Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

CFR that the plates "disappeared into thin air."

Where are they?

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.  We don't have the knife Brutus used to assassinate Caesar, ergo Caesar was not assassinated.

I knief is quite different than plates of gold given to someone by an angel and translated from an unknown language into English, allegedly by the power of God.

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Witnesses said they were real.

Come on councilor. I am sure you have heard testimony from witnesses you did not find credible.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Where are they?

Hying to Kolob which may or may not happen in the twinkling of an eye, sources are unclear.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I find that there are a number of contemporary, first-hand accounts that Joseph had something physical in his possession. Maybe they were plates, maybe they weren't. But there was something heavy in the sack he swung at the ruffians the night he brought the plates homes. There was something heavy in the lockbox in his family home. There was something heavy under the cloth on Emma's dining room table.

It's the physicality of that something that needs to be accounted for. You can deny that they were plates, sure, I get it. The evidence that the physical something in his possession actually was a metallic mesoamerican codex is pretty spotty. But the evidence of something heavy and physical in his possession? That needs to be dealt with.

Sure there was something.  But it is up to the believer to demonstrate to something were what the JS claimed they were.

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How so?  Culture (in this context) is another word for customs.  Are you saying that all customs that exist in the world are morally relative?  

None of that was what I was responding too.  I was responding to your reply to Danzo, who also didn't seem to be responding to any of this.  Perhaps you and Danzo are talking about two different things but you didn't notice?

I was originally responding to the idea that having a "Native" grow up in a "Non Native" Culture is always some sort of terrible thing, especially when the "Native" wants to.  It silences and ignores all of the people who are purposefully trying to do the same thing today because they have decided that their "native" culture has flaws and traditions that they don't want to pass on to their children.

It kind of reminds me of a conversation with a client a little while back. In our area, they opened up a Spanish language school, so among other things, the Hispanic children could learn in their own language.  The client, who was Hispanic, and didn't speak English was telling me how she had to ask the district to take her kid out of the Spanish language school and put him in the English language school.  Turns out, one of the reasons she brought her children to the US was so that they could learn English and have opportunities that they didn't have in their "Native" culture.   Trying to return their children to their "Hispanic Culture" went against the parents wanted. 

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Come on councilor. I am sure you have heard testimony from witnesses you did not find credible.

Generally, once witness have produced their evidence it is up to the opposing party to impeach those witnesses.

Do you have evidence that impeaches the testimony of said witnesses?

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

First, I am with Bluedreams and believe that the references are to different aspects, some spiritual, some literal, etc, all part of a symbolic language.  She said it so well, I don’t see the need to repeat.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75765-skin-color-doesn’t-mean-skin-color/?do=findComment&comment=1210176681

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75765-skin-color-doesn’t-mean-skin-color/?do=findComment&comment=1210176685

Second, I think the verse can be interpreted in several ways, including the Lord having told Nephi the Lamanites would be cursed so Nephi upon viewing whatever he is referring to as “skin of blackness” assumes that is the curse.  Whether or not his assumption is right is not apparent here, imo.  

Which leads me to these….

The reference to the skin of blackness is in the part of the verses where Nephi is not quoting the Lord.  

He paraphrases the Lord saying he would be a ruler over them….

He quotes the Lord about the curse and being cut off

He quotes the Lord on them being made loathsome and the curse following their children even when their mate was not cursed….

He quotes the Lord saying they will be a scourge…

The skin of blackness though is part of Nephi observing how the Lord’s words were fulfilled…

As is this part…

The apparent cursing referred to is mentioned back in 1 Nephi 2 and no skin of blackness is mentioned then…

Next…

There are no details given with the “skin of blackness” besides it being something that Nephi sees as loathsome and therefore is a fulfillment of the curse in his eyes, so while I see why those of us from a culture that had assumed black human skin was a curse make the jump to assuming its skin color, I don’t believe we have enough info to actually justify going there….or anywhere else if all we use is these verses, though I believe the rest of the text provides direction.

In all verses the repugnance is more focused on behaviour overtime rather than appearance, imo, and the descriptions aren’t even always accurate…from Brant Gardner…

I also find this observation of how Joseph (whether as the original creator or the translator/transmitter of the text) might have viewed the reference as relevant 
 

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/what-does-the-book-of-mormon-mean-by-skin-of-blackness

So my interpretation is we are not given enough info in the specific verse to know what skin of blackness means, but given the rest of the Book of Mormon it is likely more metaphorical than literal imo.

But here is what Brigham Young and other early LDS prophets, seers and revelators though:

“We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction … We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty …”

Brigham Young, Quoted in William Hall’s The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, (Cincinnati, OH: I. Hart & Co., 1852), 58-59.
 

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But here is what Brigham Young and other early LDS prophets, seers and revelators though:

“We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction … We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them—in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty …”

Brigham Young, Quoted in William Hall’s The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed, (Cincinnati, OH: I. Hart & Co., 1852), 58-59.
 

Do you have another source for that quote?  Its hard to take  The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed to be a reliable, unbiased source.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, the actual historical narrative is that Brutus stabbed Caesar with some sort of implement.  But by Roger's logic, the if the implement "physically existed" it "wouldn’t have disappeared into thin air."  Ipso facto, we can dispute that Brutus stabbed Caesar with an implement.

Knives are common tools humans use for a variety of purposes.  GOld Plates delivers from and angel and translated by the gift and power of God are not.  I am sure you understand this but you will still double down on your fallacious comparison.

[Analytics]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet you do not demand production of the knife as a precondition for accepting the historical narrative of Caesar's assassination.  

One would expect a common knife from 2,200 years ago to have rusted away and vanished. In contrast, one would expect the most important archeological discovery of all time, consisting of a massive artifact of solid gold no less, found in 19th century America, not to have vanished. Those expectations and why we have them are central to my point.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I am saying that even normative historiography does not necessarily require a ancient artifact to currently exist and be available for inspection in the here and now as a precondition to accepting that the artifact existed in the past.

Of course. The question that must be made, however, is how plausible it is for the artifact in question to have vanished and the context of how and when it vanished. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Consider other "biblical" artifacts which are alleged to exist.  Noah's ark.

Noah was a fictional character, as was his ark. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

The rod of Moses. 

Moses was a fictional character, as was his rod.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Ark of the Covenant. 

Everybody knows that is in a box in a government warehouse. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

The "True Cross."  Do you, as consistency might require, demand that belief in the existence of these things anciently can only be reasonable if they are available now? 

I can't tell if you are seriously trying to engage my point or not. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I submit that your rejection of the witnesses' testimonies is substantively arbitrary.

That is false. I didn't arbitrarily come to my beliefs. I studied this issue and thought about it for decades.

The witnesses' statements have some evidentiary value, but they are also quite problematic in their own right and are of limited value (e.g. they signed a joint statement prepared by Joseph Smith--they didn't provide independent, contemporaneous accounts. They were "witnesses" because they were hand-picked to be witnesses by the person making the extraordinary claim. The only reason witness statements were necessary was because of the extraordinary lengths Joseph Smith went to in order to prevent independent observers from witnessing and critically examining what he claimed to have in his possession. That is extraordinarily fishy, and those details need to be considered. The whole thing comes across as 11 people who are describing a magic trick they saw once. We don't even know what date they witnessed what they claim they did).

The weight of the evidence of the witness statements is not strong enough to overcome the overwhelming evidence that the Book of Mormon is 19th century fiction. I don't know what exactly to make of their statements, but I am 100% positive that if they weren't lying or weren't deluded and really did see something, whatever they saw was not  a codex that was created by ancient inhabitants of the American continents. I don't need to explain what they saw in order to know they didn't see that. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

These are your presuppositions, which you are imputing onto us.  Let's not do that.  

In my paradigm, God wants His children to use faith, study, prayer, humility, etc. to seek out truth and confirm it through personal revelation.

If Joseph Smith really had some authentic golden plates, where are they now? You are the one who claims their physicality needs to be dealt with. So deal with it. I can explain why we don't have Brutus's knife. You need to explain to me why we don't have the golden plates. Explain to me how your story even makes sense. Moroni has this codex, and he hauls it across 2,000 miles of hostile terrain to bury it where it would be convenient for Joseph Smith to dig up 1,400 years later. Joseph Smith finds the plates and they aren't even dusty, much less muddy. He hides them in a bean barrel or whatever while he translates their contents by looking at a stone in the hat. Then he goes into the woods to pray with his 3 closest friends, and an angel comes down from heaven, apparently retrieves the plates from the bean barrel, and shows them to the three people. Then the angel puts them back in the barrel and goes back to heaven. Then Joseph Smith gets them out of the barrel again and shows them to 8 more people. Then they disappear into thin air, or otherwise are gone. Poof. This demands the question of why did Moroni bother hauling the plates across an entire continent in the first place.

Why would plates that existed in a pristine state for 1,400 years disappear? That needs to be explained.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think God creates environments and opportunities for us to choose to believe in divine truths, rather than have them imposed so as to negate the ability to meaningfully choose.  

That depends, I suppose, one what you mean by "reasonable evidence."

I suspect you arbitrarily, and in a priori fashion, exclude the Witness statements from this category.  Correct?

There is nothing arbitrary about my position, and I don't exclude the witness statements as being evidence. I simply think that if you properly look at all of the evidence, the witness statements turn out to be problematic and lack the strength to overcome the other problems in the authentic-ancient-American-plates theory.

 

Edited February 24, 2024 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 

This is actually a good opportunity for me to put down some thoughts I've been simmering. 

The Witnesses, I think, do away with any variety of "innocent hallucination" or mystical transfixation or any such hypotheses with regard to Joseph Smith. Likewise, I think stylometry and ancient literary forms render his authorship of the Book of Mormon exceedingly unlikely. We know by experience that these evidences are not universally compelling, because they abut the edge of the "impossible." Or rather, they put one to the "which is more likely, X or Y" question that often comes up around these quarters. Here comes the old Sherlock Holmes chestnut: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

After all, perhaps the analyses suffer from hidden methodological flaws. Perhaps the literary techniques are accidents. Or perhaps the Witnesses, against incentive or inclination, maintained the lie their whole lives. Maybe they duped themselves into actually believing it in later years. When one takes as one's doctrine the idea that religious and spiritual conviction stem ultimately from biologically-programmed hallucinations, or when one views God as so-improbable-as-to-be-impossible, the solution space is basically endless because the exact capabilities/constraints of the mind cannot be plumbed by us - even in principle. It is an endless explanatory playground which defies Bayesianism, admitting no authority but intuition, hinging all on one concept - the impossible. "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

In a sense we're running up on the same problem that doomed the infamous Dale Interpreter Article - the subjectivity of probability assessment. I've mentioned elsewhere that I'm waiting on a copy of They Flew: A History of the Impossible by Yale historian Carlos Eire. Here is a review for those interested. The subject of the book is not, as I understand it, the experiences themselves - rather it is an exploration of how our concepts of the "impossible" are culturally contingent. As I'm reading it - or perhaps I'll wait until I'm done - I intend to post excerpts and the thoughts that accompany them. 

The question of our intuitions and their connection with the world is, in my opinion, the great question underlying all religious epistemology. Worse, it underlies the epistemology of all value by attacking what C.S. Lewis called "the Tao" - the concept of binding value itself. Perhaps @mfbukowski can tell us what awaits on the other side of that question.

And, having blown off all that steam, I'm going back to my Iain McGilchrist. 

Well perhaps not so surprisingly, answering that question is what I too have spent hours and hours on, but seeing it through the eyes of atheist philosophers while I sought an answer in Christianity.

After all, IF atheist philosophers are humans, and all humans have these intuitions, then they must see these intuitions in a different way than the Christian does right? And if they are honest good-seeking folks besides being atheists- as opposed to strident atheist street corner atheists without either training in religion or philosophy- our own beliefs of seeing these folks as "children of God" would compel us to expect that they actually do have the same intuitional structure as we do, with a different description.

I have not studied CS Lewis much, but what I gather is that the "Tao" also described by Fritjof Capra in his "Tao of Physics"- a biggie in the '60's- must be similar.

And here is an article about CS Lewis and this concept:

https://www.cslewis.org/journal/lewiss-rejection-of-nihilism-the-tao-and-the-problem-of-moral-knowledge/  , which I have read.

Also this : Chantal Bax , Subjectivity after Wittgenstein

https://philpapers.org/rec/BAXSAW
 

Quote

 

"Abstract

Although Wittgenstein is often held co-responsible for the so-called death of man as it was pronounced in the course of the previous century, no detailed description of his alternative to the traditional or Cartesian account of human being has so far been available. By consulting several parts of Wittgenstein's later oeuvre, Subjectivity after Wittgenstein aims to fill this gap. However, it also contributes to the debate about the Cartesian subject and its demise by discussing the criticism that the rethinking of subjectivity received, for it has been argued that the anti-Cartesian turn in continental philosophy has lead to a loss of a centre for both ethics and politics. By further exploring the implications of the Wittgensteinian account of human being, this book makes it clear that a non-Cartesian view on the subject is not necessarily ethically and politically inert. Moreover, it argues that ethical and political arguments should not automatically take precedence in a debate about the nature of man."

 

These see the "death of man" as the the death of the classic DEFINITION of "man" as two opposed definitions or "natures" combined.

What we say is what we take for "what is".

If you question "what is" you are actually discussing what the PERCEPTIONS of humans have been of mankind, historically, which is essentially a body PLUS a Spirit- in a sense two different types of entities squished somehow together into one.

The "death of man" therefore refers to HOW WE SPEAK of "man" and how the classic DEFINITION of the word "man" has changed- so that the old nature of "man" disappears in the new definition- without assuming the existence of "spirit" as part of the animal being called "man".

In this context/word, "Tao" can be seen then to refer to the soul/spirit intuitional aspects of humans.

THIS has been my personal quest, as it is yours, to solve this problem- how does one see spirit+body NOT equal "Mankind"- how do we do away with that dualism- and yet see ourselves as what we now call ourselves as "spiritual beings"?

Easy. 

See "spirit" differently as an INHERENT part of living humanity instead of seeing the dualism.   One nature of Christ- Human nature which INCLUDES spirit as ONE with the body- in such a way that they are no longer dualist nonsense.

My potentially scientific and also poetic descriptions uses the philosophical concept of "qualia" - which means for example the "qualities" of perception we have which are produced by allegedly the brain- plus who knows what else.  So the "quale"-singular for "qualia" of say color- is SOMETHING OUTSIDE our bodies- {Rorty quotes below}  Emphasis added.

Quote

 

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

 

Yet how we perceive what is outside our bodies- say in this case- the REDNESS of RED - not simply a description of its light frequency, but its REDNESS.

A blind or color blind person could be an EXPERT of the scientific characteristics without ever KNOWING "red" as seeing people experience of "redness"

It's the old problem of how one experiences RED and what red really IS- is it the scientific wave frequency or is it the quale?

Two definitions for the same thing- just like "sprit" +man= mankind VS seeing mankind as combining both as one, like head and heart.  You cannot be a living human without both. 

So scientifically what could this "Tao/Spirit/Intuition/Emotional side of humans?

Qualia!

So as birds may fly thousands of miles over empty seas to the tiny island where they were born, and we all have "consciences" which tell even atheists

what is good and bad, perhaps these "qualia" are produced by SOMETHING in the universe -(God ? ) evolution?  Does it matter what we call it?) that leads and guides us, so theoretically such a Force may be scientifically "discovered" to be something like color, or a sense of direction, or "hunches" or Tao or Light of Christ and on and on.

That's a quick definition of the ball of wax as I see it.

A pyramid from different angles can be a square, or a triangle or a pyramid or who knows?

So what is truth?  What we interpret from our perspective, that that doesn't make it "all in our heads" after we take the red pill, either.

Remember placebo healings are scientific proof that faith healing really happens!

 

 

Edited February 23, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

On 2/20/2024 at 7:11 PM, jkwilliams said:

Stumbled across this apologetic, which is a doozy. 

The gist of it is that when the Book of Mormon speaks of the Lamanites being given a skin of blackness, it means that the skins they wore as clothing were black, whereas the Nephites wore “white and delightsome” skins. In short, these were fashion choices similar to gang colors. 

As Dan McClellan put it, this is “not a good theory.” 

Well, it sounds hokey to me, too, at least.

But it doesn't take a lot to figure out that when the scriptures talk about blackness they are not generally talking about skin color, and there are cultural elements among many peoples that use the words light and dark, white and black, as figures with meanings other than literal colors. And some ancient languages had different names for colors, or used them differently. Even today we describe some things as a particular color, when that thing isn't at all that color. For example, white wine, or white grapes. Neither of which are actually white.

And then  we come to metaphorical uses of color words. For example, we have the Song of Solomon 1:5,6

I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me...

It should be obvious that black here isn't being used to describe someone with Negroid skin color. This person has a tan from being outside in the sun a lot more than others. The word "brown" doesn't occur in the King James Version of the Bible, and yet the people living in Palestine during that time had somewhat brownish skin colors. Or did they? Sometimes I hear that skin tone being called "olive." But olive fruits off the tree have various colors, from green to purple. So, Mediterranean people have olive skins? Ridiculous, unless you're talking about the prey of the Flying Purple People Eater. With one eye and one horn, of course.

One can read about stories from ancient times where a person might be described as having a black visage -- because he was very angry! Or very evil. But in neither case was his skin color literally black.

What color was the fruit that came off Lehi's tree? White. But was it literally white? Or pure?

As far as Lamanites are concerned, the skin of blackness may be referring to their fallen nature, or it may be referring to their intermarriage with the peoples who already lived in the Americas when the Lehites arrived. Or both. And just because Arnold Friberg (non-LDS) made the Nephites look like Europeans and the Lamanites look like Apaches is meaningless. 

Here's an interesting video about the different ways different peoples perceived and named colors. 

 

 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

How so?  Culture (in this context) is another word for customs.  Are you saying that all customs that exist in the world are morally relative? 

I would argue that the moral value of anything is relative.     

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

None of that was what I was responding too.  I was responding to your reply to Danzo, who also didn't seem to be responding to any of this.  Perhaps you and Danzo are talking about two different things but you didn't notice?

Then we aren't communicating.  Oh well

Edited February 24, 2024 by pogi

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would argue that the moral value of anything is relative.     

You'd argue that moral value of any act is relative and nothing is immoral in and of itself?  In a world with rape and animal abuse and people defrauding the elderly out of their life savings and child sex trafficking and people lying and getting the innocent convicted of serious crimes, etc.?

Am I understanding your correctly?

[OGHoosier]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

My potentially scientific and also poetic descriptions uses the philosophical concept of "qualia" - which means for example the "qualities" of perception we have which are produced by allegedly the brain- plus who knows what else.  So the "quale"-singular for "qualia" of say color- is SOMETHING OUTSIDE our bodies- {Rorty quotes below}  Emphasis added.

Hold on. Hold up hold up hold up. So qualia have been external in your worldview this whole time?

For whatever reason I had not realized that, I can't parse the implications right now but rest assured I shall come back to this.

[mfbukowski]

@OGHoosier

My mistake- I didn't proof read it well, plus being distracted during writing

It was supposed to say :

"So the CAUSE TRIGGERING THE "quale"-singular for "qualia" of say color- is SOMETHING OUTSIDE our bodies- {Rorty quotes)"

So the paradigm is that some phenomenon outside our bodies stimulates (this is a metanarrative) our sensory organ, causing our brain to see the external phenomenon (say a particular light frequency or sound frequency) causing it to signal the brain to interpret the external phenomenon as the quale we call "red", or in other circumstances "the musical note high C" or "the spirit/ tao/ light of Christ, etc.

The external phenomenon is the cause perceived as the internal quale.

Sorry for the confusion!

So all we know are qualia, not the world "as it really is"

Joni Mitchell:

"I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all

 

Source: LyricFind

Songwriters: Joni Mitchell "

Edited February 24, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

Where are they?

It does feel like they disappeared in thin air. But if I remember right, the angel Moroni took them back.

[california boy]

18 hours ago, Teancum said:

So here are some of my thoughts on the plates and the witnesses.  Human beings are animals that are easily deceived. We are superstitious.  We fall for con men quite easily.  Even today in our modern world people fall into all sorts of things. I just watched a show about a bunch of Trumpists who believe in some numerology along with the alphabet who think that JFK and JFK Jr are descendents of Jesus Christ, as is Trump. Kennedy and his son are really not dead.  They expected them both to show up on a recent anniversary of Kennedy's assassination and join Trump to win the presidency.  The promoter of this little cult like group unfortunately died a year or so ago. Yet his follower think it is part of the plan and he is in hiding now as well and will show up, along with the Kennedy's, and save the day.

I will concede to you I do not have a lot of answers for the plates other than it seems to be that subterfuge on creating something the looked and felt like gold plates would not be tough IMO.  The culture of the time and place where and when Joseph lived was highly superstitious.  Many believe in magic and other practices that we would call the occult.  Joseph senior and junior has a history of unsuccessful treasure digging and seemed to be able to always come up with some reason why the treasure his peep stone indicated was there could not be found.  So he had some practice.  Martin Harris was extremely gullible and had a history of falling for all sorts of schemes.  David Whitmer only had a frontier education.  Cowdery was likely the smartest of the three.  The plates were allegedly only actually seen by a small few persons.  And they were only on seen under a cover, or handled by a few more. Not a large group to deceive. Nor a large group of which some could have colluded with Joseph.   GIven all this I don't find the story of plates to compelling and the fact that they disappeared or were taken back by an angel is simply to convenient.  So really, with all this scat "evidence" for the plates I don't find the story of the plates compelling at all and it is on you and others that believe there were plates that were ancient and that they were delivered by an angel and son on to prove they were real. And really you can't and have little to go on. So no. Nobody but believers need to address the plates. It is not the  job of the skeptic. This is true of all claim of supernatural intervention especially when the message that results is to follow the claims and teachings of the so called prophet making the claims.

I remember waking up one day when I was a kid and going to breakfast.  My mother was looking out the window and told me she saw a monkey in our back yard.  I was so excited.  I tried finding it but couldn't.  She kept saying, look it is over in the corner by. the workshop.  Eventually, I too thought that I saw it.  I became so excited and wanted to go out and capture it.  Then my mother said "April Fools".  She then explained to me for the first time in my life, the tradition that happens every April 1st.  I never forgot that experience and at times later in my life tried to trick friends on that day to also see things that weren't there.  

I find the story of the three witnesses that see the angel Moroni "with their spiritual eyes" holding the plates as the very real possibility of simply being convinced of what they were suppose to see, especially when one of the participants claims to also see what Joseph is insisting is right in front of them.  And Martin Harris unable to see what others are claiming is right in front of them giving up.  Joseph tells him it is his own fault that he doesn't see the plates and angel because he is not worthy.  Later he repents and all the sudden is now convinced that he can see it also.  Maybe because he doesn't want to be thought of as unworthy by Joseph Smith.

There is a strong indication of perceived manipulation.  I know that those who want to believe an angel did appear with the plates will take their testimony without question.  And that is understandable and fine.  I know they will take my experience and explain that away as well because they strongly want to believe in the story.  But that experience i had as a young boy does show another possibility that COULD have happened.  Try the same experiment on your own friends.  I am willing to bet some will be successful in having a friend  convinced they have also seen something that is not really there.   The three witness testimony is not really a particularly strong narrative that supports the truthfulness of there being real gold plates except to those who really want to believe they did in fact exist.  

Another example of this that might be more easy to relate to: How many believe that in Disney's Snow White, the evil step mother stands in front of the mirror and recites "Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?"  That is not exactly what she said, yet how many are completely positive those were her exact words.  

[Teancum]

On 2/23/2024 at 5:08 PM, Danzo said:

Generally, once witness have produced their evidence it is up to the opposing party to impeach those witnesses.

Do you have evidence that impeaches the testimony of said witnesses?

Here is a list of why the three witnesses and their testimony may not be all that reliable:

Edited to add source:  

 

https://www.bible.ca/mor-witness-book.htm

Martin Harris:

1. Was known for being very unstable religiously. Over his whole life he changed his affiliation over 13 times.
2. Martin Harris was first a Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationist, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon.(Mormonism Unveiled, E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 260-261)
3. After Martin Harris' excommunication in 1837, he changed his religion eight more times, going from the Shakers to one Mormon splinter group to the next, and back to the main group in 1842.(Improvement Era, March 1969, p. 63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164, Brigham Young)
4. In 1846, (after his excommunication in 1837) Martin Harris was preaching among the Saints in England for the Apostate James J. Strang. (Church Chronology, Andrew Jensen, 1899, p. 31; Millennial Star, vol. 8, Nov. 15, 1846, pp. 124-128.)
5. He signed his name to a statement: "Testimony of three witnesses: We Cheerfully certify...The Lord has made it known to me that David Witmer is the man. David was then called forward, and Joseph and his counselors laid hands upon him, and ordained him to his station, to succeed him...He will be prophet, seer, Revelator and Translator before God." Signed Martin Harris, Leonard Rich, Calvin Beebe. Of course this never came to pass as Brigham young became Joseph Smith's successor.
6. The Mormons stated of Martin Harris and a few other men within the pages of the church's official newspaper at the time, "a lying deceptive spirit attend them...they are of their father, the devil...The very countenance of Harris will show to every spiritual-minded person who sees him, that the wrath of God is upon him." Latter-Day Saint's, Millennial Star, Vol 8 pp124-128.
7. Phineas Young wrote to his older brother Brigham Young on December 31, 1841, from Kirtland, Ohio: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was for the Book of Mormon" (Martin Harris - Witness and Benefactor of the Book of Mormon, 1955, p. 52)
8. Martin Harris testified that his testimony for Shakerism was greater than it was for Mormonism. The Shaker's "Sacred Roll and Book" was also delivered by an angel. (Case Against Mormonism, Tanner, Vol. 2, pp. 50-58; Martin Harris-Witness & Benefactor, BYU 1955 Thesis, Wayne C. Gunnell, p.52.)
9. In the Elder's Journal for August, 1838, Joseph Smith denounces Martin Harris as "so far beneath contempt that to notice him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make. The Church exerted some restraint on him, but now he has given loose to all kinds of abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, and all kinds of debauchery."(Gleanings by the Way, J. A. Clark, pp. 256-257)
10. Like David Whitmer, Martin Harris later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates with "the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes". This we believe is the truth but it should eliminate him automatically as a witness none the less. This of course proves Mormonism is a fraud and that the Nephi Plates never existed and no one actually saw them. (The Braden & Kelly Debate, p. 173)

 

 

David Whitmer:

1. David Whitmer said in 1887: "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'" Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887
2. David Whitmer belonged to at least three Mormon splinter groups at different times, but he died still rejecting the LDS Church and its priesthood.
3. Like Martin Harris, David Whitmer later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates "by the eye of faith" handled by an angel.(Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831)
4. David Whitmer changed his story about seeing the plates and later told of finding them lying in a field and later still, told Orson Pratt that they were on a table with all sorts of brass plates, gold plates, the Sword of Laban, the 'Director' and the Urim and Thumim. (Millennial Star, vol. XL, pp. 771-772)
5. During the summer of 1837, while in Kirtland, David Whitmer pledged his new loyalty to a prophetess (as did Martin and Oliver) who used a black seer stone and danced herself into 'trances.'(Biographical Sketches, Lucy Smith, pp. 211-213)
6. It was the start of the finish for him. It ended in 1847 in his declaration to Oliver that he (Whitmer) was to be the Prophet of the New Church of Christ and Oliver a counsellor.(Letter to Oliver Cowdery, by David Whitmer, Sept. 8, 1847, printed in the "Ensign of Liberty," 5/1848, p. 93; also see 'Ensign of Liberty,' 8/1849, pp. 101-104)
7. In the meantime, he was excommunicated and roughly put out. His and Oliver's families were, in fact, driven into the streets and robbed by the Mormons while Whitmer and Cowdery were away trying to arrange a place to flee.(John Whitmer's History of the Church, Modern Microfilm, SLC, p. 22)
8. Cursed by leaders such as Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer was denounced by the Prophet Joseph Smith as a "dumb beast to ride" and "an *** to bray out cursings instead of blessings." (History of the Church, vol. 3, p 228)

Oliver Cowdery:

1. Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church and joined the Methodist church.
2. In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Seasons and Times, Vol 2, p482
3. The Mormon church accused Oliver Cowdery of Adultery and claimed he had joined "a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs".
4. Oliver Cowdery was the Church's second Elder, often called the "Second President." The early day companion of Joseph Smith, he was scribe for the Book of Mormon, present at the "Restoration of the Priesthood,' and as close to the real truth as any man.(Pearl of Great Price, JS 2:72-76)
5. However, in 1838 in Kirtland, Oliver confronted Joseph Smith with the charge of adultery with Fanny Alger, and with lying and teaching false doctrines.(Private Letter to Brother, Warren Cowdery, by Oliver Cowdery, Jan. 21, 1838)
6. Joseph Smith denied this and charged Cowdery with being a liar.(History of the Church, vol. 3 pp. 16-18 and Elder's Journal, Joseph Smith, July 1838.)
7. Church records now show Miss Alger was Smith's first "spiritual wife." Oliver was telling the truth!(Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 233)
8. Cowdery was excommunicated for this and other "crimes."(History of the Church, vol. 3, pp. 16-18) Later, as a Methodist, he denied the Book of Mormon (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, p. 482 and Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, p 56 and "Oliver Cowdery-The Man Outstanding," Joseph Greehalgh, 1965, p. 28)
9. Cowdery publicly confessed his sorrow and shame for his connection with Mormonism.(The True Origin of The Book of Mormon, Charles Shook, 1914, pp. 58-59)
10. While the Mormon church claims he rejoined them in the fall of 1848, (Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 201) they also accused him later that year, with trying to "raise up the Kingdom again" with the Apostate, William E. McLellin.(The Mormon frontier, Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p. 336)
11. Oliver Cowdery was publicly charged by Joseph Smith and leading Mormons with stealing, lying, perjury, counterfeiting, adultery, and being the leader of a gang of "scoundrels of the deepest degree!"(Senate Document 189, Feb. 15, 1841, pp. 6-9 and Comprehensive History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, vol. 1, pp. 438-439)
12. Joseph Smith listed Oliver Cowdery as among those, "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." (History of the Church, vol. 3:232)
13. Oliver Cowdery died claiming that the book of Doctrines & Covenants must be discarded.

 

When it comes to Mormonism none of these three seem all that stable or reliable. Especially Martin Harris.

 

Edited February 25, 2024 by Teancum

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It does feel like they disappeared in thin air. But if I remember right, the angel Moroni took them back.

Well that is the story.  Moroni took them back. 🙄

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

But that experience i had as a young boy does show another possibility that COULD have happened.  Try the same experiment on your own friends.  I am willing to bet some will be successful in having a friend  convinced they have also seen something that is not really there.  

Up close and personal, not at a distance?  Do you think you could convince someone they saw something on the table in front of the two of you if it wasn’t there?

Quote

Another example of this that might be more easy to relate to: How many believe that in Disney's Snow White, the evil step mother stands in front of the mirror and recites "Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?"  That is not exactly what she said, yet how many are completely positive those were her exact words.  

It is pretty meaningless to most people what she actually says since it is entertainment and not something their life (spiritual, financial, social, maybe also physical with all the moving around) is highly effected by.

Not saying memories of important events aren’t rewritten, all memories are to some extent, some massively so, but it seems unlikely that one could convince relatively practical individuals (successful farmer, lawyer)  that they saw a person up close and personal and for an extended period of time and heard him say something when they hadn’t.  I can see misremembering what was heard because of being overwhelmed.

Seems more likely to me if there was no angel present and it was a fraud, they were in on it, because while they might not have written the info in the Book of Mormon about the experience themselves, they had plenty of time to refute it.

Edited February 24, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Teancum said:

the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes

I don’t see this and similar criticisms as addressing the full context of these kind of remarks by Harris and Whitmer.  
 

Quote

 Critics point to a statement by Martin Harris that he saw the plates with ‘the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes’ and similar statements suggesting the plates were not a real and tangible object. That has never seemed like much of an argument to me. Of course Martin Harris needed faith to see the angel and the plates, and no doubt he was spiritually transfigured in some way to behold the divine messenger who showed him the plates (see Moses 1:14). Thus, he saw the angel and the plates, both as real as can be, with an eye of faith. David Whitmer…wrote: ‘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 declared: ‘Well, just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates; and sooner than I would deny it I would lay my head upon that chopping block and let you chop it off’” (pages 148-149). 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2019/06/06/book-review-a-case-for-the-book-of-mormon

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

• David Whitmer changed his story about seeing the plates and later told of finding them lying in a field and later still, told Orson Pratt that they were on a table with all sorts of brass plates, gold plates, the Sword of Laban, the 'Director' and the Urim and Thumim. (Millennial Star, vol. XL, pp. 771-772)

I went to the Millennial Star volume cited, which has been digitized by BYU: https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MStar/id/27175

Whitmer's account of seeing the table and other artifacts is found in there, but there is no reference to finding the plates lying in a field. Do you have an additional citation for that?

 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Danzo said:

Do you have another source for that quote?  Its hard to take  The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed to be a reliable, unbiased source.

Nope.  But we know this was taught even early in Mormonism.  See here:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/indianpolygamyrevelation.htm

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Seasons and Times, Vol 2, p482

 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Later, as a Methodist, he denied the Book of Mormon (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, p. 482 and Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, p 56 and "Oliver Cowdery-The Man Outstanding," Joseph Greehalgh, 1965, p. 28)

You listed these as two separate points but they are from the same source (I can't speak for the Greehalgh book, but I would suspect that its source is the Johnson poem until corrected.) That singular source is an 1841 poem written for the Times and Seasons by Joel H. Johnson. Read it here: https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/8982. It is not a news report, firsthand source, or even report of a rumor. The poem does not clearly state that Oliver's denial has happened as a matter of record, and no other evidence exists to establish it. 

Richard Lloyd Andersen addressed it in the Ensign in April 1987, as well as directly in Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. Ensign article here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/04/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question.html?lang=eng

Robert Boylan addresses it here: https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/09/did-oliver-cowdery-deny-his-witness-of.html

I will quote the most relevant portion from both responses: 

Quote

My book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses gives some other statements that opponents of the Church have used to throw doubt on Oliver’s testimony.¹⁶ One is an 1841 poem by Joel H. Johnson, making the point that God’s revelations are true no matter who opposes them: “Or prove the gospel was not true / Because old Paul the Saints could kill? / Because the Jews its author slew, / and now reject their Saviour still? … / Or Book of Mormon not his word / because denied by Oliver?”¹⁷

The poem is a secondary comment, not a primary source. It is rhetoric, not history. To qualify for the latter, it would have to be based on demonstrable knowledge Joel Johnson had of Oliver outside the Church, which it is not. Johnson may simply have meant that Oliver had withdrawn from the Church and did not then stand openly for the ancient record.

- Richard Lloyd Andersen

Quote

Furthermore, Johnson's poem is without any evidential value as Johnson never had any opportunity to witness any denial; Johnson was in Kirtland at the time of Cowdery's excommunication in Missouri and after that had no known contact with Cowdery. Johnson was relying on the rumour mill.

- Robert Boylan

I have a life to live, which I'm going to go back to for a few hours, but I shall be back with further notes. You may be quite assured of that.

Edited February 24, 2024 by OGHoosier