Jason Bourne wrote:You can study the witnesses, their testimony and lives.
The witnesses were all friends or family of Joseph Smith. Nobody outside his circle of influence backed him up. If it was genuine, you would think he could find more than 11 witnesses. He couldn't even find any learned to endorse his gold plate characters sample. Were they all anti-mormons? It seems if there was anything to the Book of Mormon more, and especially the Book of Abraham, relgious scholars, archeologists, history buffs, etc. from all over the world would be interested. The response to these amazing discoveries is overwhelming apathy.
Whitmer, Harris and Cowdrey did not know Joseph Smith before he started his work.
But hey, as noted, the witnesses are what they are. Apparently their witness is not good enough for you. That is fine.
beastie wrote:Why in the world should we take the witnesses' testimonies seriously when notable church leaders dismissed these same witnesses as having little to no moral character?
Didn't some of the very same witnesses also provide a similar witness for James Strang?
Regardless, I would ask Jason whether he considers the witnesses Strang produced for his ancient writings & stuff as credible, if not, why not?
The very notion that something MUST be true (or that is may very well be true) because a small group of people have "witnessed" seeing something is absurd on its face. People lie. They lie all the time. They lie for all sorts of reasons. More, people are easily duped. The evidence for this is all around us.
What about the people who have "witnessed" to alien abuductions, UFOs, Big Foot, etc., etc.. Are we therefore compelled to take their witness seriously too?
I did not say the witnesses prove it true. I said that they are the only witnesses we have. I see no other witnesses for any other theory. As for my own determination of the Book of Mormon I take it as true for me for the spiritual insights and benefits I gain from what it teaches. I am not to worried about how it came to be really or if it is historical. My personal view is it originated with Joseph Smith and contains inspiration from God.
beastie wrote:Why in the world should we take the witnesses' testimonies seriously when notable church leaders dismissed these same witnesses as having little to no moral character?
Didn't some of the very same witnesses also provide a similar witness for James Strang?
Regardless, I would ask Jason whether he considers the witnesses Strang produced for his ancient writings & stuff as credible, if not, why not?
The very notion that something MUST be true (or that is may very well be true) because a small group of people have "witnessed" seeing something is absurd on its face. People lie. They lie all the time. They lie for all sorts of reasons. More, people are easily duped. The evidence for this is all around us.
What about the people who have "witnessed" to alien abuductions, UFOs, Big Foot, etc., etc.. Are we therefore compelled to take their witness seriously too?
I did not say the witnesses prove it true. I said that they are the only witnesses we have. I see no other witnesses for any other theory. As for my own determination of the Book of Mormon I take it as true for me for the spiritual insights and benefits I gain from what it teaches. I am not to worried about how it came to be really or if it is historical. My personal view is it originated with Joseph Smith and contains inspiration from God.
Ok, fair enough.
by the way, there are plenty of other witnesses related to other aspects of Smith's activities. The Nauvoo Expositor was one. Several people observed Smith's double dealings; they've left plenty of witnesses to this effect.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
guy sajer wrote: by the way, there are plenty of other witnesses related to other aspects of Smith's activities. The Nauvoo Expositor was one. Several people observed Smith's double dealings; they've left plenty of witnesses to this effect.
Those witnesses are not endorsed by the church. They're not canonized witnesses, so they don't count.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
I agree. We nitpick over horses and steel and elephants, but those are peripheral anachronisms to the main one, Christianity. Not only were the most powerful and techonologically advanced regimes Christian, but everyone was a Christian for a 300 year period after Christ came, and Christian churches dotted the land from sea to sea. This is the overriding theme of the Book of Mormon, and this overriding theme is an anachronism. It just doesn't fit with what we know about the Americas. It does however work well as a 19th century story about ancient america.
One of the most telling signs to me is that the Book of Mormon contains very predictable ideas about ancient America, based on what other nineteenth century americans tended to imagine. The idea that the Indians were a remnant of ancient Israel and practiced some form of judeochristianity was VERY common during Joseph Smith' day.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
You can study the witnesses, their testimony and lives. If it does not convince you that is your choice. The point is that is what we have. We have the Book of Mormon, the accounts and the witnesses. That is more than your claim in simply dismissing them. If you choose to do so why do you?
But clearly it is not enough for you. Offer some other theory or evidence then.
For me I am not sure, but I have seem nothing more compelling or providing more proof than this for some other theory. What is your proof it is fiction?
For me, the "witnesses as proof" argument doesn't hold much water. Those dudes were weird! And when you take into account other events, it seems many folks were willing to testify to whatever the going religious fad was. One example of one of the Joseph successors, James Strang:
"Like Joseph Smith, James Strang reported numerous visions, unearthed and translated ancient metal plates using the Urim and Thummim, and claimed to have restored long-lost spiritual knowledge to humankind. Like Smith, he presented witnesses to authenticate the records he claimed to have received.[34] Unlike Smith, however, Strang offered his plates to the public for examination. The non-Mormon Christopher Sholes–inventor of the typewriter and editor of a local newspaper–perused Strang's "Voree Plates", a minuscule brass chronicle Strang said he had been led to by a vision in 1845.[35] Sholes offered no opinion on Strang's find, but described the would-be prophet as "honest and earnest" and opined that his followers ranked "among the most honest and intelligent men in the neighborhood."[36] Strang published his translation of these plates as the "Voree Record," purporting to be the last testament of one "Rajah Manchou of Vorito," who had lived in the area centuries earlier and wished to leave a brief statement for posterity. While many scoffed, two modern scholars have affirmed that the text on the plates appears to represent a genuine, albeit unknown, language.[37] The Voree Plates disappeared around 1900, and their current whereabouts is unknown.[35]"
It seems that they would testify to whatever would get them something...like survival! And the witnesses were all either family or friends of Joseph, so their trustworthiness is questionable, in my opinion.
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
Who Knows wrote:Just because a few people say it's a 2,000 year old historically accurate book written on gold plates in an unknown language, brought to the earth by god's angel, doesn't make it so. It's a 19th century piece of fiction, till you can demonstrate otherwise. Sorry. That's just the way it is.
From what I've observed along the way, it appears that Jason is going to be hard pressed/out of luck trying to do this. Most of those that testify with power/conviction in the truth of the Book of Mormon are able to do so because of a spiritual witness they've received in answer to their prayers.
Moroni 3:5 pretty much lays it on the line. Who Knows, you have believers over a barrel on this. They can't demonstrate otherwise to your satisfaction. God and/or the HG are the conduits/purveyors of truth in this matter.
mentalgymnast wrote:From what I've observed along the way, it appears that Jason is going to be hard pressed/out of luck trying to do this. Most of those that testify with power/conviction in the truth of the Book of Mormon are able to do so because of a spiritual witness they've received in answer to their prayers.
Moroni 3:5 pretty much lays it on the line. Who Knows, you have believers over a barrel on this. They can't demonstrate otherwise to your satisfaction. God and/or the HG are the conduits/purveyors of truth in this matter.
Most of the critics on this board were former members, or are still members. We are quite familiar with Moroni's promise in Moroni 10:3-5 (I assume that's the scripture you meant). Most of us also received what we thought was a spiritual confirmation, and we now realize the spiritual confirmation we received about the truthfulness of the book was the same one that other religious groups receive to confirm their beliefs. So when you say you know it is true because of Moroni's promise, it is not convincing to us because we've been there done that. We're a few steps past Moroni's promise in our search for truth.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks