Witnesses to fraud

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _harmony »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
harmony wrote:If we were dealing with history and historical data, we'd have the plates!
And that follows . . . how, exactly?

Absolutely ridiculous nonsense.

If we were dealing with history and historical data, we'd have the ____________ .

Fill in the blank with any disputed object prominently mentioned in history or in legal dispute, which is a kind of historical investigation (e.g., autographed plays by Shakespeare, a complete autographed Iliad or Odyssey, the body of Jesus or of Amelia Earhart, an autographed text of all or part of Isaiah, the murder weapon in any one of tens of thousands of cases, etc., etc.), and try it again. Historical investigation is often -- in fact, almost invariably -- left to make inferences from imperfect of incomplete data.


Produce the plates, Daniel. Or be placed in the catagory of "myth", not "truth". "Truth" requires proof. Myths only require supposition... and faith.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _Uncle Dale »

harmony wrote:...
They bore testimony of the truth of what they saw, yes
...


If future Book of Mormon word-print analysis supports the 2008 findings of the team
of researchers at Stanford University, we may have to exclude Cowdery
from the list of dupes and move him over to the list of conspirators.

Perhaps there remains some ill-defined middle-ground, wherein Cowdery
was both a perpetrator of religious fraud and a dupe who believed other
parts of the fraud to be true.

I'm having a difficult time envisioning just what parts of the Book of Mormon compilation
Cowdery might have believed to have been "truly Nephite" and what parts
he knowingly wrote and added to the text himself.

If that is what truly happened, I would like to know whether Cowdery fully
believed in LDS dispensationalism -- wherein each of the first six "gospel eras"
was essentially the same as the seventh and final dispensation. If that was
Cowdery's conviction, he might have "worked out in his mind" the actions
and words of long-dead Nephites, based upon some combination of his
utilization of a divining rod and mental deduction.

Sounds like something only a half-crazed fanatic would have believed.

Lee Yost's early recollection of Oliver Cowdery is further detailed in his May 18, 1897 letter to Diedrich Willers, (EMD 5 287-291) where he says: "Oliver Cowdery taught School in our district before Joe Smith said he found the golden plates [Sept, 1827?]... it was the winter school... Cowdery was in the habit of staying in the school house late nights writing about something, no one knew what." -- See David Whitmer's interview in the Chicago Daily Tribune of Dec. 17, 1885 where it is stated: "The father [Peter Whitmer, Sr.] was a strict Presbyterian, and brought his children up with rigid sectarian discipline. Besides a daughter, who married Oliver Cowdery, the village schoolmaster, there were four sons -- Jacob, John, David and Christian..." -- In an article published in the Kansas City Journal of June 5, 1881, David Whitmer reported an early familiarity with Oliver Cowdery: "I first heard of what is now termed Mormonism in the year 1828. I made a business trip to Palmyra, New York, and while there stopped with one Oliver Cowdery.... Cowdery and I, as well as others, talked about the matter."

The implication provided in these two interview reports, is that David and his sister knew Oliver Cowdery at an early date, because he had been a "schoolmaster" in their "village," (or perhaps in some other nearby village in the Waterloo-Fayette area). The publication of an unclaimed letters notification, in the Lyons Advertiser of Oct. 17, 1827, in which a letter for "Oliver Cowdery" is listed, shows that some correspondent expected Oliver to be picking up his mail in that place (Arcadia and/or Lyons townships of Wayne Co., where Oliver's father and brother lived). The close proximity of the Waterloo-Fayette area and the Arcadia-Lyons area, is a further indication that Oliver Cowdery could have lived close enough to the Whitmers, c. 1826-27, for David and his siblings to have known Oliver as "the village schoolmaster." See also Larry E. Morris' 2007 JBMS paper, "The Conversion of Oliver Cowdery," where he dates Oliver's arrival in western New York to "the mid-1820s."

In his 1938 book, The A. B. C. History of Palmyra, Willard Bean speaks of the young Oliver as having "canvassed the vicinity of the Smith home in Manchester, to get up a subscription school" "where the 'little red' cobble-rock Armington school now stands" in November of 1828. Oliver's educational career activity during "the mid-1820s" may also explain the seemingly strange chronology provided to Thomas Gregg by Lorenzo Saunders in 1885: "Oliver Cowdery, he came from Kirtland [sic - Kirtland Tract?] in the summer of 1826 and was about there 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."

If Oliver, on different occasions, went about soliciting students "to get up a subscription school," then his activities may account for the report from David Whitmer, of Oliver teaching in the Waterloo area, as well as Lorenzo Saunders' memory of Oliver teaching at both Manchester's Stafford School, "in the district where the Smiths lived" (Ontario Co. District #11) and the Armington School (Ontario Co. District #10) on Canandaigua Road, where the Saunders family lived.
http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/smit ... m#1900-051


UD
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _why me »

harmony wrote:
Produce the plates, Daniel. Or be placed in the catagory of "myth", not "truth". "Truth" requires proof. Myths only require supposition... and faith.

Yes, Daniel, produce the plates. Harmony wants to see the plates so she can absolutely believe in the Book of Mormon and go to the temple with a clear conscience.

And of course, by producing the plates, RFM will close down and half the world will become Mormon based a conclusive evidence.

Oh, I forgot, god does not work that way since he depends on faith and not evidence for his existence.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_rcrocket

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _rcrocket »

Produce the plates, Daniel. Or be placed in the catagory of "myth", not "truth". "Truth" requires proof. Myths only require supposition... and faith.


I agree. Produce the original autographs of the Old Testament before I can believe the eyewitness testimony.

Produce the original autographs of Homer, so that I can agree that the wars he discussed 2000 years in the past actually occurred.

Oh, then, there's that little problem of John Whitmer, who saw, handled and turned the plates.

As to your criticism that the apologists are making a big deal over the witnesses to the plates, but they conveniently ignore lack of witnesses to Moroni and the First Vision. That is a pretty astute observations; same problems with the Bible. No witnesses to the burning bush; four published witnesses to the life of Christ. No witnesses to the appearance of Jehovah to Isaiah.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _Trevor »

rcrocket wrote:As to your criticism that the apologists are making a big deal over the witnesses to the plates, but they conveniently ignore lack of witnesses to Moroni and the First Vision. That is a pretty astute observations; same problems with the Bible. No witnesses to the burning bush; four published witnesses to the life of Christ. No witnesses to the appearance of Jehovah to Isaiah.


Indeed. But, Bob, the Bible has been around a long time. Lots of people know it is the Word of God. Therefore it is true!
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _harmony »

rcrocket wrote:
Produce the plates, Daniel. Or be placed in the catagory of "myth", not "truth". "Truth" requires proof. Myths only require supposition... and faith.


I agree. Produce the original autographs of the Old Testament before I can believe the eyewitness testimony.


You believe the Old Testament? Really?

Produce the original autographs of Homer, so that I can agree that the wars he discussed 2000 years in the past actually occurred.


You believe Homer? Really?

Oh, then, there's that little problem of John Whitmer, who saw, handled and turned the plates.


Well, John Whitmer saw and handled what he was told were THE plates. That doesn't mean that what he saw and handled actually were THE plates. You see where I'm going with this, don't you, Crock?

As to your criticism that the apologists are making a big deal over the witnesses to the plates, but they conveniently ignore lack of witnesses to Moroni and the First Vision. That is a pretty astute observations; same problems with the Bible. No witnesses to the burning bush; four published witnesses to the life of Christ. No witnesses to the appearance of Jehovah to Isaiah.


I agree. The only thing the Bible has going for it that the Book of Mormon doesn't is a few verifiable places and people. Doesn't mean the stories are true; just means the places and a few of the people actually existed.

And it wasn't criticism. It was an observation. Why do you suppose people like Daniel spend so much time and effort on the witnesses, yet ignore the lack of witnesses to the most important events of the Restoration?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Joey
_Emeritus
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:34 am

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _Joey »

Peterson wrote:If you want mathematical proofs, stick to mathematics. If you want to deal with history, deal with historical data and historical method.


And the gems keep rolling from the BYU teacher!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Perhaps you could get the Clark/Sorenson papers on this standard next time they think they have something that won't be ignored from their peer group when attempting to establish the Book of Mormon historicity. Remember Clark's statement!!! He said it, we didn't!!

Only in Provo folks, only in Provo!!!!
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _harmony »

Joey wrote:Only in Provo folks, only in Provo!!!!


I think he's in Honolulu right now, so not only in Provo.

Just sayin'.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _Jason Bourne »

What smoke and mirrors? Here we have 11 witnesses that signed a statement as to what they saw. That is quite ironclad to be sure. And one of those witnesses was the father of Joseph Smith. He doesn't seem like a smoke and mirror kind of guy.



I am not so sure. He sure seemed to have a lot of foibles. According to Bushman Joseph Smith Senior was behind much of the treasure digging and Joseph Smith even said he had to tell his father no more teasure digging. He also lost a a bunch of money in a speculative business venture early in his career that seemed like a scam. Of course anyone can be scammed. But Joseph Smith Senior may have been prone to it.
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Witnesses to fraud

Post by _why me »

Jason Bourne wrote:

I am not so sure. He sure seemed to have a lot of foibles. According to Bushman Joseph Smith Senior was behind much of the treasure digging and Joseph Smith even said he had to tell his father no more teasure digging. He also lost a a bunch of money in a speculative business venture early in his career that seemed like a scam. Of course anyone can be scammed. But Joseph Smith Senior may have been prone to it.

He didn't seem to be a smoke and mirror kind of guy when it came to religion. His wife went one way and he went another. I was referring to matters of faith. Also, I was also implying that if he was in on the fraud, he would have told his wife, Lucy. It would have been a tough secret to keep to himself with his wife in the same home sharing family matters. Lucy would have known of the fraud to be sure.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
Post Reply