BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

[_Fence Sitter]

The apologetic defense rests on no one being able to provide an exact example of someone who did the exact same thing the exact same way as Joseph Smith did, otherwise, obviously, Joseph Smith was the real deal.

The absurdity of this requirement is clear when such a standard is applied to any other similar figure, like Ann Lee, Charles Russell, Mary Baker Eddy and so on.

The "You can't adequately explain how Joseph Smith did what he did defense" need to be seen for what it is, a flimsy excuse on the part of the believers to shift the burden of proof from the very claims they are making and in which they believe.

I have got to the point where I tell believers using that argument that I actually do think it is possible that some being appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him something. That it might of been an angel, or a malicious spirit or, even more likely, an alien from a far advanced race than ours who has a really twisted sense of humor. Regardless of how Joseph Smith produced/received the Book of Mormon, it still fails the sniff test in every other category imaginable, and the fact it exists is no more evidence for angels than it is for aliens.

[Guest]

James Strang had witnesses to his plates. His story was good enough to convince every Book of Mormon witness except Oliver C. to join him. In fact, most of Joseph Smith's family, including Emma joined and sustained Strang. I guess people were pretty gullible back then.

Yes, he did have witnesses. I'll hand you that. But no claim to an angel and/or divine intervention of any sort...at least from what I can remember at the time I looked at the Strang movement somewhat in depth.

Regards,
MG

oh please. not again.

From your last derail of a thread, over this exact same 'memory failure' on your part, 9 months ago:

A number of years ago when I looked in depth at Strang, the one thing that kind of turned me off to him and those that followed in his wake was that there were no angels involved anywhere along the way. Everything was manifestly 'man made'. No divine influence was used as a 'prop' and/or basis or whatever for what he was doing.

From wiki:

Strang next testified that on September 1, 1845, an angel of God appeared to him and showed him the location of "the record of my people in whose possession thou dwellest."[2] Accordingly, Strang went on September 13 to the indicated site....He led four witnesses to a large oak on the hillside....

To which you replied:

Did the witnesses see the angel?

Regards,
MG

Two derailed pages later, still:

The question is, now, is did anyone else associated with him claim the same?

Fencesitter summed it up above, as did IHAQ the last time you tried this particular derailment:

This is known as moving the goal posts.

At first MG's problem was that Strang didn't invoke Angels.
Posters show that Strang did invoke Angels.

Then MG's problem shifts from Strang not invoking Angels to other people associated with Strang seeing Angels.

When someone shows people associated worth Strang claimed the same the 'problem' will move somewhere else. And he will keep moving it. Post after post. Page after page. Thread after thread.

This is the MG pattern.
Repeated on every thread. Every thread. Where his basis for belief is shown to have holes in it.

It's dishonest, it lacks integrity, it lacks the intellectual ability to recognize when you are wrong. In terms of a discussion or debate about a topic, it's childish.
viewtopic.php?p=954324#p954324

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd like to see MG produce individual witness statements that show individual signatures unique to to each claimant.

The fraudulent witness statement produced by Mr. Oliver should be evidence of the fraud, but I'm sure there are some '////' excuses that ameliorates the dissonance.

- Doc

[_Choyo Chagas]

now i'm totally offtopic. sorry folks; sometimes my brain come into action

is there a faculty in gb on any university about "The Lord of the Rings"? J. R. R. Tolkien was an English author and scholar.

[_Lemmie]

I'd like to see MG produce individual witness statements that show individual signatures unique to to each claimant.

The fraudulent witness statement produced by Mr. Oliver should be evidence of the fraud, but I'm sure there are some '////' excuses that ameliorates the dissonance.

- Doc

You wish. He sticks with the derailments he knows. Here he is in 2011, a third time trying the no-angel Strang derailment:

Back when I was looking at the Strangite movement a few years ago, the first thing that stood out to me in connection to the Voree Plates was the lack of any purported divine manifestation or involvement in the whole process.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... &start=168

[_Jesse Pinkman]

now i'm totally offtopic. sorry folks; sometimes my brain come into action

is there a faculty in gb on any university about "The Lord of the Rings"? J. R. R. Tolkien was an English author and scholar.

LOL!

[_mentalgymnast]

Here he is in 2011, a third time trying the no-angel Strang derailment:

Back when I was looking at the Strangite movement a few years ago, the first thing that stood out to me in connection to the Voree Plates was the lack of any purported divine manifestation or involvement in the whole process.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19727&start=168

Points of clarification.

Did Strang claim to have seen an angel and/or God in conjunction with the finding of the Voree plates?

Did any of the witnesses to the plates claim to have seen and/or heard God/angels?

And yes, Lemmie, I know that this has been discussed before.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I'd like to see MG produce individual witness statements that show individual signatures unique to to each claimant.

I don't think that can be done by myself or anyone else, if I'm not mistaken.

Aren't you asking the impossible?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

oh please. not again.

by the way, thanks for the clarification in your earlier post, Lemmie. It has been a few years since I researched this. I had forgotten that Strang claimed to be ordained by an angel to be the new prophet after Joseph died.

The question remains, did he and/or any other receive the gift of ministration of angels in connection with the Voree Plates? That's the corollary I'm referring to in response to sunstone's post.

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

So, if Smith claimed that God revealed to him the Book of Mormon without ever claiming to have the plates, you read the book, you took Moroni’s test, and you receive the same spiritual witness, you’d be likely to say “nawwww. If he’d only claimed to have plates?”

But Joseph did claim plates and an angel. We have to go with that. The book came as a result.

I get it though. You would like to place the cart before the horse, or better yet...get rid of the horse and let the cart stand alone. But that's all it would do...stand there, it wouldn't go anywhere.

The Book of Mormon wouldn't go anywhere if it didn't originate from the artifact that it purports to be the translation of. At least that's my take on it. The plates place the Book of Mormon in the real world...not an imaginary world of Joseph's creation.

As I said earlier...why in the heck did Joseph go to all the trouble of creating and carrying out...with a great degree of sacrifice and discomfort...the plates narrative? Couldn't he have done just as well and done exactly what you're suggesting...just come up with the book out of whole cloth?

Regards,
MG

MG, you know what a hypothetical is. You used one up thread. One of the purpose of hypotheticals is to test claims by seeing if the claim would hold under different sets of facts. “But the facts were different” is a non response that completely misses the point. Or allows one to dodge in the hope of escaping the point.

I’m not doing anything with carts and horses. That’s another silly attempt to deflect attention from your attempt to defend the claim that the plates were necessary to translate the Book of Mormon. It’s a demonstrably silly claim that you can’t defend.

It’s very odd to me that any believing Mormon would take the position that the word of God and the power of the Holy Ghost are so weak that they need the equivalent of stage props in order to convince anyone. Nope, a spiritual witness as promised by the book itself just isn’t powerful enough.

Why did Smith go to the trouble of taking plates? The simple answer is he knew the Book of Mormon wasn’t from God, that Moroni’s promise was a con-man’s fraud, and that he’d need props to convince people otherwise.