Witnesses to fraud

[_Yoda]

This thread isn't about my testimony, much as you and Daniel and why me would like it to be, so I'll only comment once. I'd like the thread to be about the witnesses, what they sincerely thought they were witnessing, and the reliability of witnesses due to a number of factors.

I appreciate you clarifying your stance, Harmony. I didn't mean to shift the direction of the thread. I was just honestly confused as to where you were coming from with this.

In attempting to redirect.....

Do you feel that Joseph devised some way to trick the witnesses into stating what they saw, or do you think it was a case of the fact that they wanted to believe it so badly, that they basically saw what they wanted to see?

Also--and maybe this is a question for another thread, or private conversation...but it does kind of follow suit, so bear with me.....Do you feel that Joseph's insistence on the story of "the Gold plates" existed because the Lord told him that the original manuscript was written on gold plates? In other words, Joseph simply wrote, or "translated", what he was inspired to write...but the gold plates never actually physically existed. (Or, if they did exist, they never actually existed in Joseph's physical possession.) Joseph felt that he had to produce something for witnesses to see to make the work appear more reliable to others, and somehow managed to succeed?

[_harmony]

In attempting to redirect.....

Do you feel that Joseph devised some way to trick the witnesses into stating what they saw, or do you think it was a case of the fact that they wanted to believe it so badly, that they basically saw what they wanted to see?

Also--and maybe this is a question for another thread, or private conversation...but it does kind of follow suit, so bear with me.....Do you feel that Joseph's insistence on the story of "the Gold plates" existed because the Lord told him that the original manuscript was written on gold plates? In other words, Joseph simply wrote, or "translated", what he was inspired to write...but the gold plates never actually physically existed. (Or, if they did exist, they never actually existed in Joseph's physical possession.) Joseph felt that he had to produce something for witnesses to see to make the work appear more reliable to others, and somehow managed to succeed?

I think "trick" is too harsh a word. And I think "never" is a long time.

I think the witnesses saw what they wanted to see. What they were convinced they were going to see. What they'd been promised they'd see.

Once, when I was in the 7th grade, I wanted to go to a football game after school. I had never been allowed to go to a game before, because it meant missing the bus and my mom having to come pick me up. But it was the last game of the season! I wanted to go very badly. So Momma said she'd call the school to let me know if I could stay after and go to the game. The secretary called me into the office and gave me a note. I opened it, and my heart sank. I had to go home. So I got on the bus and went home. When I got there, my mom was surprised. I told her the note said to come home. When I opened the note though, and read it again, it said "Go to the game". I'd seen what I expected to see, and not what was really there. One difference between my experience and the witnesses' experience though was that I still had the note.

It's not that I doubt their word, but because of my own experience, I know that sometimes we see what we expect to see, and not what is really there.

[_Joey]

We're dealing with history and historical data here, not with syllogistic patterns in deductive logic.

Really, this guy ought to be writing for SNL (Sensational Nonsense Linguistics) (or maybe even the other one!).

The fact is, with respect to the real issue here, is that we are dealing with "lack of history and historical data"!!!

Not to steal his thunder, but I do believe (based on his pattern of logic) Peterson will soon be arguing that the academic community and the peers of the supposed "well respected" Clark and Sorenson have ignored their works on Book of Mormon historicity because they simply are relying on the eye witness accounts to the gold tablets!!!!! They know the accounts are academically credible!!! Nuff said!

Only in Provo folks, only in Provo!!

[_Uncle Dale]

...when he said what he said, he was not a member of the LDS church.
...

Of course not.
You Mormons excommunicate anybody who points out such problems.

If a person does not agree 100% with the topmost leaders, he is cut off for apostasy.
Once that has happened he can become part of a splinter group, or quit Mormonism.

Pretty neat trick -- and it has kept the topmost leaders in power, even when witnesses
like David Whitmer strongly believed those leaders were doing wrong.

But -- back to the topic of this thread. Why would such people remain in the
LDS Church, even when they strongly felt that some parts were wrong -- very, very wrong?

Answer -- because they had faith that the wrong parts would eventually be rectified;
or that the wrong parts would become less and less of a problem in the end.

Those people truly believed they were part of the culmination of the 7th dispensation
and would usher in the Christian millennium, before their generation passed away.

My guess is, that is why Oliver Cowdery remained a Mormon (at least in private),
even though he himself had contributed to the "wrong parts" in the 1820s.

My guess is, that is why David Whitmer remained a Mormon (at least in belief)
even though you Mormons cut him off, cast him out, and tried to kill him.

Despite serious problems in Mormonism, those early members felt it was still the
best religion -- the truest religion -- and were willing to let the ends justify the means.

They were not like you confess to be -- a weak sister who would abandon the entire
restoration program, if you ever discerned a single lie from the lips of Joseph Smith.

UD

[_harmony]

We're dealing with history and historical data here, not with syllogistic patterns in deductive logic.

This statement is just ... well... funny.

If we were dealing with history and historical data, we'd have the plates!

Instead, we're dealing with "Joseph said" and "the witnesses said". For some people, "Joseph said" without the physical proof isn't enough. Some people don't trust Joseph; heck, some people in his own neighborhood in his own lifetime didn't trust Joseph! As for the witnesses, given who they were, and who they were related to, and what they believed... well... produce the plates. Nuances, and deductions, and inferring, and sputtering about witnesses etc. are just weak arguments... produce the proof. If you have no proof, you only have faith, and my faith in men is at an all time low.

[Guest]

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.

Nuances, and deductions, and inferring, and sputtering about witnesses etc. are just weak arguments... produce the proof. If you have no proof, you only have faith, and my faith in men is at an all time low.

That's too bad.

But it's irrelevant to the historical enterprise.

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

Heck, if you even want to deal with science, you almost always have to reason by what logicians and philosophers of science call "inference to the best explanation."

[_why me]

UD!
The witnesses remained Mormons because they witnessed the plates. End of story. There is no other explanation. If they did not see the plates, they would not remain Mormons. It would have made no difference if it was the best religion or the truest religion. They saw the plates experienced what they experienced and let the ends justify the means.

[_Uncle Dale]

UD!
...If they did not see the plates, they would not remain Mormons.
...

I saw a pink elephant once.
-- But when this fool looked again, it wasn't there.

Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery manufactured pink elephants --
Whitmer and Harris who were certain they'd seen them --
-- But when those fools looked again, they weren't there.

Your thread-bare belief is, that if any part of Smith's "plates" story had been untrue,
Smith would have later confessed the deception -- or Rigdon would -- or Cowdery would.

When you are upon your death bed -- moments away from your appointment with eternity,
do you suppose your faith in Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery will remain so strong as it is today?

UD

[_why me]

When you are upon your death bed -- moments away from your appointment with eternity,
do you suppose your faith in Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery will remain so strong as it is today?

UD

Who knows. I suppose that I will be wondering what next?

But here is David on his own deathbed:

Attached to Whitmer’s proclamation was an accompanying statement signed by twenty-two of Richmond’s political, business, and professional leaders who certified that they had been “long and intimately acquainted” with Whitmer and knew him to be “a man of the highest integrity and of undoubted truth and veracity.” (Ibid., 9-10.)

A few days before he died an article in the Chicago Tribune read:

David Whitmer, the last one of the three witnessed to the truth of the Book of Mormon, is now in a dying condition at his home in Richmond. Last evening he called the family and friends to his bedside, and bore his testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. (Chicago Tribune Correspondent 23 January 1888, quoted in Cook, 220.)

Following his death the Richmond Conservator wrote:

On Sunday evening before his death he called the family and his attending physician, Dr. George W. Buchanan, to his bedside and said, “Doctor do you consider that I am in my right mind?” to which the Doctor replied, “Yes, you are in your right mind, I have just had a conversation with you.” He then addressed himself to all present and said: “I want to give my dying testimony. You must be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites, (The Book of Mormon) are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed....
On Monday morning he again called those present to his bedside, and told them that he had seen another vision which reconfirmed the divinity of the “Book of Mormon,” and said that he had seen Christ in the fullness of his glory and majesty, sitting upon his great white throne in heaven waiting to receive his children. (Richmond Conservator Report, 26 January 1888, quoted in Cook, 226.)

The Richmond Democrat also added this comment:

“Skeptics may laugh and scoff if they will, but no man can listen to Mr. Whitmer as he talks of his interview with the Angel of the Lord, without being most forcibly convinced that he has heard an honest man tell what he honestly believes to be true.” (Richmond Democrat, Vol. 16, No. 6, February 2, 1888, quoted in Eldin Ricks, 16.)

Like Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, David Whitmer bore the testimony to the truthfulness of reality of his encounter with the angel and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon until the day he died. Book of Mormon critics have not been able to impugn their testimonies but have instead resorted to character assassination. As history demonstrates, however, the honesty, integrity and reliability of these witnesses confound the critics every bit as much as the testimony of the three witnesses confounds those who refuse to accept the revealed word of God.
Michael R. Ash

[_harmony]

Like Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, David Whitmer bore the testimony to the truthfulness of reality of his encounter with the angel and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon until the day he died. Book of Mormon critics have not been able to impugn their testimonies but have instead resorted to character assassination. As history demonstrates, however, the honesty, integrity and reliability of these witnesses confound the critics every bit as much as the testimony of the three witnesses confounds those who refuse to accept the revealed word of God.
Michael R. Ash[/color]

They bore testimony of the truth of what they saw, yes. But what they saw may not have been what they thought it was. And no amount of honesty, integrity, or reliability is going to change that.

They saw something. Big deal. That doesn't mean that what they saw was what they thought it was.