116 pages

[_ozemc]

I took what was said about a rock in a hat being somewhat common at its face value. However, I would find the hat trick very faith promoting because it sounds like a tremendous feat to accomplish a story by looking into a hat, especially a story like the Book of Mormon. Of course, Dan Vogel would disagree by assigning superhuman abilities to Joseph Smith and automatic writing. But as far as I understand, there were many ways to do the translation and not just the hat trick was used.

And so, the hat trick can be very faith promoting because of its basic nature of translation. We also need to remember that the hat translation was mentioned by David Whitmer, I believe, and is mentioned on the Neal Maxwell Insititute website.

You actually believe that someone could tranlsate a book by looking at a rock in a hat? ... wow ...

[_why me]

I took what was said about a rock in a hat being somewhat common at its face value. However, I would find the hat trick very faith promoting because it sounds like a tremendous feat to accomplish a story by looking into a hat, especially a story like the Book of Mormon. Of course, Dan Vogel would disagree by assigning superhuman abilities to Joseph Smith and automatic writing. But as far as I understand, there were many ways to do the translation and not just the hat trick was used.

And so, the hat trick can be very faith promoting because of its basic nature of translation. We also need to remember that the hat translation was mentioned by David Whitmer, I believe, and is mentioned on the Neal Maxwell Insititute website.

You actually believe that someone could tranlsate a book by looking at a rock in a hat? ... wow ...

The Bible is filled with strange happenings. A rock in a hat translation would be considered mild when compared to Bible stories. No has claimed that God works in traditional ways.

But lets face it. The hat translation was a marvelous feat, if it was not from god.

[_beastie]

Why Me,

Do you find it a "marvelous feat" that some people can predict future events with tarot cards? Or that some people can predict future events by the stars?

Or do these strike you as non-marvelous because they are a part of a certain subset of your current culture and you are skeptical as to their results?

[_Gillebre]

What do we rely on in criminal court cases, today?

...Witnesses. Right?


We rely on them to corroborate the story or contradict the claims, or stories of those who are accused/on trial, do we not?


So how are the witnesses of the Book of Mormon any different from those who saw a murder, a rape, or a man rob a bank, or anything else?


If there were as many witnesses for a murder, rape, or theft trial as there were for the Book of Mormon, what would the outcome be, do you imagine?


You can't dismiss witnesses used in the past and then rely on them now as "different by the times" or whatever else. People who were witness to acts, visions, or anything else in the past are no less credible, reliable, or relevant than someone who saw a murder, or abuse.

Can you honestly tell me that someone who witnesses something 175+ years ago and someone who witnesses something today are any different? If yes, then how so, and what reasoning or logic do you base that on?

[_beastie]

Witnesses provide the weakest evidence due to their notorious unreliability. Circumstantial evidence is far more reliable. Experiments with eyewitnesses consistently demonstrate this. Your entire point is based on an invalid premise.

[_Sethbag]

Not to mention, Gillebre, that witness credibility is impeached all the time in court, and the witness's testimony given little weight on the basis of low credibility.

Gillbebre, I'm curious, what do you think of the Catholic witnesses who see the Virgin Mary appear to them?

[_Gillebre]

I would look at the witnesses, and review their previous honesty or otherwise prior credibility. I would look at their lives in totality, to determine if there would perhaps be something to depreciate their claims.

If you do wish, I will apply my own personal standard to the witnesses that say the Virgin Mary appeared to them.

However, despite everything in their lives that they suffered and went through, not one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon ever recanted, denied, or otherwise took back their witness of what they saw. Did they?

I'm not saying that to say that the witnesses of the Virgin Mary did or did not recant their own account of it, rather I'm sticking to the topic at hand. :)

[_harmony]

Can you honestly tell me that someone who witnesses something 175+ years ago and someone who witnesses something today are any different? If yes, then how so, and what reasoning or logic do you base that on?

Did you miss this, Gillebre?

According to a 1838 letter by Stephen Burnett, Martin Harris also publicly stated that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes[,] only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David[,] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument [I.e., their testimony] for that reason, but were persuaded to do it ...."

A fuller extract of Burnett's letter can be found here:

http://www.irr.org/mit/marquardt-bom-appendix3.html

There seems to be some doubt that the witnesses actually "witnessed" anything.

[_guy sajer]

What do we rely on in criminal court cases, today?

...Witnesses. Right?


We rely on them to corroborate the story or contradict the claims, or stories of those who are accused/on trial, do we not?


So how are the witnesses of the Book of Mormon any different from those who saw a murder, a rape, or a man rob a bank, or anything else?


If there were as many witnesses for a murder, rape, or theft trial as there were for the Book of Mormon, what would the outcome be, do you imagine?


You can't dismiss witnesses used in the past and then rely on them now as "different by the times" or whatever else. People who were witness to acts, visions, or anything else in the past are no less credible, reliable, or relevant than someone who saw a murder, or abuse.

Can you honestly tell me that someone who witnesses something 175+ years ago and someone who witnesses something today are any different? If yes, then how so, and what reasoning or logic do you base that on?

Why is it even necessary that we tell you?

Bank robbery, murder, rape are all empirically and objectively verifiable events. Visitations of angels and other-worldly visitors are not. That fact that someone even claimed to see an angel immediately calls her/her credibility into account, given that there are no objectively verifiable angelic visitations on record.

Prove to me that angels visit this earth, then I'll take the three witnesses more seriously. Until then, experience tells me that they, as well as other people that claim angelic visitations, are crackpots.

I can, in contrast, easily prove to you that robbery, murder, and rape occur, which makes witnesses claims, ex ante, THAT much more credible.

Jesus Humbert Christ, if that looney toon Martin Harris is the best witness you've got, you're in real trouble.

[_Jason Bourne]

(This was originally posted to free-saints by Bill Barton on 5/1/2001)

It's not hard to figure out what happened to the pages.

Martin Harris intended to mortgage his farm to finance the printing of the Book of Mormon. Martin ignored pleadings from his wife Lucy not to endanger their future in this reckless manner.

So when Martin brought the pages home to convince his wife of their worth, Lucy took them and burned them. No pages, no book, no mortgage.

Joseph's problem at that point was not the pages at all, rather his problem was Martin Harris. If Joseph tried to reproduce what he had dictated, he would certainly miss some details, and Martin would certainly pick up on some of that. Joseph wasn't willing to engage in this scenario, so he had another revelation of convenience directing him not to reproduce the pages at all.

Martin did eventually mortgage 151 acres of his farm to Book of Mormon publisher Grandin. The deal was that Martin had to pay the $3000 printing charge within 18 months (for 5000 leather-bound Book of Mormon) or Grandin could sell the land.

Joseph of course had no intention of ever repaying the loan. So when Martin panicked because the books weren't selling, Joseph had another revelation that Martin shouldn't be concerned about such temporal things.

Eventually Martin was forced to sell the 151 acres himself. On April 7,
1831 he deeded them over to early Palmyra settler Thomas Lakey. As part of the deal Martin had to vacate the farmhouse within a month. On May 27 Martin Harris joined the march to the promised land of Kirtland, following the person who had ruined his marriage and bilked him out of his property.

Martin later sold the remaining portions of his farm. He had deeded 80 acres to his wife Lucy in 1825.

The average Mormon will likely give a million dollars to the LDS leaders over 30 years (allowing for 5% compounded interest). And if he ever comes to his senses and leaves, it will possibly/likely cost him his marriage.
So the experience of Martin Harris established an important early paradigm.

See Vogel, "Early Mormon Documents Vol. 3" for documentation concerning the Harris farm.

Bill Barton also suggested that Mormons buy a picture of Martin Harris and stare at it intently while saying to themselves, "I'm entrusting my salvation to this fool?" :)

Bill Barton is free to speculate like anyone else. Solid proof is preferred however to his ramblings. I wonder how much money Barton gives to his Church and if he stares at a picture of an empty tomb wondering where the solid evidence is for his faith.