C
cthulhubryan
Guest
True, it is not obviously false.
The statement “it is not obviously false” is not the same as the statement “it is obviously not false”
Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?
- Status
The statement “it is not obviously false” is not the same as the statement “it is obviously not false”
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Things like this always remind me of Oral Roberts “And a 900 foot Jesus appeared unto me telling me that if I didn’t raise 1 million dollars then God would call me home”
God is not a mafioso.
R
ricko
Guest
There are ten problems with the eleven witnesses and why they cannot be believed.
None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested some $5,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to ‘promote’ the book.
Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn’t 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates
The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like ‘second sight’, divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph’s First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media.
And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn’t make much sense to leave the true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true.
AMEN
None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested some $5,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to ‘promote’ the book.
Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn’t 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates
The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like ‘second sight’, divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph’s First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media.
And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn’t make much sense to leave the true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true.
AMEN
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Stop. Just for a second. Stop. Think about what you just said.
True, the LDS baptism is invalid so as far as the Church is considered it is the same as a swim. However, in order to receive LDS baptism you have to accept certain things as true including the concept of polytheism, multiple heavens, and apotheosis. You also have to deny certain revealed Truths such as original sin, the nature of Christs divinity, and the concept of Jesus’ perfection.
This is similar to saying “In school they taught me that 5x5=25 but I could never get that answer so I believe that 5x5=55, but I still believe that 5x5=25”
This leads the educated person with only two possible conclusions; one is that you are very gullible and the second is that perhaps you have an organic affective disorder.
Please see a doctor.
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Sister Emma didn’t like coffee and tea and thus the revelation.
Let’s put something else to rest while we are here. Over the years the LDS Church has in fact owned large chunks of PepsiCo, Anheiser Bush, Miller, etc. They never own them long however.
What happens is that people will die and leave large pieces of their estate to the LDS Church which sometimes includes large chunks of stock. The LDS Church is very good about moving anything that conflicts with their beliefs. They will dump stock that day and not even hold it for a few weeks to try to get more $$$. There are about 5 people in the COB who monitor what the church owns. Other times it happens that the Church may own stock in Company A when it is taken over by Company B who also owns something icky and thus the Church will dump company A even at a loss.
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
They are not unique in that perspective. All human beings and human institutions do so.LDS ignore everything that is inconvenient.
D
dianaiad
Guest
The Word of Wisdom makes sense, medically and nutritionally. Our present prohibition against coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco may be based upon the Word of Wisdom, but it’s not about the harmful effects of substances in them. It’s about a promise we made.
When you give up something for Lent, do you do so because whatever you give up is intrinsically harmful, or for another reason? Do you keep that promise to abstain from whatever it is because it is intrinsically harmful, or because you promised and intend to keep the promise?
Think about that, and then I think you can understand a bit better why we abstain from coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco. It’s not about the caffeine; if it were, then decaff would be fine–and it’s not. If it were, then diet coke drinkers would be refused Temple recommends, and they aren’t.
It is about a promise.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Which, if you think about it, makes their testimony more believable, not less.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Lent is a time of interior pilgrimage towards Him. Giving up something during Lent is based on penance, not promise. Doing something extra (good works) is just as good as obstaining.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Thanks for the explanation. I’ll go with that.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Thanks Rebecca. Dianaiad’s explanation wasn’t sitting right with me and it comes down to the comparison with Lent. It doesn’t compare.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Amen.
E
Eliza10
Guest
This all bears repeating, so here it is again!
“Why me”, you probably are not familiar with the lives of Saints, or you wouldn’t be defending Joseph Smith. Smith in comparison to any of the Saints not only sinks to the ground, but he sinks below the ground.
What Rick printed above is similar to what would be expected from a witness of a Saint. The cananization proces (required for naming a Saint) is very rigid and not one of the witnesses of Smith would be considered for a moment because of things mentioned above.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
No, in many ways, but that is the most defining. Others would be, your priest isn’t interviewing you to determine how faithful you are/were to you Lenten sacrifice. And, if you mess up, you aren’t denied anything by the Church.
It’s about a deepened journey towards Christ, as we liturgically re-live His Passion, Death and Resurrection. Not about perfection in promise-keeping.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Exactly right, Rebecca. As you have noted, what you do for Lent isn’t the important thing. You may abstain from something, or DO something, but the point is, once you pick it, then you made the promise. The important thing is to follow through with whatever it is you chose to do, on your personal journey of faith.
We picked abstaining from coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco. We COULD have picked something else in the Word of Wisdom, (like, oh, we could have become warm weather vegetarians, for instance, or something else…) but we picked these things. Having made the promise, then we have bound ourselves to keep it.
Like those things you do for Lent, whether abstaining or doing, it’s not about the thing you do, or abstain from; it’s about the reason you do it, and the promise you made TO do it.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
It’s not about a promise. There is no penitential aspect to the WoW.
E
Eliza10
Guest
“Why me”, here are some places to read soem stories about Saints:
saintsforsinners.com/stories.html
bishopantony.org/saints/index.htm
Some of my favorites:
St. Teresa of Liseaux, The Little Flower:
http://michaelguth.com/myblog/pictures/st_therese.jpg
St. Elizabeth Seton (her conversion, in George Washington’s time, cost her place in society among other hardships):
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
St. Thomas More (wonderful portrayal in “Man for All Seasons”, often cited as one of the top ten films ever:
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/more/thomas.jpg
**St. Elizabeth of Hungary **her story is here: gesuiti.it/moscati/English2/En_ElisUngheria2.html :
italia.gesuiti.it
St. John Vianny (and they called him a dolt!):
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
St. Joan of Arc (Mark Twains book on her is wonderful, and he considered it his finest work):
http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/joan-of-arc.jpg
St. Louis (King of Fance) wonderful stories of him to be found:
http://www.stlouiscathedral.org/slx_cropped[1].jpg
saintsforsinners.com/stories.html
bishopantony.org/saints/index.htm
Some of my favorites:
St. Teresa of Liseaux, The Little Flower:
http://michaelguth.com/myblog/pictures/st_therese.jpg
St. Elizabeth Seton (her conversion, in George Washington’s time, cost her place in society among other hardships):
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
St. Thomas More (wonderful portrayal in “Man for All Seasons”, often cited as one of the top ten films ever:
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/more/thomas.jpg
**St. Elizabeth of Hungary **her story is here: gesuiti.it/moscati/English2/En_ElisUngheria2.html :
Gesuiti - Provincia Euro-Mediterranea
La Compagnia di Gesù è un ordine religioso maschile fondato da Ignazio di Loyola nel 1540. Scopri cosa fanno i gesuiti in Italia, Albania, Malta e Romania
italia.gesuiti.it
St. John Vianny (and they called him a dolt!):
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
St. Joan of Arc (Mark Twains book on her is wonderful, and he considered it his finest work):
http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/joan-of-arc.jpg
St. Louis (King of Fance) wonderful stories of him to be found:
http://www.stlouiscathedral.org/slx_cropped[1].jpg
W
why_me
Guest
Saint Therese is my favorite. Have you seen the movie:Therese directed by Leonardo Defilippis? You should see it. Now of course, her little way is something that you should follow. Her goal was to create a heaven on earth by doing good through little everyday things. This is what makes her so special.
To be honest, the antimormon catholics do not seem to understand her life nor the life of Kathleen Drexel or Elizabeth Ann Seton. All did good and became saints. And I am sure that they would not waste their time condemning mormons.
Oh by the way, I have saint therese’s statue in my two homes and her photo in my office. But I also have saint faustina who suffered greatly from judgemental catholics in her own convent.
W
why_me
Guest
You still don’t get it. It is not about substance but a promise. But recent research has shown the the lds word of wisdom did turn out to be wise.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
No, it is you who does not get it.
Recent research shows benefits to wine and coffee.Pretty much mormons ignore the part about eating meat sparingly.
- Status