What if the Joseph Smith, Jr. had kept the golden plates that the Book of Mormon were translated from and experts could examine them?

I base my answer, by the way primarily on the way the world treats the Bible.

• Report

by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on April 12th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"I base my answer, by the way primarily on the way the world treats the Bible."

MY RESPONSE
Could you elaborate on that please?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 12th, 2011

Surely,
People call Jacob a swindler, a superstitious conjourer, and a con artist. They call the compilers and translators of the Bible opportunists seeking political power.
Various churches and denominations have adopted, reinterprated and fought over the meaning of the Bible.
Even though there have been some manuscripts found that some Biblical archeologists feel are authentic, they recieve little consideration by Christianity in general because "the Bible is the only and complete word of God."
Athiests claim that there are similariteis to Israel's Christianity found world wide, and say it's due to a natural evolution of religion that has remained constant world wide. (I have a differant theory about that... but lets stay topical.)
-
But with all said and done, those who believe will believe and those who doubt will doubt and generally people are very slow to let evidences affect their opinions.

• Report

by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on April 13th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"Jacob WAS a swindler, a superstitious conjurer, and a con-artist."

MY RESPONSE
Indeed he was - the Bible's quite clear on that point.

David was an adulterer, a liar, and a murderer. The Bible's quite clear on that was well.

The Bible is open and honest.

And I have heard Bible believing Christians make BOTH these points in sermons more than once.

Why is that a problem?

Now when can we expect the members of the Mormon Church to admit publicly that Joseph Smith was a swindler, a superstitious conjurer, a con-artist, a adulterer, a liar, and an accessory to attempted murderer?

When can we expect the LdS Leadership to use these points in a sermon?

Next General Conference perhaps?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 13th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"They call the compilers and translators of the Bible opportunists seeking political power."

MY RESPONSE
Actually the only people that I hear making this argument are Mormons, Atheists, and liberal, non-Bible believing Christians.

They also claim that there was a top secret conspiracy to cover this all up (you forgot that one) - which, of course, is why Christians openly read about and discuss this stance in Seminary Classes and scholarly Christian papers the world over.

So there's a dissenting stance. And your point is . . . ?

I say let the evidence speak for itself and it does. People who are vying for political power and influence generally doesn't join a group that ensures this type of treatment:

2 Corinthians 11
23Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

24Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.

28Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

29Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?

30If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.

31The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

In fact, Paul states throughout 2 Corinthians 11 that those who engage in the type of behavior that Mormons, Atheists, and Liberal, non-Bible believing Christians accuse him and the other Apostles of DID exist: They were False Apostles.

NOTE:
And BTW, Joseph Smith fits the profile perfectly. For example . . .

Please name for me, any Apostle who ran for political office (like say . . . President of the United States for example) like Joseph Smith did. Or held political office like Joseph Smith did.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 13th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"Various churches and denominations have adopted, reinterprated and fought over the meaning of the Bible."

MY RESPONSE
Sure, that's what sinners do - they act like sinners. So, again, what's your point?

After all the same charge could be made of the near 200 Mormon Denominations throughout the Latter Day Saint Movement's 181-year history (61 currently active).

So again, what's your point?

NOTE:
BTW, at the current rate the LDS Movement will have FAR more denominations 2000-years after it's birth than the modern Christian Church does.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 13th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"Even though there have been some manuscripts found that some Biblical archeologists feel are authentic, they recieve little consideration by Christianity in general because "the Bible is the only and complete word of God."'

MY RESPONSE
Most of the manuscripts that you refer to (mainly Gnostic in origin BTW) have been known about for millenia and were rejected as scripture after they were written because they were clearly not inspired.

If you doubt me just read the Catholic Apocrypha some time and see for yourself.

But tell you what, since this is such an issue for Mormons (I do hear this argument a lot from Mormons) why don't you all canonize them?

And, of course, you can start by flying Thomas S. Monson over to Jordan with the infamous chocolate seer stone that Joseph Smith used to "translate" the Book of Mormon and have him translate this:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4616247/ancient-christian-books-found

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 13th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"Athiests claim that there are similariteis to Israel's Christianity found world wide, and say it's due to a natural evolution of religion that has remained constant world wide."

MY RESPONSE
Of course matching what the Bible clearly stated in Genesis: That mankind originally worshiped the Creator God of Genesis and then over time corrupted the pure religion choosing instead to worship idols (which in reality is nothing more than self-worship).

Which is why Paul said:

Romans 1 (KJV)
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 13th, 2011

In the end the inadequacy of all of these arguments is exposed by the FULL body of evidence.

So where's the body of evidence vindicating the Book of Mormon?

Let's start by examining the body of ancient manuscripts supporting it's claims . . .

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 13th, 2011

You dilliberately misquoted me above.
You Wrote:
"Actually the only people that I hear making this argument are Mormons, Atheists, and liberal, non-Bible believing Christians"
My Response:
Those are precisely the people I was refering to.
You Wrote:
"Of course matching what the Bible clearly stated in Genesis: That mankind originally worshiped the Creator God of Genesis and then over time corrupted the pure religion choosing instead to worship idols (which in reality is nothing more than self-worship)."
That's in essence my take on it too.
You Wrote:
"Most of the manuscripts that you refer to (mainly Gnostic in origin BTW) have been known about for millenia and were rejected as scripture after they were written because they were clearly not inspired."
My Response:
Let me be clear, I personally haven't read one of the documents I referenced that I felt was authentic or atleast not corrupted beyond use. For instance I read a disturbing quote from the Gospel of Timothy today which perported Jesus murdered two kids because they didn't play nice with Him when He was younger... This does not ring true with the Spirit or the other bodies of text we have.
However, the trouble is there are those who don't even dare to look at such a text. And those don't and still wouldn't look at the Book of Mormon.
You asked repeatedly:
"So again, what's your point?"
If you look back at my main point which I stated again later:
Having the plates would not affect the membership of the Church dramatically in either way, because those who believe will believe and those who doubt will doubt and generally people are very slow to let evidences affect their opinions.

• Report

by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on April 13th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"Having the plates would not affect the membership of the Church dramatically in either way, because those who believe will believe and those who doubt will doubt and generally people are very slow to let evidences affect their opinions"

MY RESPONSE
I disagree. If we had the Golden Plates and they were validated I would get baptized - and I bet I wouldn't be alone.

In fact, I think that Mormonism would easily become the #1 Christian Denomination on the planet.

YOU WROTE
"For instance I read a disturbing quote from the Gospel of Timothy today which perported Jesus murdered two kids because they didn't play nice with Him when He was younger..."

MY RESPONSE
I'm quite familiar with that passage as a matter of fact. It's a perfect example of what I was talking about.

The Gospel of Timothy is a Gnostic Gospel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas ) in fact most of the books that Mormons and Atheist point to as "evidence" of a political agenda behind the formation of the Canon.

However, one you actually review the CONTENT of those books you realize why they were rejected - they're CLEARLY not inspired and are in fact preaching "another Jesus" and "another gospel". And the Apostle's instructions in this regard were pretty clear:

"...if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."
-- Galatians 1:8

"...I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him...

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
- II Corinthians 3&4,13-15

And that's the same reason why LdS Scripture has always been rejected John. It's not some type of hidden political agenda or some unBiblical fixation on a closed Canon. The works are CLEARLY not inspired (crikey, they're not even written well by human standards!)

Were a book to come along tomorrow that was clearly inspired by God I would readily accept it as scripture and I imagine that many other Christians would as well - in the same way that the New Testament books are were accepted by the Jewish Christians of the primitive Church.

So Mormon perceptions in this regard are fallacious.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 13th, 2011

So in the end, the books that Mormons and Atheists point to in their case that the formation of the Bible was politically motived is in error.

Rather they weren't added to the Canon for the same reason why you all reject The Book of Zelph, The Book of Laban, Book of Jeraneck, and The Sealed Portion are rejected by the LdS Church - they're clearly NOT inspired.

Period.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 13th, 2011

I think you think I'm arguing what I am not... We are on the same page that many if not most of the Apocryphal works are uninspired.
-
However, I whole heartedly assure you that there are those who very strongly cling to an "unBiblical fixation on a closed Canon." And it's no small few number of people. They say, "The Bible is God's whole and complete inerrant word, containing everything we need from beginning to end. There will be no more revelations and have been no other revelations that are of any value. If there were or had been God would have put them in the Bible."
(this isn't a direct quote but it is pretty much a mesh of several direct quotes I have recieved.)

• Report

by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on April 14th, 2011

I hope you guys do not mind me butting in on this conversation too:)

"However, I whole heartedly assure you that there are those who very strongly cling to an "unBiblical fixation on a closed Canon." And it's no small few number of people. They say, "The Bible is God's whole and complete inerrant word, containing everything we need from beginning to end. There will be no more revelations and have been no other revelations that are of any value. If there were or had been God would have put them in the Bible.""

The thing is John, there is a HUGE difference between what is canon/scripture/word of God meant for all of mankind/etc. and what is revelation or prophecy. God continues to give revelations, and prophecies, but that does not mean that they are meant for the entire Body of Christ the way scripture is. Just because someone gets revelation from God does not automatically make that revelation "Scripture".

I would argue with any Christian claiming that God no longer speaks to us. God speaking to us IS revelation, and depending on what we are being told is also prophecy.

"And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherdsb and teachers,c 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,d to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love."
Ephesians 4:11-16, ESV

"The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

27Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

And I will show you a still more excellent way."
1 Corinthians 12:21-31, ESV

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whoma you learned it 15and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of Godb may be competent, equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:14-17, ESV

In the end, the Bible is indeed the only God breathed, complete, inerrant, and perfect word. It contains all we need to know in order to be saved from our sins, made righteous before God and perfected in Christ. Therefor, when we die, we will be able to live with God in Heaven. Every single revelation and prophecy that mankind receives MUST align with and not contradic

• Report

by k on April 14th, 2011

darn, darn, darn I did not realize that my whole post hadn't made it before I erased it. Sigh....so to pick up from where AB cut my comment off...

Every single revelation and prophecy that mankind receives MUST align with and not contradict the Bible. That is how we know if the revelation or prophecy is from God. If what we are told does not plumb line the Bible, then the information is not of God. That being said...God's written word is not the only way He communicates with us. As members of the Body of Christ, and thus partakers of the priesthood of all believers, we are able to receive revelation and prophecy from God. Thus, we no longer need one prophet to receive revelation for the whole of the Church (as the Israelites needed back in the day). We are all given revelation and guidance from God in order for His Church to function in the manner in which He wants it to. Because of the blood of Jesus which allows us to join the family of God, any member may now be a prophet, teacher, etc. because God does indeed bless His Church with these spiritual gifts.

• Report

by k on April 14th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"There will be no more revelations and have been no other revelations that are of any value. If there were or had been God would have put them in the Bible."
(this isn't a direct quote but it is pretty much a mesh of several direct quotes I have recieved.)"

MY RESPONSE
Well John, I know how frustrating it can be trying to reason with those who haven't fully thought through their belief system and only consider internal, "faith promoting" evidence, refusing to consider anything else - and yes, I'm talking about some (not all) Christians. Though I've been told that some Mormons do this too (please note sarcastic in tone in last sentence)

However, whenever I hear that from ignorant Christians of the type you're describing I always ask the same question: "Please show me that in the Bible."

And if they take me to:

Revelation 22:18
"...I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

I point out to them that passage only applies to the Book of Revelation and that John wrote his Gospel AND all his epistles AFTER he wrote the Book of Revelation.

And then, of course, I take them to:

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

AND

Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Their stance, simply put, is unBiblical.

The standard for Canonization, Biblically speaking, is inspiration - period. And I can exegese that from the Bible for the listener IF they have time and IF they're willing to listen with an open mind.

Again, and to reiterate, LdS Scripture is rejected because it is CLEARLY not inspired. And Joseph Smith, Jr. is rejected because, by the Biblical tests, he's a false prophet.

That's it. Period. Over.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 16th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 12th, 2011

Evidence?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 17th, 2011

No, you give me evidence. If you know as much as you claim. You show me where the prophet was commanded to give the plates back to Moroni.

• Report

by PrestorJohn on March 17th, 2011

The onus is on the one making the claim to present support evidence. So . . .

Evidence?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 17th, 2011

From Joseph Smith - History;

"At length the time arrived for obtaining the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate. On the twenty-second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, having gone as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge: that I should be responsible for them; that if I should let them go carelessly, or through any neglect of mine, I should be cut off; but that if I would use all my endeavors to preserve them, until he, the messenger, should call for them, they should be protected."

The angel, through the dictates of God, commanded Joseph to protect the plates until the angel should call for them. Therefore, Joseph had to give the plates back, in order to obey the commands of God.

The scriptures and records are laid before you, they are not withheld. You can find it out for yourself.

• Report

by PrestorJohn on March 17th, 2011

Citation so I can verify your evidence? It's missing.

However, one must ask: Why didn't anyone but Joseph Smith SEE the plates with their PHYSICAL eyes and handle them with their PHYSICAL hands?

The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth? There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.

The witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. The plates were seen in two groups of four not all eight together as popularized in church paintings. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71). Why is this significant? Any magician will tell you that it is easier to deceive people in smaller groups.
( http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#significant ; retrieved date of post)

The witnesses only saw and handled them with SPIRITUAL eyes and SPIRITUAL hands. Further several of the witnesses recanted their testimony of the plates later in life.

Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as James Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.

Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.

The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.

The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75 each.

All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!
( http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#significant ; retrieved date of post)

- CONTINUED -

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 18th, 2011

Further those who DID see the "Golden Plates" with their PHYSICAL eyes signed affidavits that they were nothing but tile bricks:

"... An anecdote touching this subject used to be related by William T. Hussey and Azel Vandruver. They were notorious wags, and were intimately acquainted with Smith. They called as his friends at his residence, and strongly importuned him for an inspection of the "golden book," offering to take upon themselves the risk of the death-penalty denounced. Of course, the request could not be complied with; but they were permitted to go to the chest with its owner, and see where the thing was, and observe its shape and size, concealed under a piece of thick canvas. Smith, with his accustomed solemnity of demeanor, positively persisting in his refusal to uncover it, Hussey became impetuous, and (suiting his action to his word) ejaculated, "Egad! I'll see the critter, live or die!" And stripping off the cover, a large tile-brick was exhibited. But Smith's fertile imagination was equal to the emergency. He claimed that his friends had been sold by a trick of his; and "treating" with the customary whisky hospitalities, the affair ended in good-nature."
(Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism, 1867, pages 32-33)
(Note: others name 'Azel Vandruver' as "Ashley VanDuzer")

"... He [Joseph Smith, Jr.] had an old glass box [i.e. a box used for holding plates or panes of glass] with a tile in it, about 7×8 inches, and that was the gold plates[;] and Martin Harris didn’t know a gold plate from a brick at this time."
(Charles A Shook. "Statement from Lorenzo Saunders," 1885, printed by Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, 1914)

Please refer to the following for supporting evidence for all the above:
http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm

And please note that the Mormonthink.com web site was founded and is maintained by active members of the LdS Church - it is NOT an "Anti" site.

So could it be, based on the historical evidence, that the passage that you cited was merely an excuse - a con man's cover story, if you will - to deal with the one piece of physical evidence that could disprove Joseph Smith's claims and prove that he was a fraud?

Doesn't Occam's Razor point MORE to that simple explanation than Smith's complex, fantastic, and ever evolving story about Angels, threats, and curses commanded by God?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on March 18th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

And I believe that you forgot about the Kinkerhook Plates which is the other situation in which we have original manuscripts to compare a Joseph Smith translation against so we can objectively evaluate his ability to translate accurately and precisely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates
http://www.mormonthink.com/kinderhookweb.htm

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 27th, 2011

Thank you for your answer - though I'm not really sure if your intent was to answer the question or promote the ministry of Dr. John Collins since he's hardly an expert on Mormonism.

So, in an attempt to get everyone on the same page here (and keep the focus on Mormonism and Mormon Studies rather that the ministry of Dr. John Collins) . . .

Let's say that the LdS Church suddenly produced the Golden Plates and, objective, secular, manuscript experts examined them - just as they did with the Book of Abraham Papyri and The Kinderhook Plates - what do you think that they would find?

And if you're unfamiliar with either of those precedents please use these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 26th, 2011

My answer was the truth. Not a promotional answer only a source. There is no fact to back up Joseph Smith having any truths but there is facts to back up people like him. Just stating the facts is all. God bless

• Report

by mdychristian on January 26th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"I mean think about it I.T., with as much as you know about Joseph Smith and the church, do you really think you would change your mind about the Book of Mormon if Thomas S. Monson suddenly took you inside the vault and showed you some plates? I doubt it. Am I right?"

MY RESPONSE
A: I would turn to President Monson and say, "This is great! Awesome! A dream come for me and every other Mormon Studies scholar.

Now respectfully sir, this is too important of a Mormon History artifact to be sequestered away in The President's Vault next to Joseph Smith's chocolate seer stone, his Jupiter Talisman, and all the other interesting but far less important items!

When will you be releasing these for examination by experts so detractor, skeptic, and true believer alike can finally have substantial, physical evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Again, respectfully sir, the credibility of the LdS Church is at stake here! If you keep them in here you will be criticized for withholding one of the greatest religious artifacts of human history. If you allow experts to examine them the findings may not be entirely to your liking or mine BUT at least you will show yourself to be a man of courage and integrity!

And if the experts prove them to be authentic I promise sir that I shall be the first one baptized, and I would honored if you would do the honors, just as you have honored me today by revealing this 180-year old secret to this humble and insignificant Mormon Studies Scholar who is CLEARLY unworthy of either honor!"

That is exactly what I say East Hill. You see, I let the evidence lead me to the conclusion. Always have, always will.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 26th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"At least with the Book of Mormon you have 11 men who signed their names to documents witnessing to the fact that they claimed to have seen the plates. A good chunk of those men left the church bitterly and hated Joseph Smith, yet none of them came out to expose Joseph Smith and claim it was all made up."

MY RESPONSE
Respectfully East Hill, the historic record does NOT support your assertions:

What are the facts? Eleven men claimed to witness the existence of plates they believed were the source for the Book of Mormon. Three of these men admitted the experience was subjective and visionary. Each of the first three witnesses saw the plates in a vision for the first time in a different place and time. The other eight witnesses were closely related to Joseph Smith either by blood or marriage. Only three of them claimed to see and handle that which had the appearance of being plates of gold, and could testify Joseph did have something that resembled plates with etchings after signing their name to the testimony document. Many of these witnesses left Joseph Smith and the organization that he started, believing at best that he was a fallen and false prophet. Joseph Smith himself, called into question the general character and reliability of several of these men. This, in spite of the fact that they were close friends and family of Joseph Smith.

By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses (except those related to Joseph Smith) was part of the Mormon Church. Five of these witnesses joined The Church of Christ started by William McLellin; Oliver Cowdery indicated he was supportive of this group though he never joined (BYU Professor D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy, 1994, p. 188). If these men were alive today, the LDS church would label them apostates. They would be cut off from the LDS church and condemned to outer darkness, regardless of whether or not they still believed in the Book of Mormon.

The LDS Church wants an investigator to accept the testimony of these men as reliable; however, it does not want us to accept their later statements that the Church had lapsed into error and blindness.

These historical facts highlight another thread of Mormon history that has been misrepresented by LDS Church leaders. The witnesses' testimonies as a whole are presented as objective, solid, and irrefutable, but upon close examination are seen to be subjective, ambiguous and, at times, contradictory.
http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#ending

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 26th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"To my knowledge, the whereabouts of the original manuscripts of the bible are unknown. There are no ancient documents from a notary public attesting that he saw Paul actually write the letters."

MY RESPONSE
This is a logical fallacy. The manuscript base is so large and extensive that the issue of the original authored manuscripts are pretty much a moot point:

NEW TESTAMENT:
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years

(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)

source = http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

OLD TESTAMENT:
"Remarkably, there are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other. 1 In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. 2 The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940's and 50's, also provide astounding evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries BC. 3"
(source = http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm )

"The Scribe
The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.

The Massoretic Text
During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

The Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea.

- CONTINUED -

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 26th, 2011

The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."2

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."3"
(source = http://bible.org/seriespage/defense-faith-are-biblical-documents-reliable )

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 26th, 2011

I understand where you're coming from on the texts of the bible. I'm not trying to undermine the bible in anyway. My point is that to the skeptic, all of the stuff you just cited above still will not convince them of the divine origins of the bible. They still won't believe. I would make the same argument with the plates. Even if they were here in front of us and even if a scientist declared them legit, I still think there would be many who would remain skeptical.

Regarding your commentary on the 11 witnesses, the fact that many of them left the church and would be considered apostates only reinforces my point. If they had all remained active and firm in church, you could at least make the argument that they all had made a secret pact to never reveal the truth that the plates never existed and they made it up. But the fact that so many of them left the church bitterly, yet you can find NO document, NO journal entry, NO letter written by them stating that they conspired with Joe Smith to make it seem the fraudulent plates were real. Isn't that curious?

• Report

by Mike Astill on January 27th, 2011

I find it interesting that all of the 11 witness statements contained some variation of "saw the plates in a vision." None of them actually handled the plates, or saw them with their physical eyes.

• Report

by moonkicker on January 27th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"you could at least make the argument that they all had made a secret pact to never reveal the truth that the plates never existed and they made it up"

MY RESPONSE
I made no such claim. In fact, I don't believe that there was such a conspiracy. I believe that the witnesses genuinely believed in the restoration but believed Joseph Smith to be a fraud and a charlatan. Further, to publicly admit that they had been duped by this remarkable con-man would have brought down such public shame, stigma, possibly even legal action against them (those seeking damages could easy point to their role as "witness" to prove that they were accessory to fraud) that it was better to remain silent than confess what they knew.

This is a classic symptom of a fraud: The "mark" is knowingly maneuvered into a position where to disclose the fraud - even after the fact - would be more painful and damaging than simply keeping the whole affair private. And Joseph Smith was a masterful con-man!

Further, you clearly did NOT read any of the referenced content - in which this case is made. Moonkicker eluded to just one of the many problems with the witness's tesimony, there are many, many, many more.

And you are in error, many of witnesses DID renounce the plates. I suggest that you read the referenced material before you continue to misstate the facts and embarrass yourself with unsupportable Mormon dogma: http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm

In the end you too seem to have fallen hard for that 180-year old fraud. As I said, Joseph Smith was a masterful con-man.

Finally, you also seem to have missed the fact that I told President Monson in my little fictional narrative that if they had the Golden Plates and objective, dispasssionate, non-LdS experts declared them authentic I would be the first in line to be baptized.

And I believe that I would not be alone.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 27th, 2011

You said: "many of witnesses DID renounce the plates"

Show me. Get me a direct quote from one of them.

I have never seen a journal, or a letter, or an affidavit written by any of the 11 witnesses recanting what they said. This is even more remarkable considering the fact that they all eventually left the church. Show me where one of them said "I know I said it happened, but it did not. I did not see the plates. It was all a fabrication." I did read your link--I have read it before. There is nothing in there that definitively shows that those men did not see the plates.

You said: "I would be the first in line to be baptized."

lol...maybe. I would have to see it to believe it. However, I think you would quickly go inactive. "Brother I.T., we want to call you to be the nursery leader for the 2 year old kids. Do you accept this calling?" LOL... "Oh, and one more thing, would you be willing to help clean the church this Saturday night at 9 p.m., and help us remove snow tomorrow morning at 7 a.m.?"

Fast Sunday arrives. Mister I.T. bearing his testimony: "I know the Book of Mormon is true because an objective, dispasssionate, non-LdS expert declared the plates to be authentic. Despite all of the things I have read about Joseph Smith, despite his many wives, I know this is God's church." Amen!

• Report

by Mike Astill on January 27th, 2011

You said: "many of witnesses DID renounce the plates"

Show me. Get me a direct quote from one of them.

I have never seen a journal, or a letter, or an affidavit written by any of the 11 witnesses recanting what they said. This is even more remarkable considering the fact that they all eventually left the church. Show me where one of them said "I know I said it happened, but it did not. I did not see the plates. It was all a fabrication." I did read your link--I have read it before. There is nothing in there that definitively shows that those men did not see the plates.

You said: "I would be the first in line to be baptized."

lol...maybe. I would have to see it to believe it. However, I think you would quickly go inactive. "Brother I.T., we want to call you to be the nursery leader for the 2 year old kids. Do you accept this calling?" LOL... "Oh, and one more thing, would you be willing to help clean the church this Saturday night at 9 p.m., and help us remove snow tomorrow morning at 7 a.m.?"

Fast Sunday arrives. Mister I.T. bearing his testimony: "I know the Book of Mormon is true because an objective, dispasssionate, non-LdS expert declared the plates to be authentic. Despite all of the things I have read about Joseph Smith, despite his many wives, I know this is God's church." Amen!

• Report

by Mike Astill on January 27th, 2011

Sorry for the duplication.

• Report

by Mike Astill on January 27th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"Show me. Get me a direct quote from one of them."

MY RESPONSE
Did you read my last post? I have already explained WHY getting a DIRECT quote from any of the disenchanted witnesses would not be in their best interests.

What you're now doing is the LdS Apologist tactic called, "raising the bar of proof to the ridiculous".

However, there is enough indirect-to-direct evidence to sink this boat - and remember it only took ONE hole to sink the Titanic:

Cowdery's law partner claims Oliver admitted it was a hoax
Stephen Van Eck, in his article, "The Book of Mormon: One Too Many M's," writes that Oliver Cowdery admitted to his law firm colleague, Judge W. Lang, that the Book of Mormon was a hoax, manufactured from Solomon Spalding's unpublished novel, "Manuscript Found": [note this is not referring to the novel called "Manuscript Story" which was found and published by the LDS and RLDS Church under the name "Manuscript Found". This refers to another undiscovered novel originally called "Manuscript Found"].

" ... W. Lang, whose law firm the excommunicated Oliver Cowdery joined, ... wrote, 'The plates were never translated and could not be, and were never intended to be.' (This suggests that Cowdery still believed that there were actually plates.)

"'What is claimed to be a translation is "The Manuscript Found" worked over by C.' (Cowdery) 'He was the best scholar among them.'...

"'Rigdon got the original at the job printing office in Pittsburgh ... Without going into detail or disclosing a confidential word, I can say to you that I do know, as well as can now be known, that C. revised the manuscript and that Smith and Rigdon approved of it before it became the Book of Mormon.'

Eck concludes from Lang's confession the following:

"Apparently Cowdery had admitted the hoax to Lang, but took all the credit for it.

"This is not consistent with Cowdery being the servile follower of Smith that he had been. Had Cowdery given Smith the completed manuscript, furthermore, losing the first 116 pages of the dictated 'translation' would have scarcely been a problem. Cowdery, despite his apparent boasting to Lang, can be considered a collaborator at best, but a conspirator at least."
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=716

Former apostle claims Oliver admitted Book of Mormon was a fraud
Also, former apostle William McLellin, who left the church and later wrote against it, once remarked that Oliver Cowdery would bear strong testimony of the BOM when amongst the saints, but when he was half-drunk, he would admit that it was all "a bottle of smoke."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune1.htm

- CONTINUED -

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 27th, 2011

Joseph's Neighbor corroborates Oliver Cowdery was a conspirator
Lorenzo Saunders, a neighbor of the Smith's, gave statements in 1885 and 1887 implicating both Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon in the production of the Book of Mormon.

In his 1885 statement, Saunders said:

“As respecting Oliver Cowdery, he came from Kirtland in the summer of 1826 and was about there [i.e. the Smith’s farm] until fall and took a school in the district where the Smiths lived and the next summer he was missing and I didn’t see him until fall and he came back and took our school in the district where we lived and taught about a week and went to the schoolboard and wanted the board to let him off and they did and he went to Smith and went to writing the Book of Mormon and wrote all winter. The Mormons say it wasn’t wrote there but I say it was because I was there. I saw Sidney Rigdon in the spring of 1827, about the middle of March. I went to Smiths to eat maple sugar, and I saw five or six men standing in a group and there was one among them better dressed than the rest and I asked Harrison Smith who he was and he said his name was Sidney Rigdon, a friend of Joseph’s from Pennsylvania.

I saw him in the Fall of 1827 on the road between where I lived and Palmyra, with Joseph. I was with a man by the name of Ingersol. They talked together and when he went on I asked Ingersol who he was and he said it was Rigdon. Then in the summer of 1828 I saw him at Samuel Lawrence’s just before harvest. I was cutting corn for Lawrence and went to dinner and he took dinner with us and when dinner was over they went into another room and I didn’t see him again till he came to Palmyra to preach. You wanted to know how Smith acted about it. The next morning after he claimed to have got plates he came to our house and said he had got the plates and what a struggle he had in getting home with them. Two men tackled him and he fought and knocked them both down and made his escape and secured the plates and had them safe and secure. He showed his thumb where he bruised it in fighting those men.

After [he] went from the house, my mother says ‘What a liar Joseph Smith is; he lies every word he says; I know he lies because he looks so guilty; he can’t see out of his eyes; how dare [he] tell such a lie as that.’ The time he claimed to have taken the plates from the hill was on the 22 day of September, in 1827, and I went on the next Sunday following with five or six other ones and we hunted the side hill by course [i.e. “in a search pattern”] and could not find no place where the ground had been broke. There was a large hole where the money diggers had dug a year or two before, but no fresh dirt. There never was such a hole; there never was any plates taken out of that hill nor any other hill in country, was in Wayne county. It is all a lie. No, sir, I never saw the plates nor no one else. He had an old glass box [i.e. a box used for holding plates or panes of glass] with a tile in it, about 7x8 inches, and that was the gold plates[;] and Martin Harris didn’t know a gold plate from a brick at this time.

Smith and Rigdon had an intimacy but it was very secret and still and there was a mediator between them and that was Cowdery. The manuscript was stolen by Rigdon and modelled over by him and then handed over to Cowdery and he copied them and Smith sat behind the curtain and handed them out to Cowdery and as fast as Cowdery copied them, they was handed over to Martin Harris and he took them to Egbert Granden [sic], the one who printed them, and Gilbert set the type.”

Lorenzo Saunders, Letter to Thomas Gregg, 28 January 1885
, Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of the Book of Mormon (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Co., 1914, p. 132-33). Cited in: Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2000, 3:177-79.

Shall I keep going?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 28th, 2011

Shall you keep going with what? Posting hearsay? Every piece of "evidence" posted says that "someone heard so and so say that the plates were bogus". That, and $1 will get you a cup of coffee in a court of law.

You accuse me of raising the bar? How about you lowering it to ridiculous levels?

You said: "Further, to publicly admit that they had been duped by this remarkable con-man would have brought down such public shame, stigma, possibly even legal action against them (those seeking damages could easy point to their role as "witness" to prove that they were accessory to fraud) that it was better to remain silent than confess what they knew."

That is such a ridiculous argument. So these guys leave the church, bitterly--they hate Joseph Smith, and they are so ashamed that they have been duped that they figure the best way to clear their names is to remain silent? That doesn't make any sense! You would think to clear their names and distance themselves from that 'ole Joe Smith they would band together and write a book or something. There was plenty of time to write an official denial of what happened. Joseph Smith was long dead and the Saints long gone headed to Utah. There was no threat. They all stayed behind and joined other churches.

And it appears they didn't remain all that silent after all. According to all your "evidences" above, they blabbered to quite a few people about it.

Of all people on AB, you are Mister "Cite Your Source" I.T. You made a very clear accusation: "Many of the witnesses DID renounce the plates." Cite your source. That's not too much to ask. Show me a letter or a journal entry, or something.

If you want to backtrack and rephrase that to say "There were many people who claim they HEARD a witness renounce the plates", then fine, you can list all of the hearsay you want.

• Report

by Mike Astill on January 28th, 2011

East Hill, if I just walked the witnesses for the prosecution in the case of "The People v. Oliver Cowdrey for Fraud" into a court room and had them give what I've presented thus far I would have a good case.

Probably enough to convict.

However, he's just ONE of ELEVEN witnesses, and the case against all of them is just as strong. So obviously, I have no choice but to keep going.

However, right now I'm in a work cycle and I need to get to work so this will have to wait for later.

YOU WROTE
"Of all people on AB, you are Mister "Cite Your Source" I.T. You made a very clear accusation: "Many of the witnesses DID renounce the plates." Cite your source. That's not too much to ask. Show me a letter or a journal entry, or something."

MY RESPONSE
Candidly and directly: Are you blind?
What do you think I'm doing? And if you will review, everything I've cited is sourced.

Again, are you blind?

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 28th, 2011

I must be, because I have yet to see a direct quote from one of those 11 witnesses denying that they saw the gold plates. All I see are second and even third hand accounts from people who claim they heard something from one of them.

I mean, seriously bro. You cite Lorenzo Saunders, a neighbor of Joseph Smith as "evidence". What do we know about Lorenzo Saunders? Or is his word as good as gold because it was negative towards Joseph Smith? And then in that quote, Lorenzo quotes his mother:

"After [he] went from the house, my mother says ‘What a liar Joseph Smith is; he lies every word he says; I know he lies because he looks so guilty; he can’t see out of his eyes; how dare [he] tell such a lie as that."

So, since Lorenzo's mother knows Joseph is a liar "because he looks so guilty", that makes it a fact?

A third hand account from his mother who thinks he LOOKS like a liar? That's your evidence? Really? LOL...

Seriously, I.T., you should be embarrassed you're even posting this stuff.

• Report

by Mike Astill on January 28th, 2011

I'm sorry that you're unable to see the forest for the trees. Let's continue shall we?

'Why would Joseph's brother William, who also claimed to be a witness to the plates, make the following statement:

"I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock and judged them to have weighed about sixty pounds. ... Father and my brother Samuel saw them as I did while in the frock. So did Hyrum and others of the family."
(Zion's Ensign, p. 6, January 13, 1894).

When William was asked if he wanted to remove the cloth he replied:

"No, for father had just asked if he might not be permitted to do so, and Joseph, putting his hand on them said; 'No, I am instructed not to show them to any one. If I do, I will transgress and lose them again.' Besides, we did not care to have him break the commandment and suffer as he did before."
(Zion's Ensign, p. 6, January 13, 1894, cited in Church of Christ broadside.)

Joseph's brother Samuel and Joseph's father are listed as two of the eight witnesses, but based on brother William's statement it appears that Samuel and Joseph Sr. did not see the plates uncovered.

Several other accounts say Joseph had the plates wrapped up in a "tow frock" and would allow people to heft them and feel their weight--but not view them. Many other statements and interviews exist that contradict the official witness' testimonies. While one may attempt to claim the debatable point that none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony, I would point out that to admit to falsifying a written, sworn oath of such importance would be so damaging to the witnesses' reputation that they would never recover from it, and therefore it would be better to remain silent.

Another piece to this baffling puzzle is supplied with a letter by Stephen Burnett:

"I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it loth (sic) to give it up - but 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 [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundation was sapped & the entire superstructure fell in heap of ruins."
(Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837 - February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66, LDS archives.)
(Also quoted in Persuitte's Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, p. 47)

Do you think there is any evidence the plates actually existed? Do you think it is possible that the witness' faith deceived them into thinking the plates existed? My own interpretation of the evidence is that Smith put a heavy object in a box, wrapped a cloth around it and allowed people to lift it but not look inside, claiming conveniently a God-given commandment to show no one lest they be destroyed. He used his substantial manipulative powers, as well as the witnesses' own strong desire to believe, to coach and prod them into thinking they had received revelation. He used the concepts of God, faith, prayer, and guilt to his advantage.'
(source http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#ending )

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 28th, 2011

"but based on brother William's statement it APPEARS that Samuel and Joseph Sr. did not see the plates uncovered."

Oh. Wowzers. It APPEARS that way. Well that's rock solid proof now, isn't it? That, coupled with the rock solid proof of Lorenzo Saunder's mother saying Joseph LOOKS like a liar seals the deal. Ooh WAIT! Stephen Burnett reflected LONG and DELIBERATELY on all of this, and since Martin Harris says he saw them with his natural eyes, well it must not be true.

What next? Little Suzie Jones once said that a friend of a friend heard her cousin Billy once say that Oliver Cowdery came into the room with shifty eyes, so that is PROOF he didn't see the plates.

This is silly, I.T.

• Report

by Mike Astill on January 29th, 2011

Actually this is evidence. It's a pity that you refuse to give it the respect that it deserves.

YOU WROTE
"and since Martin Harris says he saw them with his natural eyes, well it must not be true."

MY RESPONSE
That is NOT what the Historical Record says:

"Harris "seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience."[22] The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye,' and the like." [23] John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" According to Gilbert, Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye."[24] Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes." [25] In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination."[26]A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." [27]

In March 1838, disillusioned church members said that Harris had publicly denied that neither he nor the other Witnesses to the Book of Mormon had ever seen or handled the golden plates—although he had not been present when Whitmer and Cowdery first claimed to have viewed them—and they claimed that Harris's recantation, made during a period of crisis in early Mormonism, induced five influential members, including three Apostles, to leave the Church.[28] Even at the end of his long life, Harris said that he had seen the plates in "a state of entrancement."[29] Nevertheless, in 1853, Harris told one David Dille that he had held the forty- to sixty-pound plates on his knee for "an hour-and-a-half" and handled the plates with his hands, "plate after plate."[30] Even later, Harris affirmed that he had seen the plates and the angel with his natural eyes: "Gentlemen," holding out his hand, "do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Or are your eyes playing you a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the Angel and the plates." [31] The following year Harris affirmed that "No man heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon [or] the administration of the angel that showed me the plates."[32]"
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Harris_(Latter_Day_Saints) retrieved on 9/8/09 )

THIRD PARTY ANALYST'S RESPONSE
"If the plates were real then why would the following phrases also be used when the witnesses described seeing the plates; 'While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates', 'I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state', 'he only saw the plates with a spiritual eye', 'a visionary experience', 'seeing with the eyes of understanding', 'as shown in the vision', ' never saw the plates with his natural eyes but only in vision or imagination', 'I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock', 'they were shown to me by a supernatural power', 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye', "I did not see them as I do that pencil case, yet I saw them with the eyes of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time, they were covered with a cloth", 'he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain', etc.

- CONTINUED -

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 29th, 2011

In the times Joseph lived people believed in magic. Having visions was not that uncommon. Joseph's family also believed in magic and the power of seer stones. Oliver Cowdery used a divining rod. People believed in something called 'second sight' where people would see things as a vision in their mind. Joseph and his peers believed in it so strongly that they would actually go and try to dig up treasure that they saw in their minds - always to no avail.

To these people that believed in 'second sight', saying they saw something with their natural eyes or in this 'second sight' made no difference to them. To them it was real either way so they would often for simplicity sake say they saw something and leave it at that, which gives the impression that they saw something with their natural eyes as they would see anything else, yet they may have only saw it as a 'second sight' experience.

On the other hand, if they simply saw the plates just like everyone sees any tangible object then why on earth would they say any of these strange statements indicating it was not a normal experience like 'I never saw them only as I see a city through a mountain?' Have you ever tried to look at a city through a mountain???

If these were real tangible plates then none of those absurd statements would have ever been made by the witnesses. Why would you need a vision to see real, physical plates that Joseph said were in a box that he carried around? When Martin Harris was asked "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.' Why wouldn't Martin have simply said 'Yes'?

They called it "second sight". We call it imagination. Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and other early converts had vivid imaginations, a very different thing than actual physical experience with actual physical objects. Don’t modern apologists see the difference between imaginary experiences and reality?
(see http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#harris )

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 29th, 2011

I misspoke. I meant to say "and since Martin Harris says he saw them with his SPIRITUAL eyes, well it must not be true." It doesn't change the point I was trying to make.

This would be like someone going after Paul in 2nd Corinthians 12 when he couldn't decide if he knew a man in Christ in the body or out of the body.

I'm done with this thread. Let me know when you have a first hand account, instead of all of your second and third hand ones.

• Report

by Mike Astill on January 29th, 2011

These ARE first hand accounts. We are talking about the witness statements regarding the plates. If nobody actually saw them with their physical eyes, how can they verify that the plates were in fact, of a golden color, or engraved with hieroglyphs?

Or even if the plates actually existed.

• Report

by moonkicker on January 29th, 2011

Thank you Moonkicker.

And, here's what Paul actually said in 2 Corinthians 12:

2 Corinthians 12 (JST)
1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory, I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth;)

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

5 Of such a one will I glory; yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth; but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth of me, or that he heareth of me.

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong.

11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me..."

Paul is QUITE clear that he was having a vision - that is a NON-physical experience - therefore, everything in that experience was NON-physical.

On the other hand, Joseph Smith claimed to have PHYSICAL plates. Therefore, the evidence for these PHYSICAL plates must, logically be PHYSICAL for them to be validated as existent. Therefore, "spiritual" evidence is irrelevant.

In addition, ironically, Paul in this passage is combating and arguing against false Apostles who were claiming extraordinary "Super Apostle" authority by boasting of having visions and other such extraordinary experiences and "secret truths". Sound familiar East Hill? Kinda like Joseph Smith, Jr. and the 11-witnesses perhaps?

And what did Paul say of all this - including his own vision?

A: "I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the “super-apostles,” even though I am nothing."
-- 2 Corinthians 12:11 (NIV)

So if Paul, admitted that trying to use such extraordinary experiences as evidence was folly what does that say about Joseph Smith and his witnesses of the Golden Plates?

So after all that, could you please give us a witness's PHYSICAL account of the golden plates and it's aforementioned Reformed Egyptians hieroglyphs?

Or would you too prefer to continue to argue from folly as well?

Thanks.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 29th, 2011

YOU WROTE
"I'm done with this thread. Let me know when you have a first hand account, instead of all of your second and third hand ones."

MY RESPONSE
You know I'm going to try using that the next time I get a ticket.

"Well your honor since the court only has the second hand testimony of the Police Officer who wrote the ticket, and the third hand testimony of the witnesses that I was speeding and ran that red light I think that it's pretty clear that I DIDN'T do it isn't it now?

After all, my first hand testimony trumps them all and as God as my witness I testify that I was going the speed limit and the light was yellow.

So it's been nice, but I'm going to leave now since you'll got nothing on me. Later dude!"

What do you think do you think that the Judge would just wave me out or do you think that the result would be rather different?

Moral of the story:
Second and third hand testimonies count - and often MORE than First Hand testimonies do.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 29th, 2011

Thank you for your answer.

• Report

by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 26th, 2011