W
why_me
Guest
Nice try Rebecca but an essay from an antimormon site just might not do the trick. You can read the fair link that I posted earlier. It tends to clarify the antimormon interpretations on this thread.
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
whyme, dismissing out of hand factual information merely because you view it as antimormon says more about you than it does about the information.
Why do you assume people can’t read? I read your document.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
If size and longevity are indicators of truth, then a catholic might also well say “the lord besses his church”. If 11 million mormons can’t be wrong, can it also be said that 1 billion catholics are even less wrong?
I do hear what you’re saying about the insignificance of the Strangites. But the fact is both leaders produced similar evidences and relied on the testimony of witnesses. Both or neither group of witnesses could have been lying. There’s no way to tell apart from an examination of previous statements of those witnesses and the statements of others to determine whether there is consistency over time. Although each consistently refused to deny their testimonies, there is inconsistency in the accounts of what actually happened on the day they viewed the plates. Initially, the witnesses’ experiences were described in precisely the terms that Rebecca quoted from the anti-mormon website: as visionary and subjective. For instance, David Whitmer, although he never denied his testimony, did state that he did not literally see the plates and the angel with his real eyes but instead beheld them subjectively with his “spiritual eyes”. That’s precisely how David first described his experience. In the same account, David also describes the famous scene from Mormon folklore of “seeing” a room hidden inside Hill Cumorah with stacks of plates on a table. Only later did official church accounts begin to describe the witnesses experiences with the angel and the plates as occuring literally in time, as objectively, physically present before the witnesses’ real eyes. Since the official accounts are based on the original testimonies of the witnesses themselves, we must go with those original testimonies, which are all available to read in the public domain. The spin that later Church publications put on the account can’t remove the fact that David never said he literally saw the plates and the angel in front of him with his eyes…
M
majick275
Guest
I think we also have to look at these “witnesses” over time and see what else they testified of and what they did with this knowledge. Joseph Smith denounced several of them at later times as being of poor character. Some of them left the LDS church and attempted to start other churches. This was not a diverse group either (like Jesus Apostles were) the BoM witnesses were tightknit group of friends and relatives. Some of them gave testimony top other “prophecies” like the Shakers, Strang and others. There is a lot of evidence to question the credibility of the BoM witnesses, even more to question the possibility of the BoM being based on true events. When we compare what is written in the BoM with what is taught and practiced in the LDS church it becomes even more questionable. Tying back in to the OP, Joseph Smith really didn’t teach from the BoM. he based his church on the D&C.
W
why_me
Guest
Lets hear it from the horses mouth. Here is Oliver Cowdery:
When Oliver returned to the Saints, and as he approached the last year of his life, he reiterated his witness of the plates and the priesthood—the same testimony that he had held since the beginning of the Restoration:
“I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates. … I was present with Joseph when an holy angel … conferred, or restored, the Aaronic Priesthood. … I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angels of God.” 20
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Had Oliver not made a statement like that, it would have been very difficult for him to be accepted in the LDS community after he “returned to the Saints” after having been excommunicated.
No credibility there.
Paul
W
why_me
Guest
Then of course we have an article from the Ensign, the magazine of the lds church: library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1987.htm/ensign%20april%201987.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
I Have a Question
Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy.
Did Oliver Cowdery, one of the three special Book of Mormon witnesses, express doubt about his testimony?
Richard Lloyd Anderson, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1987, 23
Richard Lloyd Anderson, professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University. Oliver Cowdery’s strong testimony of the Book of Mormon is well documented throughout his life, and his decisive return to the Church before he died backs up his words.
In 1838 Oliver challenged the Prophet Joseph Smith’s leadership and spent the next ten years out of the Church. But in 1848 he returned to Kanesville, Iowa, the base camp of Mormon migration, and wintered in Richmond, Missouri, where his health failed. He was unable to fulfill his desire to go west with the Saints, and he died in Richmond in early 1850.
Two people who knew Oliver Cowdery best were his wife, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, and her brother David Whitmer, also a Book of Mormon witness. David took pride in his role as the last survivor of the three witnesses, and in 1887, a year before his death, he reiterated his testimony:
“I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. … I was present at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were, ‘Brother David, be true to your testimony to the Book of Mormon.’ ” 1
Elizabeth first met Oliver at her house in 1829, while the Book of Mormon was being translated there. After their 1832 marriage, she was with him constantly, except for temporary separations because of Church assignments. She later reviewed his testimony:
“He always without one doubt or shadow of turning affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon.” 2
“These plain summaries of Oliver Cowdery’s views really settle the matter, since they come from those with firsthand, intimate knowledge.
However, the importance of “the second elder” (D&C 20:3) has stimulated vicious attempts to neutralize his powerful support of the Restoration. Besides seeing an angel and the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, Oliver was also with Joseph Smith when John the Baptist and later Peter, James, and John restored the two priesthoods. Evidently some have wanted a Cowdery denial enough to invent two documents that contradict history.
A dozen major archives in the U.S. have a strange typescript headed “A Confession of Oliver Overstreet,” in which the above-named character claims that he was bribed to impersonate Oliver Cowdery in a return to the Church. That claim is fairly easy to dismiss, for if that were so, the whereabouts of the real Oliver Cowdery could be traced somewhere else. But some two dozen Latter-day Saints, half of them Oliver’s former close friends, detail his return in their journals and in the Church’s official minute books. Moreover, sale of Oliver’s Wisconsin property before he returned appears in recorded deeds.
I Have a Question
Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy.
Did Oliver Cowdery, one of the three special Book of Mormon witnesses, express doubt about his testimony?
Richard Lloyd Anderson, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Apr. 1987, 23
Richard Lloyd Anderson, professor of ancient scripture, Brigham Young University. Oliver Cowdery’s strong testimony of the Book of Mormon is well documented throughout his life, and his decisive return to the Church before he died backs up his words.
In 1838 Oliver challenged the Prophet Joseph Smith’s leadership and spent the next ten years out of the Church. But in 1848 he returned to Kanesville, Iowa, the base camp of Mormon migration, and wintered in Richmond, Missouri, where his health failed. He was unable to fulfill his desire to go west with the Saints, and he died in Richmond in early 1850.
Two people who knew Oliver Cowdery best were his wife, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer, and her brother David Whitmer, also a Book of Mormon witness. David took pride in his role as the last survivor of the three witnesses, and in 1887, a year before his death, he reiterated his testimony:
“I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. … I was present at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were, ‘Brother David, be true to your testimony to the Book of Mormon.’ ” 1
Elizabeth first met Oliver at her house in 1829, while the Book of Mormon was being translated there. After their 1832 marriage, she was with him constantly, except for temporary separations because of Church assignments. She later reviewed his testimony:
“He always without one doubt or shadow of turning affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon.” 2
“These plain summaries of Oliver Cowdery’s views really settle the matter, since they come from those with firsthand, intimate knowledge.
However, the importance of “the second elder” (D&C 20:3) has stimulated vicious attempts to neutralize his powerful support of the Restoration. Besides seeing an angel and the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, Oliver was also with Joseph Smith when John the Baptist and later Peter, James, and John restored the two priesthoods. Evidently some have wanted a Cowdery denial enough to invent two documents that contradict history.
A dozen major archives in the U.S. have a strange typescript headed “A Confession of Oliver Overstreet,” in which the above-named character claims that he was bribed to impersonate Oliver Cowdery in a return to the Church. That claim is fairly easy to dismiss, for if that were so, the whereabouts of the real Oliver Cowdery could be traced somewhere else. But some two dozen Latter-day Saints, half of them Oliver’s former close friends, detail his return in their journals and in the Church’s official minute books. Moreover, sale of Oliver’s Wisconsin property before he returned appears in recorded deeds.
W
why_me
Guest
Part 2:
There is also a problem with the Oliver Overstreet manuscript itself. An important clue in identifying spurious documents is the vagueness of a document’s origin—the impossibility of going past a late typescript to an original from a known person. Such is the case with the Oliver Overstreet typescript.
Similar faults appear in a better-known historical forgery claiming to come from Oliver Cowdery the year after he left the Church. In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints. 3
“No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. 4
With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death.
The introduction simply puffs, “This real and original ‘Defence’ is a ‘rare find,’ and should be speedily sent on its mission to the thousands already deluded.” 5
Informed historians, however, are more skeptical. The standard bibliography of Mormon-related works first notes that Reverend Neal’s 1906 tract is “the version from which all copies have been taken,” and then conservatively adds, “whether the pamphlet ever existed is doubtful.” 6
The second half of the Defence is built on a supposed vision of Christ to Oliver, in which Oliver is told, “Thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.” 7 If such an event took place, why did the Second Elder violate divine instruction and return to the Church afterward?
Nothing is said about the angel and the gold plates, but the Defence challenges the restored priesthood, “about which,” the pamphlet’s author writes, “I am beginning to doubt.” One reason is that John the Baptist’s voice “did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon.” 8
Predictably, none of the twenty Cowdery letters from the period of his apostasy express such doubts. For instance, Oliver’s spirited resignation letter to his high council court closed by saying that he questioned Church government only, not its spiritual foundations. 9 Indeed, a private letter during his estrangement speaks feelingly of the responsibility he felt after standing “in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph … and in the presence of Peter.” 10
Moreover, the 1906 tract falls into a major historical trap by paralleling, too closely, mistakes David Whitmer made in his 1887 An Address to All Believers in Christ, written after Oliver’s death. In doing so, the Defence identifies Whitmer’s Address as one of its probable sources of information.
David, the witness who never returned to the Church, justified his view of Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet by remembering a revelation in the winter of 1829–1830 that authorized Oliver Cowdery and Hyrum Page to “go to Toronto, Canada, and … sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon” for that country. 11
The revelation and trip did occur, but David, in remembering them fifty-seven years later, missed several important details. We know this because Hyrum Page outlined what happened only eighteen years afterward, a firsthand source because he went on the journey with Oliver, whereas David did not. Hyrum Page clarifies that the revelation instructed the brethren to sell Canadian rights to purchasers “if they would not harden their hearts,” making clear the conditional command. 12
The most glaring mistake perpetrated in the Defence is the true destination, for Hyrum Page says that “we were to go to Kingston,” and he relates that they did. 13 Thus, in real life, Oliver Cowdery went to a location 150 miles away from Toronto, the place that David Whitmer erroneously mentioned in his address. Yet the Defence mistakenly has Oliver Cowdery say that the “revelation … sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to … Toronto.” 14
Before the microfilm-photocopy era, which has made in-depth local history possible, the 1906 pamphlet was often accepted as legitimate, even by LDS historians. Now, however, with modern methods of verification, the pseudo-Cowdery Defence fails every specific test that a genealogist or historian can set up.
Following are four examples, presented in a question-answer format to highlight issues:
There is also a problem with the Oliver Overstreet manuscript itself. An important clue in identifying spurious documents is the vagueness of a document’s origin—the impossibility of going past a late typescript to an original from a known person. Such is the case with the Oliver Overstreet typescript.
Similar faults appear in a better-known historical forgery claiming to come from Oliver Cowdery the year after he left the Church. In 1906 the “mountain evangelist” R. B. Neal, a leader in the American Anti-Mormon Association, published a document with much fanfare but without evidence of the document’s authenticity. Reverend Neal claimed that the publication was a reprint of an 1839 document explaining Oliver Cowdery’s apostasy: Defence in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating Myself from the Latter Day Saints. 3
“No more important document has been unearthed since I have been engaged in this warfare,” R. B. Neal asserted. 4
With such convictions, one can be sure that Reverend Neal would have produced evidence to prove that the original actually existed. But all we have is his 1906 first printing, which is silent about why no one had ever heard of the document until a half century after Oliver Cowdery’s death.
The introduction simply puffs, “This real and original ‘Defence’ is a ‘rare find,’ and should be speedily sent on its mission to the thousands already deluded.” 5
Informed historians, however, are more skeptical. The standard bibliography of Mormon-related works first notes that Reverend Neal’s 1906 tract is “the version from which all copies have been taken,” and then conservatively adds, “whether the pamphlet ever existed is doubtful.” 6
The second half of the Defence is built on a supposed vision of Christ to Oliver, in which Oliver is told, “Thou shalt withdraw thyself from among them.” 7 If such an event took place, why did the Second Elder violate divine instruction and return to the Church afterward?
Nothing is said about the angel and the gold plates, but the Defence challenges the restored priesthood, “about which,” the pamphlet’s author writes, “I am beginning to doubt.” One reason is that John the Baptist’s voice “did most mysteriously resemble the voice of Elder Sidney Rigdon.” 8
Predictably, none of the twenty Cowdery letters from the period of his apostasy express such doubts. For instance, Oliver’s spirited resignation letter to his high council court closed by saying that he questioned Church government only, not its spiritual foundations. 9 Indeed, a private letter during his estrangement speaks feelingly of the responsibility he felt after standing “in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph … and in the presence of Peter.” 10
Moreover, the 1906 tract falls into a major historical trap by paralleling, too closely, mistakes David Whitmer made in his 1887 An Address to All Believers in Christ, written after Oliver’s death. In doing so, the Defence identifies Whitmer’s Address as one of its probable sources of information.
David, the witness who never returned to the Church, justified his view of Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet by remembering a revelation in the winter of 1829–1830 that authorized Oliver Cowdery and Hyrum Page to “go to Toronto, Canada, and … sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon” for that country. 11
The revelation and trip did occur, but David, in remembering them fifty-seven years later, missed several important details. We know this because Hyrum Page outlined what happened only eighteen years afterward, a firsthand source because he went on the journey with Oliver, whereas David did not. Hyrum Page clarifies that the revelation instructed the brethren to sell Canadian rights to purchasers “if they would not harden their hearts,” making clear the conditional command. 12
The most glaring mistake perpetrated in the Defence is the true destination, for Hyrum Page says that “we were to go to Kingston,” and he relates that they did. 13 Thus, in real life, Oliver Cowdery went to a location 150 miles away from Toronto, the place that David Whitmer erroneously mentioned in his address. Yet the Defence mistakenly has Oliver Cowdery say that the “revelation … sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely to … Toronto.” 14
Before the microfilm-photocopy era, which has made in-depth local history possible, the 1906 pamphlet was often accepted as legitimate, even by LDS historians. Now, however, with modern methods of verification, the pseudo-Cowdery Defence fails every specific test that a genealogist or historian can set up.
Following are four examples, presented in a question-answer format to highlight issues:
W
why_me
Guest
Part 3:
Q. Doesn’t the Defence sound like Oliver Cowdery’s prose?
A. It sounds too much like Oliver Cowdery. Over fifty striking phrases and sentences match passages from eight letters of his that appeared in the Messenger and Advocate during 1834–1835. A full 35 percent of the Defence is word for word what was first recorded in these published letters. Yet the hundred or so letters and editorials that exist from the Second Elder show a clear creative style that never mechanically repeats elements from earlier writing.
Q. Could not the original manuscript and all 1839 copies of the Defence have accidentally perished?
A. That would be odd, since the 1906 pamphlet, if it were authentic, would have to have been published from an earlier manuscript, which R. B. Neal never produced. Furthermore, the Defence states that its purpose is to explain Cowdery’s position to Latter-day Saints. Even if all copies had perished by 1906, the Saints living during the mid- to late-1800s would have been aware of the work, but none record that they were.
In Oliver’s lifetime, LDS journalists noticed major publications against the faith and refuted them, as in the cases of E. D. Howe in 1834 or John C. Bennett in 1842. But the early Nauvoo press did not mention any printed attack from Oliver Cowdery. Instead, the year after the supposed 1839 pamphlet, Church editors who had worked with Cowdery at the Kirtland press reprinted several of Oliver’s letters in the Messenger and Advocate. The editors announced that the letters answered the questions of “the coming forth of the Book of Mormon … and the restoration of the Priesthood … from the pen of a living witness.” 15
Q. Would not Church officials, when Oliver returned to the Church, suppress mention of his early opposition?
A. Actually, the opposite is the case. Three sets of minutes at Kanesville in 1848 show that Oliver was examined carefully to see whether he really supported the mission of Joseph Smith. William E. McLellin had published a letter of Oliver Cowdery to David Whitmer, implying that Oliver held keys higher than those of the Twelve, and Oliver was questioned on his motives in that matter. If Oliver had really written the Defence, Church leaders would have at least asked him about it to clarify his worthiness to be rebaptized.
Q. The Defence claims that it was printed at Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio. Does this detail check out?
A. Ohio experts know of no such press, and gazetteers of the time indicate that the village of Norton in Delaware County was too small to have a press. There was a Norton township some thirty-five miles from Kirtland, but townships are merely geographical jurisdictions, like small counties, and are rarely given as places of publication.
My book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses gives some other statements that opponents of the Church have used to throw doubt on Oliver’s testimony. 16 One is an 1841 poem by Joel H. Johnson, making the point that God’s revelations are true no matter who opposes them: “Or prove the gospel was not true / Because old Paul the Saints could kill? / Because the Jews its author slew, / and now reject their Saviour still? … / Or Book of Mormon not his word / because denied by Oliver?” 17
The poem is a secondary comment, not a primary source. It is rhetoric, not history. To qualify for the latter, it would have to be based on demonstrable knowledge Joel Johnson had of Oliver outside the Church, which it is not. Johnson may simply have meant that Oliver had withdrawn from the Church and did not then stand openly for the ancient record.
Attacks on Oliver Cowdery typically add a Brigham Young statement, although it clearly was not intended to refer to Oliver. President Young said that “some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon” had received visitations but were yet “left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel.” 18 President Young then followed with an example of “one of the Quorum of the Twelve” of his day. His description fits none of the Three Witnesses, particularly Oliver Cowdery. Indeed, on another occasion Brigham Young expressly declared, “Oliver Cowdery … never denied the Book of Mormon, not even in the wickedest days he ever saw, and came back into the Church before he died.” 19
When Oliver returned to the Saints, and as he approached the last year of his life, he reiterated his witness of the plates and the priesthood—the same testimony that he had held since the beginning of the Restoration:
“I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates. … I was present with Joseph when an holy angel … conferred, or restored, the Aaronic Priesthood. … I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angels of God.” 20
Gospel topics: Book of Mormon, Church history, restoration, testimony
Q. Doesn’t the Defence sound like Oliver Cowdery’s prose?
A. It sounds too much like Oliver Cowdery. Over fifty striking phrases and sentences match passages from eight letters of his that appeared in the Messenger and Advocate during 1834–1835. A full 35 percent of the Defence is word for word what was first recorded in these published letters. Yet the hundred or so letters and editorials that exist from the Second Elder show a clear creative style that never mechanically repeats elements from earlier writing.
Q. Could not the original manuscript and all 1839 copies of the Defence have accidentally perished?
A. That would be odd, since the 1906 pamphlet, if it were authentic, would have to have been published from an earlier manuscript, which R. B. Neal never produced. Furthermore, the Defence states that its purpose is to explain Cowdery’s position to Latter-day Saints. Even if all copies had perished by 1906, the Saints living during the mid- to late-1800s would have been aware of the work, but none record that they were.
In Oliver’s lifetime, LDS journalists noticed major publications against the faith and refuted them, as in the cases of E. D. Howe in 1834 or John C. Bennett in 1842. But the early Nauvoo press did not mention any printed attack from Oliver Cowdery. Instead, the year after the supposed 1839 pamphlet, Church editors who had worked with Cowdery at the Kirtland press reprinted several of Oliver’s letters in the Messenger and Advocate. The editors announced that the letters answered the questions of “the coming forth of the Book of Mormon … and the restoration of the Priesthood … from the pen of a living witness.” 15
Q. Would not Church officials, when Oliver returned to the Church, suppress mention of his early opposition?
A. Actually, the opposite is the case. Three sets of minutes at Kanesville in 1848 show that Oliver was examined carefully to see whether he really supported the mission of Joseph Smith. William E. McLellin had published a letter of Oliver Cowdery to David Whitmer, implying that Oliver held keys higher than those of the Twelve, and Oliver was questioned on his motives in that matter. If Oliver had really written the Defence, Church leaders would have at least asked him about it to clarify his worthiness to be rebaptized.
Q. The Defence claims that it was printed at Pressley’s Job Office, Norton, Ohio. Does this detail check out?
A. Ohio experts know of no such press, and gazetteers of the time indicate that the village of Norton in Delaware County was too small to have a press. There was a Norton township some thirty-five miles from Kirtland, but townships are merely geographical jurisdictions, like small counties, and are rarely given as places of publication.
My book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses gives some other statements that opponents of the Church have used to throw doubt on Oliver’s testimony. 16 One is an 1841 poem by Joel H. Johnson, making the point that God’s revelations are true no matter who opposes them: “Or prove the gospel was not true / Because old Paul the Saints could kill? / Because the Jews its author slew, / and now reject their Saviour still? … / Or Book of Mormon not his word / because denied by Oliver?” 17
The poem is a secondary comment, not a primary source. It is rhetoric, not history. To qualify for the latter, it would have to be based on demonstrable knowledge Joel Johnson had of Oliver outside the Church, which it is not. Johnson may simply have meant that Oliver had withdrawn from the Church and did not then stand openly for the ancient record.
Attacks on Oliver Cowdery typically add a Brigham Young statement, although it clearly was not intended to refer to Oliver. President Young said that “some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon” had received visitations but were yet “left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel.” 18 President Young then followed with an example of “one of the Quorum of the Twelve” of his day. His description fits none of the Three Witnesses, particularly Oliver Cowdery. Indeed, on another occasion Brigham Young expressly declared, “Oliver Cowdery … never denied the Book of Mormon, not even in the wickedest days he ever saw, and came back into the Church before he died.” 19
When Oliver returned to the Saints, and as he approached the last year of his life, he reiterated his witness of the plates and the priesthood—the same testimony that he had held since the beginning of the Restoration:
“I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates. … I was present with Joseph when an holy angel … conferred, or restored, the Aaronic Priesthood. … I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angels of God.” 20
Gospel topics: Book of Mormon, Church history, restoration, testimony
N
NewSeeker
Guest
There’s a correction I need to make to my most recent post. It was not David Whitmer who used the term “spiritual eyes” to describe how he beheld the angel and the plates. It was Martin Harris who made the statement, another of the Three Witnesses. Sorry about the confusion. It’s been a while since I reviewed the evidence from the witnesses’ available signed testimonies and affidavits of LDS contemporaries.
M
majick275
Guest
why me,
It really doesn’t matter if these witnesses didn’t “recant”. some tried to use their “testimony” to start other churches and others ALSO testified to OTHER prophets and scriptures. This makes them unreliable. The fact that they were a small family friend group also increases the possibility of a scam. all of them were in a position which would NOT benefit from recanting and in some cases they benefited by continuing their testimony. History is full of shady characters, mentally unstable people and deceived individuals who have gone their whole with a “testimony” of something false. These witnesses are not the type of people who have a lot credibility to start with and their actions give them even less. many more people have testified to the “truth” of the Koran than the BoM. so what are you gonna do? Most Christians would start out with a comparison of what Jesus taught in the Bible with any alleged new revelations. Then you can also look to history/science for any corroboration of claims. You can use your God given intellect to process all of this and you can pray for guidance. I believe that the bible is mutually exclusive of Mormon doctrine, specifically the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham young as taught in D&C, PgP, Temple Ceremony, JoD and JST of the Bible. I also believe that science and history have shown us that the BoM CANNOT be a historical record of actual events. My common sense sees the con game that started this movement and it’s transformation to it’s current state. God answers my prayers and the Holy Spirit tells me that Mormonism is false.
now back to the OP… Joseph Smith was far too busy teaching “new revelations” to dwell on what was in teh BoM.
It really doesn’t matter if these witnesses didn’t “recant”. some tried to use their “testimony” to start other churches and others ALSO testified to OTHER prophets and scriptures. This makes them unreliable. The fact that they were a small family friend group also increases the possibility of a scam. all of them were in a position which would NOT benefit from recanting and in some cases they benefited by continuing their testimony. History is full of shady characters, mentally unstable people and deceived individuals who have gone their whole with a “testimony” of something false. These witnesses are not the type of people who have a lot credibility to start with and their actions give them even less. many more people have testified to the “truth” of the Koran than the BoM. so what are you gonna do? Most Christians would start out with a comparison of what Jesus taught in the Bible with any alleged new revelations. Then you can also look to history/science for any corroboration of claims. You can use your God given intellect to process all of this and you can pray for guidance. I believe that the bible is mutually exclusive of Mormon doctrine, specifically the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham young as taught in D&C, PgP, Temple Ceremony, JoD and JST of the Bible. I also believe that science and history have shown us that the BoM CANNOT be a historical record of actual events. My common sense sees the con game that started this movement and it’s transformation to it’s current state. God answers my prayers and the Holy Spirit tells me that Mormonism is false.
now back to the OP… Joseph Smith was far too busy teaching “new revelations” to dwell on what was in teh BoM.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Not to mention that none of it matters. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Not Smith, Cowdery, Whitmer or any other mormon witness or book.
It doesn’t matter if Smith quoted from the BoM, or his own words he put in the D&C, or anything else from his imagination. None of it is truth.
It doesn’t matter if Smith quoted from the BoM, or his own words he put in the D&C, or anything else from his imagination. None of it is truth.
W
why_me
Guest
My point Rebecca is simple: the mormon story is not so clear cut as one might find on an antimormon site. And this is the reason why the lds church survives. Mormons are not stupid nor are they unlearned. But in the end, at this moment, the LDS story still stands. Now whether one wants to believe it is quite another matter but it hasn’t been proven false.
And yes, you are right, Christ is the way, the truth and the life and that is why it is totally irrelavant to have the debates about mormonism that we seem to have on these threads.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
my point is even simpler: mormonism is irrelevant. Mormons like you seem to be able to ignore factual evidence that it is all a sham. Living a confused life, a hunger for truth, pulling it in from anywhere and everywhere.
It is simple whyme. Christ showed us the way. He established His Church. And I have seen no evidence, none, that it ever fell into apostasy. That anything was lost. No mormon, anywhere, at anytime has been able to show where this occurred.
mormonism is unnecessary. For you or anyone to believe for a moment, in any way, that it is a restoration of truth, isn’t a showing of ignorance about any aspect of mormonism. It is a blatant display of ignorance regarding Christianity as a whole.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Mormonism is God’s only true Church in the world today. Historical Christianity is apostate. Mormonism is a restoration of the original Church of Christ. It is apostates form Mormonism who are truly irrelevant. They carry no clout and no credibility in the world; and they are “despised by those who have flattered them” (D&C 121:20).
zerinus
M
majick275
Guest
well there you have it…
why me tells you you can’t believe anyone…so the BoM is true.
zerinus tells you any former mormon (or current one who doesn’t agree with him) is an apostate who must be despised. he will also tell you that all other churches are apostate and thus can neither enjoy nor bestow any sacramental grace.
both will tell you read the BoM and ask mormons to teach you about their church and then pray and whatever you feel in response means that you now mormonism is true. (and correspondingly all other churches false)
anyone see the circular logic?
why me tells you you can’t believe anyone…so the BoM is true.
zerinus tells you any former mormon (or current one who doesn’t agree with him) is an apostate who must be despised. he will also tell you that all other churches are apostate and thus can neither enjoy nor bestow any sacramental grace.
both will tell you read the BoM and ask mormons to teach you about their church and then pray and whatever you feel in response means that you now mormonism is true. (and correspondingly all other churches false)
anyone see the circular logic?
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
You skipped my question so I will assume that you can’t answer it.
R
Rbt_Southwell
Guest
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
lol nice one
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Asking is not a problem. Knowing how to hear the answer is. You have said that you cannot explain this way, that no words can describe it. How can i know that i have experienced it if i do not know what it is? My concern is that i might have an experience, but it will not be a genuine one. Rather than finding the truth, i will become, as the people of 3 Nephi, casualties of a lie.You are making things a lot harder for yourself that you need to! All you have to do is to read the Book of Mormon, and ask the Lord in sincerity and faith if it is true. It really is quite simple!…
I think that you might be able to describe your experience, if you really tried. Let me give an example: Lets say i have a daughter who asks me how she will know when she is really in love. I could avoid the difficulty of answering her question and say, “Oh, honey, you will know!” but i really will not have answered her question.
Now, i might try to answer her question this way: “Hey, baby girl, when i met your mother, i felt like i could not live without her. When i was away from her all i could think about was how i might see her again. If i stayed away too long, i began to feel sick, like a vital part of me was missing. When i saw her again, i felt complete joy, sometimes more than i thought i would be able to handle. Still, the joy of being with her was better than the agony of being apart.”
You might argue that i have not done a good job of describing love. You might criticize that i had said nothing of the feelings for my wife after 15 years of marriage. You might, perhaps rightly so, say that love is giving, and i have only described the selfish feelings of infatuation. You might be right. Still, i had done my best to describe my experience as honestly as i could.
Which would be better – to say, “You will know when you are in love” or to say, “This is what i experienced when i was in love”? When it comes to faith in Jesus, which is better – to say, “You will know when you have the witness of the Spirit of God” or to say, “This is what i experienced when i had the witness of the Spirit of God”?
- Status