What is the book of Mormon all about

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Finrock, it isn’t a notion. :rolleyes: Do you, or do you not, pray to Jesus? When do you talk to Him and praise Him as all Christians should? When do you kneel before Him in awe of all He has done for you? When do you, as a church, a community, pray to Him?

You have some odd ideas about what it means to worship Jesus if you believe it is done by not doing it.
This whole discussion is along the same lines as one on MAAD, there was a quote from Bruce Mcconkie

“It is true that there may, with propriety, be a special relationship with a wife, with children, with friends, with teachers, with the beasts of the field and the fowls of the sky and the lilies of the valley. But the very moment anyone singles out one member of the Godhead as the almost sole recipient of his devotion, to the exclusion of the others, that is the moment when spiritual instability begins to replace sense and reason.”

This quote seems at odds with another previous statement in the same speech
*
“We worship the Father and him only and no one else.
We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost.”*

In my experience Catholicism encourages worship and relationship with God the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. I don’t see this in LDS.
 
Finrock, it isn’t a notion. :rolleyes: Do you, or do you not, pray to Jesus? When do you talk to Him and praise Him as all Christians should? When do you kneel before Him in awe of all He has done for you? When do you, as a church, a community, pray to Him?

You have some odd ideas about what it means to worship Jesus if you believe it is done by not doing it.
Your initial sentiment wasn’t about prayer, it was about my supposed inability to tell Jesus that I love Him. My prayers are to the Father, in the name of Jesus, by the power of the Holy Ghost, just as is my worship. All three members of the Godhead are involved in my prayers and in my worship. Furthermore, I talk to Jesus and praise Him when I pray to the Father and when I testify of Him. I will kneel before Him in worship and in awe if in His mercy He sees it fit to allow me in His presence. I will surely kneel in worship and in awe, when He comes again to the earth. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Therefore I am worshipping and telling Jesus that I love Him when I keep His commandments.

I’m curious. Are you suggesting that in Catholicism if you worship the Father, you aren’t worshipping the Son? Are you further suggesting that if you pray to the Father, you are somehow not praying to the Son also? In Mormonism, we believe that when we pray to the Father, it’s as if we are praying to the Son, because they are one (of course not “one” in the trinitarian sense). But, it seems your mode of worship is different, but that doesn’t mean that my mode of worship doesn’t include worship to the Son or an expression of my love for Him. I do this both by worshiping the Father and by worshipping the Son directly.

Your expression of Mormon belief is a false notion of Mormon belief. It simply isn’t reflective of what the reality is. I don’t hold this against you, but I am simply wanting to correct the false idea that you have. In Mormonism, Jesus Christ and His atonement is the central tenant of our religion. He is the most important part. We worship Him as our God and as our Savior. This is manifested not only in word, but as well as in deed. That we may not be worshipping Him in the same way that you do, is irrelevant to this very simple, yet fundamental truth about Mormonism. 🙂

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
Your initial sentiment wasn’t about prayer, it was about my supposed inability to tell Jesus that I love Him. My prayers are to the Father, in the name of Jesus, by the power of the Holy Ghost, just as is my worship. All three members of the Godhead are involved in my prayers and in my worship. Furthermore, I talk to Jesus and praise Him when I pray to the Father and when I testify of Him. I will kneel before Him in worship and in awe if in His mercy He sees it fit to allow me in His presence. I will surely kneel in worship and in awe, when He comes again to the earth. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Therefore I am worshipping and telling Jesus that I love Him when I keep His commandments.

I’m curious. Are you suggesting that in Catholicism if you worship the Father, you aren’t worshipping the Son? Are you further suggesting that if you pray to the Father, you are somehow not praying to the Son also? In Mormonism, we believe that when we pray to the Father, it’s as if we are praying to the Son, because they are one (of course not “one” in the trinitarian sense). But, it seems your mode of worship is different, but that doesn’t mean that my mode of worship doesn’t include worship to the Son or an expression of my love for Him. I do this both by worshiping the Father and by worshipping the Son directly.

Your expression of Mormon belief is a false notion of Mormon belief. It simply isn’t reflective of what the reality is. I don’t hold this against you, but I am simply wanting to correct the false idea that you have. In Mormonism, Jesus Christ and His atonement is the central tenant of our religion. He is the most important part. We worship Him as our God and as our Savior. This is manifested not only in word, but as well as in deed. That we may not be worshipping Him in the same way that you do, is irrelevant to this very simple, yet fundamental truth about Mormonism. 🙂

Kind Regards,
Finrock
The whole notion there is convoluted. You worship Heavenly Father who is not “one” with the Son yet the Son is the prime focus of your Church? Mormon Nontrinitarianism is polytheistic. Is this what you are saying?
 
Hello to each of those who responded to my questions, and to Finrock–

Thanks for your kind and sincere comments. I appreciated reading them, and have appreciated Finrock’s discussion as always.

I still don’t get why the Savior is perceived by Catholics as loving, forgiving, (totally true) but never giving or authorizing punishment when a group of people is fully ripe in their iniquity and sinfullness, and as Catholic20064 said that if the Savior had come to the Americas He would never ever have first caused cataclysmic natural disasters to remove the most wicked who had fought against Him, before appearing as the resurrected Christ (fully God) to this small group of people. I understand the desire to have the wicked repent and be given every chance to do so, but are Catholics saying that Christ has no involvement in natural disasters until judgment day? Does that mean Catholics believe Christ created the earth and set all the weather patterns and fault lines and volcanic activity in place, and since the creation He now let’s it all just happen helter-skelter, until the judgment day when the events I cited from the Book of Revelation and from Luke suddenly happen because of His involvement?

I also don’t understand the notion that I am “in danger” if the Catholic belief is that Christ can and will teach everyone Himself and give that love and forgiveness that He showed in the New Testament, to everyone, since He came not to condemn the world but to save the world (including me, since I am a sinner).

Despite these continued questions, I appreciate the sincerity expressed. I have first person absolute sure and pure knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true and those prophets lived and taught and recorded the words God wanted some of the people in the world to know in these last days. I also have absolute sure and pure knowledge that the Bible is true in its original language, and contains the words God wants all the world to know in these last days. People can choose to read them, or not, to believe them, or not. Their choices in these matters have consequences, but that is the way it should be.
 
Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus!

As a Catholic who was duped by the lds sect I can appreciate this conversation.

I have a brief observation…

On the Introduction page of the BoM is says:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

However, why doesn’t the BoM have the full and ‘everlasting gospel’ as declared by the lds sect?

If the BoM contains the “fullness” of the everlasting gospel why doesn’t it mention anything about man becoming like God? Why doesn’t it mention anything about God being a man "like you and I’ prior to his “exaltation”?

Why doesn’t it teach some of the more diabolical teachings of the lds sect?

Why doesn’t the BoM teach that HF lives on Kolob?

If it’s the “fullness” of the everlasting gospel then it should contain the FULL message of the gospel as taught by the lds sect.

After a year of belonging to the lds sect I finally was taught some of these diabolical teachings…

here a little and there a little…not all at once of course…

with my endowment in the temple my eyes were opened to much of the junk that any student of scripture would have a hard time accepting.

The BoM is a nice story, but it isn’t the “fullness” of anything…let alone the “everlasting gospel”.

It is however, the “fullness” of an over active imagination.

I know the old adage that will probably be thrown out in this conversation…

“line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.”

Why aren’t these “truths” that the lds sect holds true spoken of in the first few studies with prospects? Isn’t a part truth a whole lie?

In Jesus,

-Cody
 
I’m curious. Are you suggesting that in Catholicism if you worship the Father, you aren’t worshipping the Son? Are you further suggesting that if you pray to the Father, you are somehow not praying to the Son also? In Mormonism, we believe that when we pray to the Father, it’s as if we are praying to the Son, because they are one (of course not “one” in the trinitarian sense). But, it seems your mode of worship is different, but that doesn’t mean that my mode of worship doesn’t include worship to the Son or an expression of my love for Him. I do this both by worshiping the Father and by worshipping the Son directly.
Kind Regards,
Finrock
It’s kind of funny, we pray to each of the members of the Trinity as individuals and LDS have derided the Trinity as an “amorphous blob” all the while treating the members of the Godhead as an amorphous blob (pray to one you pray to them all).
 
Good afternoon AdvanceAlways! It is nice to meet you. 🙂
The whole notion there is convoluted. You worship Heavenly Father who is not “one” with the Son yet the Son is the prime focus of your Church? Mormon Nontrinitarianism is polytheistic. Is this what you are saying?
Thank you for your questions and for giving me an opportunity clarify.

Here is what I said about God’s oneness: “In Mormonism, we believe that when we pray to the Father, it’s as if we are praying to the Son, because they are one (of course not “one” in the trinitarian sense).”

To answer your question directly: No, I wasn’t saying that the Father is not one with the Son. I explicitely stated that Heavenly Father and the Son are one. I then clarified that we do not understand them to be “one” in the trinitarian way. One of our apostles recently expressed that Mormons believe the Godhead to be one in every conceivable way except in essence. They are one in power, in knowledge, in wisdom, in will, in purpose, etc. Whatever the Father would do, the Son would do. If I say “Heavenly Father is great” I am also saying “Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are great” because they share the same divine qualities. If I love the Father, it is impossible for me not to love the Son also because they are in perfect agreement with each other and share perfectly the divine attributes.

Mormonism is not polytheistic and I was not saying that it is. “Latter-day Saints believe in ‘one God’ in the sense that they love and serve one Godhead, one divine presidency, each of whom possesses all of the attributes of Godhood” (Millet). For a bit more comprehensive overview of the LDS concept of the Godhead, you can look here.

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
How interesting.

It’s very interesting to find how skeptical Christians are of Mormonism whenever they ask non-Christians to simply accept everything the church says on faith. I mean, why only be skeptical towards Mormonism but not towards their own faith? It’s ridiculous. You’re supposed to accept things on faith as a Christian…no skepticism…so I fail to see why someone could not likewise accept the book of Mormon on faith as well.
 
Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus!

I have a brief observation…

On the Introduction page of the BoM it says:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

However, why doesn’t the BoM have the full and ‘everlasting gospel’ as declared by the LDS sect?

If the BoM contains the “fullness” of the everlasting gospel why doesn’t it mention anything about man becoming like God? Why doesn’t it mention anything about God being a man "like you and I’ prior to His “exaltation”?

Why doesn’t it teach some of the other teachings of the LDS sect?

Why doesn’t the BoM teach that Heavenly Father lives on Kolob?

If it’s the “fullness” of the everlasting gospel then it should contain the FULL message of the gospel as taught by the LDS sect.

After a year of belonging to the LDS sect I finally was taught some of these …

here a little and there a little…not all at once of course…

with my endowment in the temple my eyes were opened …that any student of scripture would have a hard time accepting.

The BoM is a nice story, but it isn’t the “fullness” of anything…let alone the “everlasting gospel”.

Why aren’t these “truths” that the LDS sect holds true spoken of in the first few studies with prospects?

In Jesus,

-Cody
Hi, Cody,
If you have read the Book of Mormon, you will have noted that Nephi was told that the apostle John had the assignment from God to write what he wrote in the Book of Revelation. In the Book of Revelation is where John talks about becoming a joint heir with Jesus Christ and what that means. Becoming a joint heir is receiving what the rightful heir receives by inheritance, that which Christ received by inheritance. The Book of Mormon does not talk about this because Nephi was told not to write about it.

The fullness of the gospel is comprised in having faith in Christ, repenting of sins, being baptized with full purpose of heart and no hypocrisy, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost to sanctify the soul of that person and to lead to all truth, continuing to hold fast to the iron rod and endure all the trials and adversities of life whilst continuing to believe in Christ and have hope in His promises which are sure, including the promise of eternal life with Him and with His Father, Our Father in Heaven. It includes being willing to recognize the voice of the Spirit in one’s life so that one can continue to change and progress and learn. It includes being willing to listen to the counsel of prophets called by God to guide those who understand the need for prophets to bring messages to those who want the continuing guidance of God in their lives.

The Book of Mormon says there are things which are “not lawful to be uttered” which are a part of the fullness of the gospel. So those things are not uttered. Promises and covenants are kept by God’s covenant people. Period.
 
Greetings to you as well cdyblr! It is a pleasure to meet you. 🙂
On the Introduction page of the BoM is says:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

However, why doesn’t the BoM have the full and ‘everlasting gospel’ as declared by the lds sect?
The best way that I know to address this concern is to relate to Catholicism. In the Catholic church, not all Catholic doctrine is found in the Bible. Catholics believe that scripture is found in the Bible and in the Sacred Traditions.

In the same way, not all LDS doctrine is found in the Book of Mormon, but that is not to say that the Book of Mormon does not contain the fullness of the everlasting gospel. All gospel is doctrine, but not all doctrine is gospel. There is a rough equivalency here to compare to within Catholicism where it is true that all dogmas are doctrine, but not all doctrine are dogmas. So, what is the difference between doctrine and gospel?

The word gospel is derived from an Old English word which means, roughly, “good news”. In Christianity, this “good news” is that Jesus Christ has atoned for our sins, and through the process that Jesus has outlined, we can be forgiven and have eternal life. In Mormonism, the gospel of Jesus Christ is this: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentence. Baptism for the remission of sins. Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) by the laying on of hands, and enduring in righteousness to the end of our life. This is the message of the Book of Mormon. Over and over, through out it’s pages, it pleads for mankind to have faith in Jesus Christ, to repent of their sins, to be baptized for a remission of sins, to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and to stay on the path of righteousness to the end. This is the fulness of the everlasting gospel and this is the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon. This is not to say that there aren’t other things taught in the Book of Mormon, also. But, even so, not all Mormon doctrine is found in the Book of Mormon, but everything in the Book of Mormon is Mormon doctrine and it contains the fulness of the gospel message.

I hope this anwered your questions and was helpful in understanding Mormonism a bit more.

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
How interesting.

It’s very interesting to find how skeptical Christians are of Mormonism whenever they ask non-Christians to simply accept everything the church says on faith. I mean, why only be skeptical towards Mormonism but not towards their own faith? It’s ridiculous. You’re supposed to accept things on faith as a Christian…no skepticism…so I fail to see why someone could not likewise accept the book of Mormon on faith as well.
You are absolutely right. Christianity is about faith and doubt. Both go hand in hand in christianity. For example, mother teresa and saint therese both had crisies of faith by experiencing doubt. And if saints of the church experienced doubt, I can assure you many average catholics go through faith and doubt. However, on this section of the forum, the goal is basically to sow doubt about mormonism. What is often overlooked is that in christianity, it is very easy to be perveyors of doubt if one wants to be, regardless of the faith involved.
 
Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus!

As a Catholic who was duped by the lds sect I can appreciate this conversation.

I have a brief observation…

On the Introduction page of the BoM is says:

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

However, why doesn’t the BoM have the full and ‘everlasting gospel’ as declared by the lds sect?

-Cody
The lds church has always claimed the importance of revelation through its prophets. The book of mormon is not exactly the fullness of the gospel since mormons believe that more information will be discovered. You will need to read that part of the introduction carefully. And also remember, the introduction was written by people and it is not canon for the lds church. The bible contains the fullness as does the book of mormon. But then again, the mormons also have the doctrine and covenants and pearl of great price, more fullness of the gospel.

And what exactly is a sect? I think that the catholic church is a sect inside christianity, right?
 
and do Mormons think more of it then they do about the Bible, How wrote the book of Mormon
I think that old bill is up to his old tricks. Bill knows the answer to his own question. He just wants to stir the pot a little.
 
Multipart question.

From my Catholic perspective, the best message (other than what was plagirized from the Bible) one can get from the BOM is God’s consequences upon those who practice hatred, racism, and revenge and do not respect His creation. That message came from Solomon Spalding’s original text.

Oh, and Joseph lied. :rolleyes:
If one reads the old testament one will find a pretty intolerent god. Lots wife was turned to salt for looking back. Quite harsh in my opinion. And the poor soldiers of pharoh were drowned for following orders. They were quite innocent and yet were murdered by god. Quite harsh. And then we have the jews as a chosen people—quite racist and the middle east is still feeling the effects of that—the zionists still claim land based on the bible. Racist? The old testament is filled with hatred, revenge, and racism.

And we need to remember that before christ came in the book of mormon, old testament rules applied.
 
Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, and Joseph Smith then plagirized from Spalding’s text.
Easy to say, but more difficult to prove. Both Rigdon and Cowdery never cried fraud and they certainly had reasons to do so, if they wished. Oliver was excommunicated and Sidney was overlooked when JS was murdered. Both could have come clean. But Oliver eventually came back, giving his testimony of the book of mormon and Sidney denied ever having anything to do with the book of mormon on his deathbed. Strange, right?
 
I still don’t get why the Savior is perceived by Catholics as loving, forgiving, (totally true) but never giving or authorizing punishment when a group of people is fully ripe in their iniquity and sinfullness, and as Catholic20064 said that if the Savior had come to the Americas He would never ever have first caused cataclysmic natural disasters to remove the most wicked who had fought against Him, before appearing as the resurrected Christ (fully God) to this small group of people.
We go by the words of the Lord Jesus Himself: (John 3:17)
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” This is yet more evidence that the LDS worships a different god. He changes. He morphs. He has sex with a virgin to produce his solely human son. He is but one of many. Like I said, a much different god.
I also don’t understand the notion that I am “in danger” if the Catholic belief is that Christ can and will teach everyone Himself and give that love and forgiveness that He showed in the New Testament, to everyone, since He came not to condemn the world but to save the world (including me, since I am a sinner).
So, how did “Jesus” condemn the “civilizations” in the new world, then? This contradicts your first paragraph. So, the LDS can have it both ways? You are forbidden to worship “Jesus”, and rightly so, as your “Jesus” is only a man. You deny His deity, and so insult the Father. You think this is pleasing to God? Come on, you’ve been through this all before. Feigned coyness only reveals what appears to be duplicity.
Despite these continued questions, I appreciate the sincerity expressed.
The fact that you are not used to your faith being questioned is telling.
I have first person absolute sure and pure knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true and those prophets lived and taught and recorded the words God wanted some of the people in the world to know in these last days. I also have absolute sure and pure knowledge that the Bible is true in its original language, and contains the words God wants all the world to know in these last days. People can choose to read them, or not, to believe them, or not. Their choices in these matters have consequences, but that is the way it should be.
You also have “sure and pure knowledge” that you will be a god and have your own planet. Where is that in the bible that you hold so high? NOT. Why would you seek such power over other humans? How does this follow the teaching of your “savior” to “deny yourself”? (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) It does not.
 
Greetings to you as well cdyblr! It is a pleasure to meet you. 🙂

The best way that I know to address this concern is to relate to Catholicism. In the Catholic Church, not all Catholic doctrine is found in the Bible. Catholics believe that scripture is found in the Bible and in the Sacred Traditions.
This is a flawed argument. The Catholic Church is very upfront in stating that it doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). The Church is very upfront in stating that it accepts Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition.

I don’t believe there is a book that is published by the Catholic Church that states “this book contains the FULLNESS of the everlasting gospel”? I could be wrong…

However, when you compare teaching of the Catholic Faith (i.e. Sacred Tradition) that isn’t mentioned in the Bible to mormonism’s “continued revelation” you stand in error.
Sacred Tradition as accepted by the Catholic Church doesn’t = so called modern revelation.

There never was anything mentioned in Sacred Scripture or Tradition that says man can become a god. Nor does Sacred Scripture/Tradition state that man will populate worlds with his own spirit children, nor does it state that HF was once a man, nor does it state that HF had a god over him, and a god over that god, and a god over that god (ad nauseam)…etc.

These, unfortunately, are all modern revelations (i.e. fables invented by JS and/or his predecessors).
 
Wow lot’s of info
First of all I was a mormon for around 15 years, I was in it, lived it, everything.
Thankfully i’m out now, I seen the light! -Celebration Dance-
But Yes, The book of mormon is like…a storybook if you will. It does teach good things, but it was not written by god, or any hand directed by god.

The golden plates were not real either, apparently Joseph was the only one who saw them. He had to ‘decode’ them by looking into a hat with stones and looking through special glasses.

Sorry to rain on your parade but I thought that you should read this:

John Whitmer

John Whitmer was born August 27, 1802. He was the third son of Peter and Mary Whitmer. John first met Joseph Smith in June 1829 when David Whitmer brought Joseph, Emma, and Oliver Cowdery to the Whitmer homestead in Fayette, New York to complete the translation of the Book of Mormon. He assisted Joseph and Oliver by compiling and transcribing Joseph’s revelations. It was at the end of that same month that John was chosen to be one of the Eight Witnesses. He also kept the first history of the church spanning 1831- 1838. In April 1831 he was called as the church’s first official historian. That same year he was ordained as a High Priest. He followed the church to Kirtland, Ohio, and assisted members who were being persecuted in Missouri. On February 10, 1833, he married Sarah Jackson, in Jackson County, Missouri. They would have 5 children.

John would act as an assistant president of the church in Missouri. The position would go to his head a bit, though. He began to purchase property for personal use in Missouri using church funds, and tried to run the church in Missouri independent of the High Council. This would eventually lead to his excommunication. John Whitmer was officially excommunicated from the Church by the High Council at Far West, Missouri, March 10, 1838. By this time he owned 100’s of acres of land in Caldwell County Missouri. After his ex-communication he left Far West and resided in Richmond, MO, until the Mormons were forced out of Missouri into Illinois. After the Saint’s expulsion in 1839 John moved back to Far West where he lived out the remainder of his days as a successful farmer and livestock rancher. John died July 11, 1878, never officially rejoining the church.

There are two notable times that John Whitmer defended his testimony of seeing the plates, after leaving the church. The first was on April 5, 1835, when he was accompanying 8 of a group of 50 men who had sworn to not eat or drink until they had murdered “Joe” Smith. In other words, he was with a bunch of guys slightly hostile to the church. The 8 of them approached Theodore Turley, an elder in the church. They handed Elder Turley a revelation of Joseph Smith’s that they were convinced would never happen. They taunted him claiming this was proof that Joseph was a false prophet and demanded that he denounce the church once the revelation had passed without fulfillment. Turley scoffed at them defending the revelation then turned to John Whitmer and said,

“There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false?" Whitmer, asked, “Do you hint at me?” Elder Turley said, “If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith.” John replied: “I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.” Then he described in the presence of these bitter enemies how the plates were fastened and he said, “They were shown to me by a supernatural power.”

That was a pretty gutsy response considering he was associating with people who were out for violence against Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Incidentally, the revelation did happen when and where it was said to have. But that’s a subject for a whole other webpage.

The 2nd account came from what was probably John Whitmer’s final interview before his death. It’s funny how all these witnesses who leave the church keep reaffirming their testimonies on their deathbed. What does that tell you? Anyway, this Q&A was published a few weeks after John’s death.

Q - I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates?
A - It is so, and that testimony is true.
Q - Did you handle the plates with your hands?
A - I did so!
Q - Then they were a material substance?
A - Yes, as material as anything can be.
Q - Were they heavy to lift?
A - Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal: they were very heavy.
Q - How big were the leaves?
A - So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or seven inches.
Q - Were the leaves thick?
A - Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.
Q - How were the leaves joined together?
A - In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the center.
Q - In what place did you see the plates?
A - In Joseph Smith’s house; he had them there.
Q - Did you see them covered with a cloth?
A - No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.

moroni10.com/witnesses/John_Whitmer.html

Quite powerful stuff.
 
I did a google search on this, especially on the first question: “I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates?”

The only places this is referenced is on LDS apologetic sites.
Sorry to rain on your parade but I thought that you should read this:

John Whitmer

John Whitmer was born August 27, 1802. He was the third son of Peter and Mary Whitmer. John first met Joseph Smith in June 1829 when David Whitmer brought Joseph, Emma, and Oliver Cowdery to the Whitmer homestead in Fayette, New York to complete the translation of the Book of Mormon. He assisted Joseph and Oliver by compiling and transcribing Joseph’s revelations. It was at the end of that same month that John was chosen to be one of the Eight Witnesses. He also kept the first history of the church spanning 1831- 1838. In April 1831 he was called as the church’s first official historian. That same year he was ordained as a High Priest. He followed the church to Kirtland, Ohio, and assisted members who were being persecuted in Missouri. On February 10, 1833, he married Sarah Jackson, in Jackson County, Missouri. They would have 5 children.

John would act as an assistant president of the church in Missouri. The position would go to his head a bit, though. He began to purchase property for personal use in Missouri using church funds, and tried to run the church in Missouri independent of the High Council. This would eventually lead to his excommunication. John Whitmer was officially excommunicated from the Church by the High Council at Far West, Missouri, March 10, 1838. By this time he owned 100’s of acres of land in Caldwell County Missouri. After his ex-communication he left Far West and resided in Richmond, MO, until the Mormons were forced out of Missouri into Illinois. After the Saint’s expulsion in 1839 John moved back to Far West where he lived out the remainder of his days as a successful farmer and livestock rancher. John died July 11, 1878, never officially rejoining the church.

There are two notable times that John Whitmer defended his testimony of seeing the plates, after leaving the church. The first was on April 5, 1835, when he was accompanying 8 of a group of 50 men who had sworn to not eat or drink until they had murdered “Joe” Smith. In other words, he was with a bunch of guys slightly hostile to the church. The 8 of them approached Theodore Turley, an elder in the church. They handed Elder Turley a revelation of Joseph Smith’s that they were convinced would never happen. They taunted him claiming this was proof that Joseph was a false prophet and demanded that he denounce the church once the revelation had passed without fulfillment. Turley scoffed at them defending the revelation then turned to John Whitmer and said,

“There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false?" Whitmer, asked, “Do you hint at me?” Elder Turley said, “If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith.” John replied: “I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.” Then he described in the presence of these bitter enemies how the plates were fastened and he said, “They were shown to me by a supernatural power.”

That was a pretty gutsy response considering he was associating with people who were out for violence against Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Incidentally, the revelation did happen when and where it was said to have. But that’s a subject for a whole other webpage.

The 2nd account came from what was probably John Whitmer’s final interview before his death. It’s funny how all these witnesses who leave the church keep reaffirming their testimonies on their deathbed. What does that tell you? Anyway, this Q&A was published a few weeks after John’s death.

Q - I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates?
A - It is so, and that testimony is true.
Q - Did you handle the plates with your hands?
A - I did so!
Q - Then they were a material substance?
A - Yes, as material as anything can be.
Q - Were they heavy to lift?
A - Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal: they were very heavy.
Q - How big were the leaves?
A - So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or seven inches.
Q - Were the leaves thick?
A - Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.
Q - How were the leaves joined together?
A - In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the center.
Q - In what place did you see the plates?
A - In Joseph Smith’s house; he had them there.
Q - Did you see them covered with a cloth?
A - No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.

moroni10.com/witnesses/John_Whitmer.html

Quite powerful stuff.
 
Wow lot’s of info
First of all I was a mormon for around 15 years, I was in it, lived it, everything.
Thankfully i’m out now, I seen the light! -Celebration Dance-

The golden plates were not real either, apparently Joseph was the only one who saw them. He had to ‘decode’ them by looking into a hat with stones and looking through special glasses.

I kinda feel sorry for you. You obviously did not know your former lds faith very well as my previous post proves. John Whitmer saw the plates and touched them. And yet, he left the lds church but never denied what he saw. And you were a mormon for 15 years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top