On Representation of the 3 Witnesses in the Media

[Hamilton Porter]

16 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

That video was great but brutal.

And I think the question about Mary was especially relevant to how we should view the Mormon witnesses.

 

I think the evidence fits quite well. Based on our theology, you can see Mary, but you're not supposed to see her that frequently. Some may be real appearances, most just visions.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I think the evidence fits quite well. Based on our theology, you can see Mary, but you're not supposed to see her that frequently. Some may be real appearances, most just visions.

Why are people not supposed to see her that frequently?

How do you decide which are visions and which are real?

 

[Hamilton Porter]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Why are people not supposed to see her that frequently?

She's not the primary character in according to our narrative. 

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How do you decide which are visions and which are real?

That was addressed in the video. The Catholic church has validated some of them based on the evidence.

[Hamilton Porter]

I like how the Justin Baas guy (whoever he is) pronounced Moronee. That's closer to the correct pronunciation. Someone from Moron.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[CA Steve]

40 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

She's not the primary character in according to our narrative.

Why would her not being a primary character preclude or limit the number of visits she makes to people?

 

40 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That was addressed in the video. The Catholic church has validated some of them based on the evidence.

I am not sure what you are saying here. How do non-Catholics decide whether the visits are real or not and can the same criteria be applied to LDS claims of witnesses?

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Really great topic.

It's funny because a few months ago i asked this question in my church. I literaly asked: "hey churchmembers where are the golden plates right now on this verry moment?" And nobody of them really had an answer on my question. So i tryed it again (because i'm always really curious you know) and i asked: "are the Golden plates now somewhere in a museum or so?" And after that question one of the guys in my ward said to me that the golden plates went to heaven after Joseph Smith had read them all. The golden plates just lifted up to the heavens. 🤔

Well.. i may be a Mormon now, baptized received the holy ghost and received the Aaronic Priesthood. But you would never hear me say that those plates have really do exist for real. Or that those plates have lifted up to the heavens. I would never claim that as the real and only TRUTH. Because i just don't know. I wasn't there on that moment.

And where are those plates right now? If they really did exist they still should be somewhere right? 

So i just don't know or the Golden plates really existed or not. Maybe they did (and still do) exist (somewhere). Maybe not. I simply just don't know what i need to think about that. 

I guarantee you that if plates of the Book of Mormon were revealed to the world, and put on display in many nations, very few would join the church as a consequence. They would simply be dismissed as an elaborate hoax. And the majority of those few who would join the church after seeing the plates would soon abandon the church due to lack of faith. You haven’t thought this out.

[Hamilton Porter]

31 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

How do non-Catholics decide whether the visits are real or not and can the same criteria be applied to LDS claims of witnesses?

I don't know the criteria the Vatican uses, but the bar is pretty high.

The LDS claims are four people seeing them at once, not a private experience.

[Hamilton Porter]

32 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Why would her not being a primary character preclude or limit the number of visits she makes to people?

Mary is more central to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, that's why she appears so much.

[Hamilton Porter]

I like how the Justin Baas guy (whoever he is) pronounced Moronee. That's closer to the correct pronunciation.

He doesn't know anything about Mormonism, about the Mary sightings, or about the psychology literature.

Bart was winning until we got to part where he compared the laws of physics to math. Then he was kinda clueless.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

That video was great but brutal.

And I think the question about Mary was especially relevant to how we should view the Mormon witnesses.

 

Bast is too invested in proving himself right so he can’t understand the others’ arguments.  My guess is he is thinking too much about what he himself is going to say to listen carefully to the other…which is why he keeps jumping in.  He probably does the same when reading, which is why he said he read stuff up he missed crucial points apparently. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Henry said:

You're pretending to be Mormon so you can bash the church. 

He never bashes the church. He asks all the questions that converts ask. 

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

Interestingly, Mormonism gets brought up quite a few times in this debate.

Furthermore, it's kinda said that one would have to have the sort of agenda Ehrman had to represent the witness accounts accurately. I still applaud him for giving it.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't remember who Ahab is. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Why are people not supposed to see her that frequently?

How do you decide which are visions and which are real?

 

Q1: There are only so many relics to distribute before the 2nd Coming.

Q2: If you have to return the relic, it was real.

[Emily]

5 hours ago, Henry said:

got all these Mormons believing you are actually a member of the church. I can't be the only one that realizes the game you're playing.

I don't think any one cares whether or not he's a real member. From what I've seen in this particular discussion board, most of the members reply to the specific content of the post without reference to the background of the writer. Which is really a better way to approach most discussions.

I admit, I rarely accept the stated results of the informal polls that some people introduce as evidence. My reaction is generally, "Okay. Maybe no one in your ward no knows the plates were given back to Moroni. But I knew that, and my family and ward friends all seem to know that. So your sample may not be representative of members as a whole."

But it's really pointless to speculate on membership status based on the number of factual errors a writer might introduce into a post. First, we all make mistakes. And second, some members forget what they hear very quickly. Which is probably why the really important information is repeated over and over. 😝

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I like how the Justin Baas guy (whoever he is) pronounced Moronee.

Which is how you know that someone who claims to have studied Mormonism has never actually, you know, talked to a real live Mormon.  

Edited May 4, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I don't know the criteria the Vatican uses, but the bar is pretty high.

The LDS claims are four people seeing them at once, not a private experience.

Well....actually....

The experience of the three witnesses was not a single event with all four of them.  It started that way, but when nothing happened, Martin Harris withdrew himself.  Then the remaining two witnesses (plus Joseph) had their experience with the Divine.  Then Joseph went to find Martin, and the two prayed together, and then the two of them had the same experience.

So, I don't think we claim that four people saw them at once, but rather that three people saw them at once followed by two together.

But your larger point stands--this was not a private experience.  And to the experience of the three witnesses, we can also add the restoration of the priesthood through angelic ministration (Joseph and Oliver) the Vision in D&C Seciton 76 (Joseph and Martin), and the appearance of the savior and other heavenly messengers in the Kirtland Temple (Joseph and Oliver again).  I'm actually quite impressed by the number of visionary experiences in our foundational history that were shared by multiple people.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Hamilton Porter]

4 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Which is how you know that someone who claims to have studied Mormonism has never actually, you know, talked to a real live Mormon.  

Because he pronounced Moronee? He actually said Moronai later on.

But Moronee is more accurate. Like Israeli, Qatari, Saudi, Omani, etc.

Bart Ehrman had had Mormon students.

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Well....actually....

The experience of the three witnesses was not a single event with all four of them.  It started that way, but when nothing happened, Martin Harris withdrew himself.  Then the remaining two witnesses (plus Joseph) had their experience with the Divine.  Then Joseph when to find Martin, and the two prayed together, and then the two of them had the same experience.

So, I don't think we claim that four people saw them at once, but rather that three people saw them at once followed by two together.

But your larger point stands--this was not a private experience.  And to the experience of the three witnesses, we can also add restoration of the priesthood through angelic ministration (Joseph and Oliver) the Vision in D7C Seciton 76 (Joseph and Martin), and the appearance of the savior and other heavenly messengers in the Kirtland Temple (Joseph and Oliver again).  I'm actually quite impressed by the number of visionary experiences in our foundational history that were shared by multiple people.

Which is Erhman's point in the video Nevo linked above. Do we give the same value to claims by other religions that are similar to ours? Are sightings of Mary to be believed the same way we ask others to consider the three witnesses?

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Which is how you know that someone who claims to have studied Mormonism has never actually, you know, talked to a real live Mormon.  

Given the contrasting views of Mormons here, I am not so sure actually meeting a Mormon would be a guarantee of an accurate understanding of Mormonism.

[Hamilton Porter]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Are sightings of Mary to be believed the same way we ask others to consider the three witnesses?

Absolutely.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Emily said:

But it's really pointless to speculate on membership status based on the number of factual errors a writer might introduce into a post. First, we all make mistakes. And second, some members forget what they hear very quickly. Which is probably why the really important information is repeated over and over. 😝

And people misunderstand questions and answers all the time, even when using native languages.  Add in language obstacles and clear understanding is going to suffer.

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

we can also add the Vision in D7C Seciton 76 (Joseph and Martin together), and the appearance of the savior and other heavenly messengers in the Kirtland Temple (Joseph and Oliver together).  I'm actually quite impressed by the number of visionary experiences in our foundational history that were shared by multiple people.

You meant Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon together (Section 76).  And you are right, there are many accounts of visions and angels where there are multiple witnesses that can be added to the list (i.e. Oliver Cowdery and the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood, the Kirtland Temple dedication).

[Hamilton Porter]

The only weakness in Ehrman's debate performance lies his conflation of natural laws with mathematics.

He doesn't believe in the resurrection because he doesn't believe physical laws can be violated.

First, the resurrection can happen under the laws of quantum physics.

Second, physics doesn't have the same epistemological certainty as math.

As the saying goes:

• If you can understand it and prove it, submit it to a mathematics journal.
• If you can understand it but you can't prove it, submit it to a physics journal.
• If you can't understand it but you can prove it, submit it to an economics journal.
• If you can't understand it or prove it, submit it to a psychology journal.

[InCognitus]

Regarding the visions of others outside the church, I was impressed by the BYU TV special from November, 2015, on Joan of Arc.  It has been 7 years since I've watched this (so I can't cite any details), but I remember liking the way the Latter-day Saint views are portrayed in the documentary.   For those who haven't seen it, it is worth watching the whole thing.  

A Youtube trailer is shown below, but the full documentary can be found at the BYU TV site here:   https://www.byutv.org/joan-of-arc