Answering Jeff Lindsay

[majick275]

most of them were involved in some offshoot of mormonism (if not mormonism itself) that required the original story to be true. there is also the probability that some weren’t “in on it” and had been deceived themselves. there is even some eveidence that some DID deny it later but the LDS have only kept the “faith promoting” stories alive. some of them may have felt so foolish at being conned that they stayed quiet about it. this whole line of reasoning is ridiculous anyway. islam can claim far more “witnesses” to “new revealed scripture” and it certainly isn’t true.

 

[Jerusha]

Awfulthings:

That about covers it. Your independent checking into the links we provided and our posting histories probably turned up a wealth of information. Are there any more troublesome points that you need to ask us about? :tiphat:

 

[awfulthings9]

Awfulthings:

That about covers it. Your independent checking into the links we provided and our posting histories probably turned up a wealth of information. Are there any more troublesome points that you need to ask us about? :tiphat:

First, keep in mind, that these aren’t troublesome points for me, per se. Rather, I wanted to do exactly what Lindsay challenged others to do, which is to let him have his turn and then answer that. I’d like to then forward him the link, so yes, I’d like to see us go through most of that list.

Anyway, here’s a real gem I found regarding the golden plates:

The FARMS’ article supports the tumbaga theory by referring to William Smith, Joseph’s brother, who was quoted in the Saints Herald (31, 1884, p. 644) as stating that the plates were a mixture of gold and copper. One can only imagine how William arrived at such a conclusion since there is no evidence to suggest that the plates were ever analyzed. Making William’s statement even less credible is the fact that he admitted to having never seen the plates. He claimed, “I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them, as was contrary to the commands he had received. They weighed about sixty pounds according to the best of my judgment” (A New Witness for Christ in America 2:417). FARMS insists that tumbaga plates would have weighed only about 53 pounds. In other words, it would be like carrying a sack of redi-mix concrete.

The part I put in bold and underlined is a pretty revealing bit of information. I can only imagine what these beautiful plates would have looked like if someone actually pulled the pillow cases off.

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, the different witness’ accounts are different, and even the same witnesses’ accounts differ. :juggle: Like juggling jello.

And Joseph reported that he carried ALL the plates while running to get away from some enemies.

 

[awfulthings9]

Yes, the different witness’ accounts are different, and even the same witnesses’ accounts differ. :juggle: Like juggling jello.

And Joseph reported that he carried ALL the plates while running to get away from some enemies.

Running at top speed at that. I’d like to challenge a Mormon missionary to do that with a couple 100 lb bags of concrete.

 

[why_me]

Okay, to get the thread back on track, let’s try some of these. So, a Mormon missionary throws this one at you:

He follows up with these points:

Why would Martin Harris, a prosperous man praised by many non-Mormons for his integrity throughout his life, continue to claim that he had seen the gold plates and an angel, when this only brought harm to him?
Why would David Whitmer, after he became bitter toward Joseph Smith, still go out of his way to refute rumors that he had denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon?
If the Book of Mormon were a fraud, why involve “witnesses” at all - especially so many witnesses who might spill the beans and ruin everything?

This argument is similar (though not identical) to the Catholic argument that the testimony of the martyrs in the first century after Christ is good proof of the truth of Christianity.

So, how would you answer?

There is no good answer to this problem that you posed above and this is why mormonism has survived. The critics of today use the same critique that critics used at the time of Joseph Smith. There is very little new in the criticisms. Mormonism has survived because the story has not been refuted. Sure there has been attempts to refute the story but all have failed.

We just don’t have the witnesses but we also have Emma Smith and sidney rigdon who also didn’t spill the beans. Some critics have sidney ridgon writing the book and using JS as a conduit.

 

[why_me]

The war is against anything that impedes salvation that steers us away from the truth. It comes down to faith, but not a niave faith. Faith can stand up to scrutiny and, since there is such a thing as objective truth, we owe it to ourselves and the Mormons to test all things to discover that objective truth. After all, either God is a trinity or he is not? Either Christ is God or he is not. Mormon doctrine would say not, and that they are good people doesn’t mean we should be indifferent to the fact that somebody has seriously errored in their understanding of salvation and revelation. I would be insulted if a Mormom didn’t view me in the same way.

How would most faiths stand up to a close examination? Not many would fare well, including the catholic faith. One can give the statements: Either there is a god or not. Either christ was the son of god or just a son of a man named Joseph.

What is a naive faith? Many would claim that any belief in god is a naive faith.

My point: Be a good catholic and may Mormons be good mormons. The world will be a better place if both mormons and catholics lived their faith to the best of their ability.

 

[why_me]

Yes, the different witness’ accounts are different, and even the same witnesses’ accounts differ. :juggle: Like juggling jello.

And Joseph reported that he carried ALL the plates while running to get away from some enemies.

The witnesses spent their entire lives defending what they saw. No one denied what they saw. If a person spends a lifetime defending what they saw and how they saw it, they will most likely relate the story differently each time they retell it. But it must have gotten awfully tiring for them to repeat the story over and over again.

 

[majick275]

There is no good answer to this problem that you posed above and this is why mormonism has survived. The critics of today use the same critique that critics used at the time of Joseph Smith. There is very little new in the criticisms. Mormonism has survived because the story has not been refuted. Sure there has been attempts to refute the story but all have failed.

We just don’t have the witnesses but we also have Emma Smith and sidney rigdon who also didn’t spill the beans. Some critics have sidney ridgon writing the book and using JS as a conduit.

mormonism has been successfully refuted all the time. harris, whitmer and rigdon and even emma continued to be involved in churches that required the BoM. they had all kinds of incentive to stay on board. interesting that none of them stayed with BY though. Harris also appeas to have been pretty unstable. he claimed an equally compelling testimony of the shaker book as well. look at strang and page and who bore testimony of their prophecies.

 

[majick275]

How would most faiths stand up to a close examination? Not many would fare well, including the catholic faith. One can give the statements: Either there is a god or not. Either christ was the son of god or just a son of a man named Joseph.

What is a naive faith? Many would claim that any belief in god is a naive faith.

My point: Be a good catholic and may Mormons be good mormons. The world will be a better place if both mormons and catholics lived their faith to the best of their ability.

no i think heresy is a problem and those live their heresy to the fullest aren’t good for anyone.I am surprised to see you take this approach since you choose not to live in accordance
with the doctrines of either faith and yet claim to be both. There is only ONE God. he created ONE church. he never abandoned it and it’s still here.

 

[majick275]

The witnesses spent their entire lives defending what they saw. No one denied what they saw. If a person spends a lifetime defending what they saw and how they saw it, they will most likely relate the story differently each time they retell it. But it must have gotten awfully tiring for them to repeat the story over and over again.

I’ll bet the witnesses to Jesus Christ never tired of telling their experiences. (oh wait that’s the New Testament) history is full of charlatans and mountebanks who never denied their cons either. means nothing.

 

[deb1]

How did Joseph know so much about the Arabian Peninsula?

Verse 6: And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.

Note: No river flows into the Red Sea from the Arabian Peninsula.

Arabian Peninsula, in southwestern Asia,* is a vast land that is largely desert*. Saudi Arabia occupies most of the peninsula. The other countries on the peninsula are Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait. Bahrain, an island country, lies just east of the peninsula. The Arabian Peninsula has an area of about 1,160,000 square miles (3,004,000 square kilometers). *Most of it is dry wasteland. Rain seldom falls in some parts, and temperatures in the interior may rise to 130 °F (54 °C). *2001 World Book Encyclopedia.

Note: Joseph Smith was ignorant of Middle East geography.

Verse 8: And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

Note: No river flows into the Red Sea from the Arabian Peninsula.

Despite the vast area of the Arab world, only a small percentage of it is suitable for human settlement. Much of the region is hot and dry, and it has large desert areas. These include the Sahara in northern Africa, the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, and the Syrian Desert. 2001 World Book Encyclopedia.

Note: Joseph Smith was ignorant of Middle East geography.

This is from:

truthandgrace.com/bom1nephi2.htm

Even if he had been very learned about Middle Eastern Geography that would have only proved that he could read. I had a good friend who was a geography junkie and could answer all sorts of questions on foreign rivers and mountain ranges, yet she had never traveled beyond the States.

 

[deb1]

How would most faiths stand up to a close examination? Not My point: Be a good catholic and may Mormons be good mormons. The world will be a better place if both mormons and catholics lived their faith to the best of their ability.

Most of the Mormons that I have known have seemed like very decent people. I would certainly rather have a good Mormon family who is practicing their faith live next door to me then some Catholics that I have known. But Mormons do not leave Catholics alone. You guys do a lot of proselytizing, so of course, we will look for information to defend ourselves. I promise, though, as long as this make believe Mormon neighbors of mind didn’t try to convert me or my children, I would never bring any of this information up.