BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

[_mentalgymnast]

Truth be told, that would really be cool. Although if this was the case, you, I...and EVERYONE ELSE would be left without excuse but to adhere to and accept the Book of Mormon for what it purports to be. I'd call that enforced free agency.

Personally, I don't like to be forced/coerced into doing anything.

That doesn't seem to be the way God works in this world. We make our own choices. And we OWN them.

If the plates remained, I think that would subtract the element of choice to a LARGE if not insurmountable extent.

Regards,
MG

Hmmm...So, according to what you wrote above, Joseph Smith, along with the people that claimed to see the plates, were forced/coerced to believe.

Yes.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire....
http://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Book% ... ces_js.htm

Along the same line:

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands ... It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief. 1 Nephi 4:12-13

That's the best I got.

Although it does make sense. Should everyone have access to the plates...or just a few witnesses who are then accountable to that witness to God? If I'm not mistaken, most of them readily admitted to that fact.

It sort of comes down to that, if you're looking at it through the window of faith.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I sometimes wonder if MG even actually reads a post and or understands its point, before pasting some boilerplate response, which actually, in this case reinforced my point of how the number of witnesses is unimportant. Eleven sounds like a lot for a conspiracy, until one considers they came from two families and one close friend.

Maybe Martin Harris should have taken the plates to Charles Anthon rather than the characters.

I wonder how that would have gone over.

Anything to learn from that? That is, on the assumption Anthon would have told Harris to take a hike.

Yes, there could have been a more diverse group. But again, in that time, in that place...with all of the naysayers...I wonder if we really can expect anything much different than what actually happened.

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's odd to me that our local testimonkey keeps referring to these people as witnesses upon learning their names were forged by Mr. Oliver, by his own hand, upon the supposed witness statement.

- Doc

[_Fence Sitter]

It's odd to me that our local testimonkey keeps referring to these people as witnesses upon learning their names were forged by Mr. Oliver, by his own hand, upon the supposed witness statement.

- Doc

I don't have too much of a problem with the unsigned witness statement in the preface of the Book of Mormon other than the fact it makes it look contrived, a problem unto itself but easily explainable and defended.

I think a much more serious problem is the fact we do not know the time, date and location of the actual event(s). If this testimony is as reliable as the faithful would have us believe, why isn't there any record from any of the 11 witnesses of where and when it happened? 11 people experienced something that verified God was involved in the church, some of them actually claimed to see angels confirming this fact, and yet not one single one of them ever recorded when and where that event took place.

Why is that?

[_Themis]

If JW's are right, then only those who choose to believe and follow them get rewarded and the rest of us get punished. How is this fair when we were not given good evidence JW's are the right religion and expected to have faith in this religion? If you found yourself in the next life at the judgement and found out JW's were right and since you didn't choose them you go to hell would you feel you were fairly judged?

No matter which way you choose to go, according to LDS doctrine, you're not going to be caught in the same dilemma that you're proposing here.

There's something for everyone. And it's all part of God's Kingdom.

Regards,
MG

LDS doctrine makes similar claims of having to have faith in order to be rewarded and not punished. Even if they don't hear about the church in this life. It's the same idea that one has to make the right choice without full knowledge of which choice is the right one, and punishes those who make the wrong choice in this or the next life.

[_grindael]

Martin Harris was told that if he were to view the plates he would be cursed... He also said that to look at the "spectacles" would produce the same result.

I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon [Harris], and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. (Anthon Letter)

"These plates were seven inches wide by eight inches in length, and were of the thickness of plates of tin; and when piled one above the other, they were altogether about four inches thick; and they were put together on the back by three silver rings, so that they would open like a book.

"The two stones set in a bow of silver were about two inches in diameter, perfectly round, and about five-eighths of an inch thick at the centre; but not so thick at the edges where they came into the bow. They were joined by a round bar of silver, about three-eighths of an inch in diameter, and about four inches long, which, with the two stones, would make eight inches.

"The stones were white, like polished marble, with a few gray streaks. I never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat, because Moses said that ‘no man could see God and live,’ and we could see anything we wished by looking into them; and I could not keep the desire to see God out of my mind. And beside, we had a command to let no man look into them, except by the command of God, lest he should ‘look aught and perish.’ (Harris interview with Joel Tiffany)

...On my entering the house, I found the family at the table eating dinner. They were all anxious to know the contents of my frock. At that moment, I happened to think of what I had heard about a history found in Canada, called the golden Bible; so I very gravely told them it was the golden Bible. To my surprise, they were credulous enough to believe what I said. Accordingly I told them that I had received a commandment to let no one see it, for, says I, no man can see it with the naked eye and live. However, I offered to take out the book and show it to them, but they refuse to see it, and left the room." Now, said Jo, "I have got the damned fools fixed, and will carry out the fun." Notwithstanding, he told me he had no such book, and believed there never was any such book.... (Peter Ingersol)

SOPHIA LEWIS, (cousin of Emma Smith) certifies that she "heard a conversation between Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Rev. James B. Roach, in which Smith called Mr. R. a d-----d fool. Smith also said in the same conversation that he (Smith) was as good as Jesus Christ;" and that she "has frequently heard Smith use profane language. She states that she heard Smith say "the Book of Plates could not be opened under penalty of death by any other person but his (Smith's) first-born, which was to be a male." She says she "was present at the birth of this child, and that it was still-born and very much deformed."

Put it ALL out there for everyone to see vs. a select group that we then have to rely on.

And this is the guy who ranted and raved about me using caps and bold.

Jesus wept.

Merry Smithmas

[_Themis]

I have asked you many times how this blind faith is a good thing with no real responses.

It's not as much "blind faith" as much as a 'not being able to see clearly faith'. There's a difference. Can you see it?

Pun intended.

I think the Apostle Paul had it right.

Regards,
MG

It's blind faith because one does not know if the claims they are being asked to have faith in is true. The spiritual experience is horribly unreliable, and even you have admitted as much.

[_Chap]

At that time and in that place and under those circumstances, it shouldn't surprise us that the witnesses came from a rather tight knit group/family.

And so it shouldn't surprise us that the testimony of the group of 'witnesses' whose names Smith listed* is not really very convincing to people who, quite reasonably, tend to be aware of the strong pressures to go along with one's kin group.

As Mark Twain indicated, adding yet more of Smith's family members to the 'witnesses' would have done little to persuade reasonable people that the hugely miraculous and wholly improbable events alleged had in fact occurred. But no doubt that's the way Smith's deity wanted it to be. Yup, he likes to mess with us like that.


*Let us recall that Smith's listing of their names is all we have. No document actually signed by these people exists.

Yes, there could have been a more diverse group. But again, in that time, in that place...with all of the naysayers...I wonder if we really can expect anything much different than what actually happened.

OK MG, a group of 'witnesses' from Smith's close kin is objectively really not worth much as evidence for the truth of Smith's claims that a set of highly improbably, even miraculous events took place. You admit that. (And we don't even have their signatures - just a list of their names after a statement written by some unknown person.)

You do realise that saying, in effect, 'Yes, but under the circumstances Smith could not have got a more diverse group together' does nothing whatsoever to increase the evidential value of the 'witness testimonies' printed in the Book of Mormon? I mean, it's not like we are talking about someone who has made us some soup, and who when we say that it is not very tasty replies 'I ran out of salt and the supermarket was closed, so I couldn't buy more.' In such a case we still eat the soup, and are grateful for being fed: soup that does not taste of much is still soup, and it still nourishes us.

But testimony is not like soup: If it is of low, or zero, evidential value, it is pretty irrelevant how it came to be so. It's worthless all the same. And that is the case with the 'witness' statements in the Book of Mormon.

[_The Soap Maker]

Hmmm...So, according to what you wrote above, Joseph Smith, along with the people that claimed to see the plates, were forced/coerced to believe.

Yes.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire....
http://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Book% ... ces_js.htm

Along the same line:

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands ... It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief. 1 Nephi 4:12-13

That's the best I got.

Although it does make sense. Should everyone have access to the plates...or just a few witnesses who are then accountable to that witness to God? If I'm not mistaken, most of them readily admitted to that fact.

It sort of comes down to that, if you're looking at it through the window of faith.

Regards,
MG

I think I'm following you. With the quote and scripture you posted, you are saying that sometimes god is ok with moral relativism as long as it benefits the greater good. So Joseph Smith and the witnesses were given access to the plates, even though it would result in "enforced free agency", so that they could "take one for the team". Therefore, the plates HAD TO be taken from the earth because god didn't want everyone else to experience "enforced free agency" by having access to such a powerful source of evidence.

That's an interesting theory and I can totally see how a faithful member could use that rationalization to combat the "occam's razor" version which is: There were no plates; Joseph Smith and the witnesses colluded and it is all made up.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think I'm following you. With the quote and scripture you posted, you are saying that sometimes god is ok with moral relativism as long as it benefits the greater good. So Joseph Smith and the witnesses were given access to the plates, even though it would result in "enforced free agency", so that they could "take one for the team". Therefore, the plates HAD TO be taken from the earth because god didn't want everyone else to experience "enforced free agency" by having access to such a powerful source of evidence.

You've got it.

That's an interesting theory and I can totally see how a faithful member could use that rationalization to combat the "occam's razor" version which is: There were no plates; Joseph Smith and the witnesses colluded and it is all made up.

I see Occam's Razor moving the other direction. The evidence seems to show that there were plates...whether fabricated or real. Collusion among the witnesses is questionable as we have little or no evidence that the witnesses went back on their testimony. But be that as it may, I think you've given two alternatives of looking at the existing narrative.

Regards,
MG