I finally went and read it. I didn’t realize it was such a short ‘book’. (I guess that’s one book from the Bible that you really could call a ‘pamphlet’! LOL) It’s definitely a prophecy about the coming of Jesus. I’m not so sure why LDS seem to think it’s about the Second Coming when Jesus hadn’t even been born yet. Even Jesus said John the Baptist was the coming of Elias (aka Elijah) prophesied in Malachi.
Why do you believe that we are suppose to have an idea of the “nearness of Christ’s coming”? The only thing we know for sure is that no one knows the day or the hour. And as far as large missionary efforts, that Catholic Church has been involved in a large missionary effort since its existence. Even today, when one compares the “missionary efforts” put forth by the Catholic Church and LDS, the LDS pales in comparison. In fact, there really is no comparison. We have churches or missions in nearly every community in the world and have for some time, even before the LDS church saw the light of day.
Very short, but quoted often in Mormon material in support of what mtolympus is asserting about what it means.I finally went and read it. I didn’t realize it was such a short ‘book’. (I guess that’s one book from the Bible that you really could call a ‘pamphlet’! LOL) It’s definitely a prophecy about the coming of Jesus. I’m not so sure why LDS seem to think it’s about the Second Coming when Jesus hadn’t even been born yet. Even Jesus said John the Baptist was the coming of Elias (aka Elijah) prophesied in Malachi.
Let me see if I understand this…
Nice dodge, T. What happened to your original “From what I’ve read, not even the supposed ‘witnesses’ actually saw the plates with their own eyes. They supposedly weren’t allowed to look at them directly (I guess they might have gone blind if they did) but only ‘saw’ them in some kind of ‘vision’, and that was the extent of their ‘sworn testimony’ that they were real.”? Let me restate for emphasis that your supposed reading of the supposed witnesses apprently didn’t include their supposed straightforward statements found in every copy of the supposed Book of Mormon.The problem that I have in believing any of it, is when you look at some of the more objective accounts of what actually happened (that isn’t whitewashed by LDS ‘historians’), from actual letters and statements written by the witnesses themselves, or other people that were close to them, where they said that they only held them wrapped in a cloth bag, or as Martin Harris said, “I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.”. He was one of the three original witnesses that all stated that they only saw them in ‘visions’. That’s pretty far from being actual witnesses of the plates, themselves.
If you also take into account that nearly all of the purported ‘witnesses’ were close family members or friends of Smith, then the credibility of their ‘testimony’ becomes even more questionable. Many of them might have had good reason to help perpetuate the story that Smith was trying to sell. Since a couple of the witnesses later recanted their stories, it makes it seem that there may have been other motivations, or coercion, involved in obtaining their signed testimonies.
Is there a problem with looking at things from a more objective point of view? Can those sources be viewed as “anti-Mormon”? Maybe. But, some of their well documented sources are much more convincing to me than taking the word of someone that was well known to be a conman.
Nice dodge, T. What happened to your original “From what I’ve read, not even the supposed ‘witnesses’ actually saw the plates with their own eyes. They supposedly weren’t allowed to look at them directly (I guess they might have gone blind if they did) but only ‘saw’ them in some kind of ‘vision’, and that was the extent of their ‘sworn testimony’ that they were real.”? Let me restate for emphasis that your supposed reading on the supposed witnesses apprently didn’t include their supposed straightforward statements found in every copy of the supposed Book of Mormon.The problem that I have in believing any of it, is when you look at some of the more objective accounts of what actually happened (that isn’t whitewashed by LDS ‘historians’), from actual letters and statements written by the witnesses themselves, or other people that were close to them, where they said that they only held them wrapped in a cloth bag, or as Martin Harris said, “I never saw the gold plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.”. He was one of the three original witnesses that all stated that they only saw them in ‘visions’. That’s pretty far from being actual witnesses of the plates, themselves.
If you also take into account that nearly all of the purported ‘witnesses’ were close family members or friends of Smith, then the credibility of their ‘testimony’ becomes even more questionable. Many of them might have had good reason to help perpetuate the story that Smith was trying to sell. Since a couple of the witnesses later recanted their stories, it makes it seem that there may have been other motivations, or coercion, involved in obtaining their signed testimonies.
Is there a problem with looking at things from a more objective point of view? Can those sources be viewed as “anti-Mormon”? Maybe. But, some of their well documented sources are much more convincing to me than taking the word of someone that was well known to be a conman.
).And Peace and Merry Christmas to you, Parker.The thread topic has long since been covered. That’s why there are no responses, plus no doubt people are busy with other things in their lives…
Peace and Merry Christmas to all readers.
Thanks for the clarification. It does help. I hate it when I feel my faith has been misreprepresented, so I want to be careful that I don’t do the same thing to another.
Neither are bald assertions too devastating.
Yeah, Rebecca set me straight on my misunderstanding/misstating of the Catholic position on saints. Sorry about that. I did mess it up.H = Humble
The best evidence is on the Arabian peninsula for the BoM. Every story should have a plausible beginning but I’m simply not sold since I’ve not seen similar evidence in the Americas. Show a feasible spot for Zarahemla and I’ll revisit the issue. Honestly, I hope to be open to reviewing such evidence and it’s not closed door for me.
I was referring to “Incorruptible Saints” which the RCC has a couple hundred of them. Here’s a link
listverse.com/2007/08/21/top-10-incorrupt-corpses/
I wasn’t trying to debate the term ‘saint’ which is a useless effort. We all are trying to be saints in following Christ. When I study ANY of the ‘incorruptible saints’, I feel they all lived Christ-like lives. If Mormons could produce similar ‘saints’, any one could take the time to review their lives to see what was Christ-like about them. That would definitely be evidence in favor of Mormonism.
My 2 cents
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like the Twain jab at Catholics in The Innocents Abroad that I quoted at length previously in this thread. Anything new and interesting (or relevant)?
GOOD GRIEF, I’M BECOMING AS REDUNDANT AS THE REST OF YOU!!!Nice dodge, T. What happened to your original “From what I’ve read, not even the supposed ‘witnesses’ actually saw the plates with their own eyes. They supposedly weren’t allowed to look at them directly (I guess they might have gone blind if they did) but only ‘saw’ them in some kind of ‘vision’, and that was the extent of their ‘sworn testimony’ that they were real.”? Let me restate for emphasis that your supposed reading on the supposed witnesses apprently didn’t include their supposed straightforward statements found in every copy of the supposed Book of Mormon.
As to this present post, it’s too bad we can’t get much more than a series of bald assertions and double-standards posing as facts.
Take the Martin Harris quote. This is your prime example of one having come “from actual letters and statements written by the witnesses themselves, or other people that were close to them.”
Really?
Your quote is not from Martin Harris, but from Stephen Burnett, who was reporting a speech that he heard Harris give. At the time of his writing, Burnett was at the height of his angry disillusionment with Joseph Smith, and had already concluded that the BOM was false.
Alternately, it comes from a source named John A. Clark who said that he knew a man (unnamed by Clark) who asked Harris and received the purported quote. Think about it: a third-hand anonymous report of what Marin Harris supposedly said.
Either way, it is an absolute mischaracterization to describe the quote as having come from either the witness or someone close to him.
But did Harris actually say it? After all, John Gilbert (the non-Mormon who did the typesetting of the first printed edition of the BOM) claimed to have heard Harris say something very similar when he asked Harris if he had seen the plates.
But of course Telstar won’t give any kind of context, because that might lead to understanding and a modicum of respect. Can’t have that!
Context might come from a similar, but fuller statement made by fellow witness David Whitmer. When Whitmer was asked the same question, the interviewer reported that “He then explained that he saw the plates, and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it – that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God and a halo of birghtness indescribable.”
So in my mind we get only a half-truth from the Burnett report of what Harris said. And in this instance oversimplification is distortion. In seeing with spiritual eyes, the witnesses were claiming something in addition to normal sight, not the exclusion of it.
Near the end of his life, the other of the three witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, was dying of tuberculosis and residing in Missouri. A Mormon named Jacob Gates stopped by his home and asked the same question - did you really see the plates? Here is Cowdery’s response:
*Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. I am a dying man, and what would it profit me to tell you a lie? I know that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched. And I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind – it was real. *
As to the witnesses being invalid because they were close friends/relatives of the Smiths – I wonder if you handle Christ’s apostles by the the same standard. Is their testimony invalid because Peter and Simon were brothers as were James and John, and Philip was probably their friend, having come from the same town and involved in the same trade? Gimme a break!
And why are only anti-Mormons able to “look at things from a more objective point of view?” What exactly makes their accounts superior to those you claim have been “whitewashed by LDS ‘historians’”? Beyond your obvious disdain for the faith of the Latter-day Saints, what do you use as your criteria to distinguish real historians from fake LDS “historians” whom you dismiss with a waive of your patronizing hand?
I don’t care that you reject LDS history and beliefs (heck, I reject yours). Spin it however you please. But spare me the notion that I have no rational reason to believe (though I admit that I do find your condescending contempt of us quite entertaining
Don’t know what I did to post this twice. Sorry for the waste of space.There is no way any of the conspirators could ever come clean about the Book of Mormon. If they had, they would have faced criminal and civil liability and their families would have been persecuted endlessly. Heck, based on what Mormons did to folks who went against them, they might have been in serious danger.
“And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon…”
In all of the quotes from every witness that I found in many places, they all describe seeing the plates in a “vision”. Some later quotes change, much like the 3 versions of Joseph Smith’s first “vision”. Even the following description by Joseph Smith, himself, indicates only a ‘spiritual vision’.“Not many days after the above commandment was given, we four, viz., Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself, agreed to retire into the woods, and try to obtain, by fervent and humble prayer, the fulfilment of the promises given in the above revelation-that they should have a view of the plates. We accordingly made choice of a piece of woods convenient to Mr. Whitmer’s house, to which we retired, and having knelt down, we began to pray in much faith to Almighty God to bestow upon us a realization of these promises.
“According to previous arrangement, I commenced prayer to our Heavenly Father, and was followed by each of the others in succession. We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observed the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before.
“**Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for**. He accordingly with drew from us, and we knelt down again, and **had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. *In his hands he held the plates* which we had been praying for these to have a view of**. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings theron distinctly.”You can choose to believe whatever you like. I’m still highly skeptical.
First, Peter and Simon are the same person. Jesus gave Simon the nickname, Cephas (Peter/rock).
Your use of the term “anti-Mormon” is a red herring that is always used by Mormons to denigrate anyone that disagrees with their doctrines (which I do). Not everyone that disagrees with the Mormon religion is “anti-Mormon”. I may disagree with your philosophy, but I have nothing against the Mormon people, themselves. Should I label you as being “anti-Catholic”, just because you don’t believe in Catholic doctrines?
You just did it to confuse me!!! ADMIT IT!!!GOOD GRIEF, I’M BECOMING AS REDUNDANT AS THE REST OF YOU!!!
Yes…and the reason makes no sense. It is to protect them. I guess God could not protect them if they did the Eucharist the way JESUS ORDERED IT DONE