was significantly different than the experience of the Eight.

The Eight did not see an angel, the angel (assuming Lucy is not mixing up the two accounts) only engaged with Joseph.  There was no reason for them to assume a vision was needed to see the plates anymore when they were left out on the table, covered with a cloth.

Burnett says he is reporting what Martin Harris said, and I admit both the possibility that he is being 100% honest and accurate and the possibility that he is being partisan and twisting the facts. Burnett also reports that Martin Harris "said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight witnesses was false, if it had not been picked out of him but should have let it passed as it was." Martin Harris lamenting that he let the cat out of the bag, one obvious interpretation of this part of the letter, paints a believable plausible picture.

Lucy doesn't specify that the angel/ancient Nephite (probably the same being, but not 100% certain from Lucy's description) interacts with only Joseph. She does say that the ancient Nephite delivered the plates to the grove, which admits the possibility of the 8 witnesses seeing him/interacting with him, as they were gathered there and waiting (I admit the possibility that she doesn't remember everything straightly, but, of course, she could be nails on it).

Also, the D&C suggests that a vision or some type of godly experience is needed for someone to look directly at the plates, as it specifies that it was by the power of God that Joseph beheld them. . D&C 17:5 reads, "And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith."

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Martin wasn't part of the 8, why should we apply his own experience to theirs, let allow someone else's report of his comments that are not, if I remember correctly, either consistent with what else he said about the 8 or any of the 8s' own descriptions.

Burnett was not exactly an unbiased observer and his own certainty that JS and OC were liars very well could have compromised his understanding of what Martin claimed. One third hand source as opposed to multiple others, including firsthand besides the written testimony iirc.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/evaluating-book-mormon-witnesses

"McLellin described his own repeated readings of the Book of Mormon before noting his personal experiences with some of the witnesses. “When I first joined the church in 1831,” he wrote, “soon I became acquainted with all the Smith family and the Whitmer family, and I heard all their testimonies, which agreed in the main points; and I believed them then and I believe them yet. But I don’t believe the many stories (contradictory) got up since, for I individually know many of them are false.”[37]

It is hard to imagine someone better positioned to evaluate the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses than William McLellin. He spent much of his life disaffected from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and had no interest in sustaining it. Yet as he wrote of his 1831 experience with the Book and its witnesses, he was bound by the evidence to acknowledge its truth and validity. He not only knew the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses, he knew some of them personally and interviewed them intimately. He was no fool, no dupe. And he was positioned to know whether the witnesses were fools, dupes, or conspirators. So well informed, McLellin chose to believe the testimonies of the witnesses were truthful. Why not make the same satisfying choice? Why not opt to believe in the direct statements of the witnesses and their demonstrably lifelong commitments to the Book of Mormon? This choice asks us to have faith in the marvelous, the possibility of angels, spiritual eyes, miraculous translation, and gold plates, but it does not require us to discount the historical record or create hypothetical ways to reconcile the compelling Book of Mormon witnesses with our own skepticism."

On Martin Harris, he was an insider, so he was in a prime position to know the details on the 8 witnesses, and as we've gone back and forth on, John Whitmer possibly provided a chink in the ordinary-viewing armor. It's fine if you don't buy this, and I accept the possibility that I'm wrong and you're right. I just find fabricated plates for hefting/rustling and visionary plates for seeing a plausible explanation that the historical record admits as a possibility.

On McLellin, I think I've made an adequate explanation of my position. I think it's possible the 8 witnesses agreed to keep the visionary aspect of their experience a secret, maybe even a sacred secret for the good of the kingdom, not unlike polygamy. If that was the case, they would have talked about their experience in matter of fact terms, meaning McLellin would have had nothing to suspect.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If that is the case,  then how could you ever differentiate real events from fictional ones?  Also, in the economy of God, would it make sense to create fictional stories in fictional books?  What purpose would that serve?

Sorry to be a little facetious, but on differentiating between real events and fictional ones, I'd guess that God isn't in the habit of revealing history through seer stones in hats. Perhaps, he leaves history to be revealed via more typical means.

Why would God create fictional stories in fictional books? Maybe he doesn't! My guess is Joseph's culture and imagination took him there, and revelation accompanied his sacred journey, to put it metaphorically.

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Same problem:  Anyone can cop out and say that God it the author of this or that, but that only begs the question with an utterly facile and meaningless answer.

I would use things like visions and angelic ministrations (ex. Joseph Smith and Mohamed) as starting indicators. Alternatively, I can also imagine a much looser framework that incorporates revelation more broadly into human experience, which would give specific claims to the voice of God less authority but give more meaning to overall human experience.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

No, this is Burnett saying that Martin Harris said it. Can you point to any signed statement by Martin Harris that will corroborate that statement by Burnett?

When one reads all of the statements by the witnesses that were gathered over the years, the preponderance tells of a literal, physical set of plates. David Whitmer's statements are pretty definitive and emphatic. And Whitmer explained the "spiritual" aspect of the plates thusly: "In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation." (Anthony Metcalfe in "Ten Years Before the Mast")

As far as the plates being made of tin, is there any evidence to back up that speculation? As Bernard Gui has pointed out, hand engraving tin is a nontrivial task. Try it sometime, using only a hand powered engraving tool.

Besides which arguing for a spiritual experience where people only thought they saw and handled what they said they saw and handled, then arguing for a set of home made tin plates is sort of arguing out of both sides of the mouth.

Glenn

Glenn, I admit the possibility that Burnett's report is partisan and twisting facts or even fabricating them; however, I also think it's possible that he is accurately reporting what Harris said. Obviously, we are both familiar with the same and only well known evidence on the matter, so no need for asking for thing you know don't exist.

On visionary experiences and David Whitmer, many people who have experienced out of body experiences and near death experiences report that the experiences feel more real than ordinary experience, so I have no doubt that the visions felt completely convincing and objectively real. However, people who have out of body and near death experiences also report various things that indicate they are not experiencing objective reality (ex. clock faces giving impossible times).

On the plates, as I've explained, I'm not wedded to tin, nor do I have a strong opinion on a material for plausibly fabricated plates. Until I become more educated in metallurgy, which may be never, I'll trust that tin wouldn't make for good fabricated plates. That being said, like I explained previously, because I think that the plates may have only been seen through visionary experience, they wouldn't need to be engraved at all. As far as I know, no one reported feeling the engravings under a cloth/handkerchief.

It is pretty speculative that Joseph fabricated them, for sure. Stowell's description of the corner of the plates cited above definitely opens up the possibility that what JS brought home that first night were not golden plates, and thus opens up many other possibilities.

On your last thought, considering the general rule that no one was allowed to look at the plates, but many people were allowed to handle them, I think it's entirely possible that fabricated plates could have served the purpose of ordinary handling and visionary experience could have been used for seeing them. These ideas are compatible. 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We disagree.

And that is OK. It certainly is not the first time I disagree with someone  - even really smart people...

However, I firmly and completely believe what I have represented. This belief of mine came somewhat in stages. First I realized that those that follow Him, glorify Him for He does not glorify Himself. Then I realized that there are essentially two kinds of leaders in the world - one type leads through fear, force, and intimidation - keeping everyone in subjection to them. The other leads through inspiration and love - doing those things they love or want to do, and motivating others to do likewise through the shear beauty of their leadership. Yeshua is the latter. He is our teacher and exemplar. I am not saying anyone else in this world can atone for the sins of their fellow man. However, others are called to follow Him, and have unto death as a sacrifice to God. I'm not sure if this is equivalent to BY's "blood atonement" but it is somewhat akin to it at least. It is subjective realm - there is no hard and fast rule one can meet to be chosen.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Is God really that economical from a mormon apologist's point of view?  Why supposedly command Mormon and Moroni to make plates that Joseph Smith didn't use?  Why didn't God restore all the gospel at once?  He gave Moses, supposedly, the law a lot quicker, why not Joseph Smith?  Why wasn't God/Jesus more specific in the D&C revelations that Joseph Smith wrote down in Jesus' voice, as if Jesus was actually saying them, then Joseph Smith changes them after the fact, forcing apologists to make the awkward claim that the revelations were just impressions, not verbatim quotes.  A more economical God would have given the quote verbatim in the D&C, as it stands today, in order to avoid having to change the sections after the fact, right?

I didn't say that God was economical, and it doesn't really matter what some evangelical or Mormon apologist might say.  You entirely missed the point, James:  I was responding to the silly idea that God would deliberately create fictional stories and try to pass them off as real history.  Does that make sense to you?  From your comments I would have said probably not, but (given your reply) maybe I was wrong and you support that sort of nonsense.  Hard to tell what you mean to say here -- especially since you are in effect criticizing the mode of revelation in the Bible as well as the D&C (they are the same).  The bottom line is that all scholars agree that anyone engaging in the transmission (including translation) of ideas on someone else's behalf must always filter it through human interpretation.  There are no verbatim thoughts of God expressed anywhere at any time.  You need to take Mark Bukowski's distinctions to heart, James.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

Ok.

What, specifically, is the biggest obstacle keeping mainstream anthropologists from accepting a Mesomarican setting for the Book of Mormon as posited by LDS scholars?

All the Mormon anthropologists I know are mainstream anthropologists.  So you formulated your question inappropriately.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the main obstacle has always been (and continues to be) the lack of knowledge of non-Mormon anthropologists of the contents of the BofM.  This is a huge and insuperable obstacle, same as it is for any anthropologist who does not study the Bible professionally (most anthropologists worldwide do not concern themselves with biblical archeology at all and know nothing of the Bible, so disqualifying them from academic comment).  What is of prime importance is that all those commenting on the BofM accept standard anthropology, rather than in engaging in agitprop (agitation and propaganda operations).