On Representation of the 3 Witnesses in the Media

[Hamilton Porter]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have a feeling the lack of a specific source doesn't make much difference to those who want to paint Joseph Smith as a fraud.  It also makes it so those who do believe Joseph is what he claims as a way of discounting that story.  It is still there, in history, one way or the other.

Assuming all sources are equal is lazy and historical malpractice. Just because we technically can't "know: doesn't mean all propositions have equal likelihood of being true. There's a reason reputable people don't quote the story that you cited.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Using the ark of the covenant as an example of what was hidden from the public is problematic in that originally it was not thought to contain the ten commandments nor hidden from view rather it was the footstool of a cult deity named Yahweh. It was viewed as his mobile shrine. And it was carried very publicly into the Israelite war camp in their battle against the Philistines. As Francesca Stavrakopoulou points out in her excellent book  God: An Anatomy

The fact that the Old Testament God had a body is now the consensus view among scholars.

I remember the 1990s version of the HarperCollins Study Bible note to Genesis 1:26-27 said that God made man in an image that he doesn't have.

Quote

Paradoxically, the human image resembles imageless divinity in some respect--perhaps speech, reason, or morality. (p. 7)

It's amazing that almost everything Joseph Smith taught about God's nature has now become the dominant scholarly consensus. 

[Hamilton Porter]

23 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Using the ark of the covenant as an example of what was hidden from the public is problematic in that originally it was not thought to contain the ten commandments nor hidden from view rather it was the footstool of a cult deity named Yahweh. It

It's not problematic because that's what the Bible says. The fact that what it was thought differently doesn't negate that.

Wellhausen believed the entire tabernacle story was made up to make the temple cult seem older than it really was.

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I am saying is that I have no objective way to know whether the gold plates were real or not.  My lack of belief of the claims of Mormonism is based on my own experience within the Church.  Probably like your belief in the Church is based on your experience and not whether the plates existed.  

Do you believe more in the power of a magic rock or in the claims of gold plates?  Would you be inclined to sing songs about a magic rock and a hat?

Do you care about whether or not Shakespeare's plays are historically correct?

Stories lead to truth, Jesus taught in parables, and it seems that knowing the personal address of the prodigal son's father' address, perhaps verified with tax records, is what could make the story " true" for you.

The history is irrelevant to the truth of the PRINCIPLES being taught.  You are looking through a microscope when you need binoculars!

Step back, and find the truth- expand your point of view!  You are seeing the bark of one tree and missing the forest and what there is to learn from a different perspective.

[california boy]

52 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Assuming all sources are equal is lazy and historical malpractice. Just because we technically can't "know: doesn't mean all propositions have equal likelihood of being true. There's a reason reputable people don't quote the story that you cited.

Just curious what reputable people outside the Church that you refer to cite the testimonies of the three witnesses to support truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you care about whether or not Shakespeare's plays are historically correct?

Stories lead to truth, Jesus taught in parables, and it seems that knowing the personal address of the prodigal son's father' address, perhaps verified with tax records, is what could make the story " true" for you.

The history is irrelevant to the truth of the PRINCIPLES being taught.  You are looking through a microscope when you need binoculars!

Step back, and find the truth- expand your point of view!  You are seeing the bark of one tree and missing the forest and what there is to learn from a different perspective.

I don't think this has any relevance to my issue with the gold plates just being a prop.  Maybe you can explain the relevance of your comment.

Wait, did Shakespeare claim his plays came from God?

Just because something is written to teach a principle doesn't mean the principle is true or that it comes from God.  Sometimes it is just a work of fiction expressing the ideas of the person who wrote it.

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think this has any relevance to my issue with the gold plates just being a prop.  Maybe you can explain the relevance of your comment.

Wait, did Shakespeare claim his plays came from God?

Just because something is written to teach a principle doesn't mean the principle is true or that it comes from God.  Sometimes it is just a work of fiction expressing the ideas of the person who wrote it.

We are on different wavelengths.

Have a good day.

[Hamilton Porter]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just curious what reputable people outside the Church that you refer to cite the testimonies of the three witnesses to support truth claims of the Book of Mormon.

Ann Taves.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Ann Taves.

When is Ann going to join the church I wonder.

[Analytics]

On 5/4/2023 at 12:31 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

I have not seen any full account of the plates witnesses by anyone lampooning the faith or even trying to fairly give an account of the church. They could be fair about everything else.

1. Musical: Didn't mention the witnesses at all. Said Joseph claimed to keep the plates to himself.

2. Religion graphs YouTube series: Says witnesses all early founders of Mormonism. Said nothing about the witnesses affirming their testimonies even after leaving the faith.

3. There was another YouTube series that claimed that leaving the faith was implicit renegment. Also didn't mention the witnesses affirming their testimonies.

4. I could mention what Mike Winger (an evangelical Christian said), but it's not worth it.

Only JK Rowling on Twitter was somewhat fair, citing there's a debate over whether it was a mystical experience or actual.

Ann Taeves at UT Austin was intellectually honest to admit they were plates, although not ancient. She says JS consecrated them through a sacrament.

The witnesses are clearly something they had to dance around.

An important thing to add to the list is Mark Twain's review of the Book of Mormon in Roughing It.

Mark Twain quotes the testimony of the three witnesses in its entirety and responds:

Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either.

 He then quotes the testimony of the eight witnesses in its entirety and responds to that with:

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

For my part, I tend to believe witnesses when, through the natural course of events, they happen to witness something. But there is something intrinsically squirrelly about these particular testimonies. Through divine intervention, God wanted us to know the plates were real, so he arranged these demonstrations. But He didn't want us to really know, so through more divine intervention he caused the plates to be removed from the face of the earth without first being examined by a dispassionate expert who was well-positioned to evaluate the validity of such things.

The whole thing is incredibly fishy.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Ann Taves.

Every Sunday, hundreds of millions of people believe that real, created, ordinary bread is truly and actually changed from the "substance" of bread, regardless of appearances, into the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of Jesus Christ himself, while maintaining all the appearances of ordinary bread.

I was raised with those beliefs, and so I have no problem with the idea that some pieces of metal with scribbles can be transformed into scripture.  If a sugar pill can cure diseases for some, I can personally create scripture from unknowable scribbles by seeing complex theology in parables, verified by my God, who lives in my human heart.

Can "Moroni" have a human body that some might mistake for an ordinary man who made the plates and showed Joseph where to find them? Can't people be "angels"?

Who did those ordinations? I am sure he was called by God as was Aaron 

Should I hit the button to save this?

Why not? 😄

Edited May 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

For my part, I tend to believe witnesses when, through the natural course of events, they happen to witness something. But there is something intrinsically squirrelly about these particular testimonies. Through divine intervention, God wanted us to know the plates were real, so he arranged these demonstrations. But He didn't want us to really know, so through more divine intervention he caused the plates to be removed from the face of the earth without first being examined by a dispassionate expert who was well-positioned to evaluate the validity of such things.

You need to read Alvin Plantinga's Science, Faith, and Naturalism: Where the Conflict Really Lies. That's standard for how God operates. If God were to intervene 100 percent of the time and give us complete certainty, such intervention would be coercive and free will would cease to be operative. Same thing how much evidence he gives us. 

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Every Sunday, hundreds of millions of people believe that real, created, ordinary bread is truly and actually changed from the "substance" of bread, regardless of appearances, into the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of Jesus Christ himself, while maintaining all the appearances of ordinary bread.

I was raised with those beliefs, and so I have no problem with the idea that some pieces of metal with scribbles can be transformed into scripture.  If a sugar pill can cure diseases for some, I can personally create scripture from unknowable scribbles by seeing complex theology in parables, verified by my God, who lives in my human heart.

Can "Moroni" have a human body that some might mistake for an ordinary man who made the plates and showed Joseph where to find them? Can't people be "angels"?

Who did those ordinations? I am sure he was called by God as was Aaron 

Should I hit the button to save this?

Why not? 😄

Are you Ann Taves? She said Smith made the plates an sanctified them like a "sacrament."

[Analytics]

19 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

You need to read Alvin Plantinga's Science, Faith, and Naturalism: Where the Conflict Really Lies. That's standard for how God operates. If God were to intervene 100 percent of the time and give us complete certainty, such intervention would be coercive and free will would cease to be operative. Same thing how much evidence he gives us. 

No, I haven't read that. But I wonder, what makes Plantinga an expert on how God operates?

[Hamilton Porter]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No, I haven't read that. But I wonder, what makes Plantinga an expert on how God operates?

He's a preeminent figure in philosophy of religion.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Are you Ann Taves? She said Smith made the plates an sanctified them like a "sacrament."

🤪

No, I am not Ann Taves!

I was explaining her theory and comparing it to Catholicism in perhaps a way others could understand.

But there's more; she also postulates a confederate who actually created the plates for Joseph.

Maybe his name was Mormon.

Maybe he spoke Emod e

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

No, I haven't read that. But I wonder, what makes Plantinga an expert on how God operates?

He can actually think, and create ideas that work

He is smart

He can make it go.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Ann Taves.

So what actually did Ann Taves say about the 3 witnesses?  Does she believe they actually saw the physical gold plates and Angel Moroni???

[Analytics]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

He can actually think, and create ideas that worK…

Creating ideas that work is different than literally knowing how God Almighty Himself operates.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So what actually did Ann Taves say about the 3 witnesses?  Does she believe they actually saw the physical gold plates and Angel Moroni???

See mfbukowski's explanation.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:47 PM, Analytics said:

Creating ideas that work is different than literally knowing how God Almighty Himself operates.

No, "really"? Foundationalism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

I am tired 

"In the 1950s, foundationalism fell into decline – largely due to the influence of Willard Van Orman Quine,[2] whose ontological relativity found any belief networked to one's beliefs on all of reality, while auxiliary beliefs somewhere in the vast network are readily modified to protect desired beliefs."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 

https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Foundationalism+

Edited May 17, 2023 by mfbukowski
previous quote was inaccurate- repaired error

[Hamilton Porter]

On 5/9/2023 at 3:59 PM, Tacenda said:

But take a major religion like Christianity. Consider that there are hundreds of denominations. And each denomination claims the “accurate” or “true” interpretation of the faith. If you were to ask an adherent of a denomination how they knew it was true, the common claim is that this denomination is “biblical”. Often times, these conclusions come from cherry-picking verses and daisy-chaining them together which leads to missing the forest for the trees.

What if someone said, "That other person's denomination is the most Biblical"? And it's not missing the forest before the tree, because it's about the nature of God and man's relationship to God? Because that's what Harold Bloom said about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Quote

“Smith’s insights could have come only from a remarkably apt reading of the Bible, and there I would locate the secret of his religious genius. …So strong was this act of reading that it broke through all the orthodoxies—Protestant, Catholic, Judaic—and found its way back to elements that Smith rightly intuited had been censored out of the stories of the archaic Jewish religion. Smith’s radical sense of the theomorphic patriarchs and anthropomorphic gods is an authentic return to J, or the Yahwist, the Bible’s first author.”

 

[Hamilton Porter]

This evangelical believes evidence for the plates are stronger than evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

I won't link the original video because it comes from Mormon Stories, so I'd feel dirty linking it. Also, although Pynakker is generally positive about the Church, Dehlin passive-aggressively slips in some connection to Scientology throughout the video.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/10/2023 at 5:47 PM, Analytics said:

Creating ideas that work is different than literally knowing how God Almighty Himself operates.

Fine then.  Tell us all about how God REALLY LITERALLY operates without creating any ideas.

PLEASE.

Empirical data only.  You should be able to Analyze it for us- but remember do not create any ideas.

What is your point?  No ideas, now.....

Ideas are paradigms- theories.  Theories that work are CALLED "true" until they are proven wrong.   ALL we know are "ideas that work".

I have an idea that if I let go of an egg, it will float.

Oops.   Uh, it fell.  

Guess that idea did not work.  Your position represents what in philosophy is called "Foundationalism", hence my previous post above.  

It doesn't work.  If ideas that work are called "true" then ideas that don't work are called.....  ....  ?  

As quoted and referenced above, ""In the 1950s, foundationalism fell into decline – largely due to the influence of Willard Van Orman Quine,[2] whose ontological relativity found any belief networked to one's beliefs on all of reality, while auxiliary beliefs somewhere in the vast network are readily modified to protect desired beliefs."

Edited May 17, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Hamilton Porter]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Fine then.  Tell us all about how God REALLY LITERALLY operates without creating any ideas.

PLEASE.

Empirical data only.  You should be able to Analyze it for us- but remember do not create any ideas.

What is your point?  No ideas, now.....

Ideas are paradigms- theories.  Theories that work are CALLED "true" until they are proven wrong.   ALL we know are "ideas that work".

I have an idea that if I let go of an egg, it will float.

Oops.   Uh, it fell.  

Guess that idea did not work.

You should be working on The Postmodern Doctrine and Covenants instead of arguing with anonymous hobos online. Unless, of course, the argumentation will sharpen arguments in your book.