@scojosCopy and paste? I'm sure your sources have credibility,
but please present them a little better.@LDS RevelationsYou said - "It makes far more sense to me that the BoM is not what it
claims to be than to think that a God who want's His children to know his
plan of happiness would purposely make His truth appear illogical and man made
as a test."One could make the same argument about the Bible.
After all, if Noah really built an arc and had two of every animal on it, why
then are some animals in the world only specific to certain continents? Did Noah
have tons of snakes on the arc? And what the fish? Where's the
evidence to explain how the Red Sea was divided in two? You said -
"One can almost hear God saying "I gave you this brain to think with but
will now use it against you as a test. I'll trick you by hiding my truth
under this mountain of evidence that points directly to fraud. Best of
luck."There are people who use their brain so much, they refuse
to listen to any argument except their own.
@Red CorvetteYou said - "And it is further unlikely that any of
the witnesses would ever recant their stories because that would be an admission
of fraud in the first place."I know this is the newest argument
by LDS critics as a means of getting around the fact no Book of Mormon witness
ever recanted seeing the plates. I know for awhile the critics argued the
witnesses were all mentally ill, but since they couldn't back up this
claim, they had to find a new strategy. @JoeBlowYou
said - "If he had recanted and say he made it all up, wouldn't the
faithful discredit his deathbed confession?"One could argue the
same hypothetical about anything. If I were to say, "I'm sure if
several Book of Mormon cities were discovered tomorrow, the critics would just
dismiss those who found them as immoral loonie," would that really win
anyone to my side? This kind of argument holds about as much water
as a cup holder.
@LDS RevelationsYou simply are not aware of all the evidence in
favor of the Book of Mormon. Volumes and volumes have been written about the
witnesses, the ancient literary patterns in the book that Joseph Smith did not
know about, etc. What is illogical, are the numerous theories by critics of how
the Book of Mormon came to be - critics cannot even agree on which loose theory
they support. Not to mention the contrived explanations by critics about the
witnesses - the "spiritual eyes" theory nonsense, etc.Having
a sincere and humble heart, and asking God confirms its truth. Its too bad that
it makes so many people angry, because the Book of Mormon's truthfulness is
such a wonderful thing.
@lds revelationsThe first principles and ordinances of the Gospel
are, first FAITH in Jesus Christ, second Repentance, third baptism by immersion
for remission of sins etc.Joseph SmithIf you read the
tangible evidence of the Book of Mormon it plainly teaches about Jesus Christ
atoning for the sins of the world and man's opportunity for exaltation.
@ iron&clay-"The tangible evidence of the Book of Mormon is
all the evidence given by Divine design with intent to test the faith and
eligibility for exaltation of individuals to inherit the Celestial
Kingdom."And you know this how? Where is that said in scripture?
Which Prophet said this? It makes far more sense to me that the BoM
is not what it claims to be than to think that a God who want's His
children to know his plan of happiness would purposely make His truth appear
illogical and man made as a test. One can almost hear God saying "I gave you
this brain to think with but will now use it against you as a test. I'll
trick you by hiding my truth under this mountain of evidence that points
directly to fraud. Best of luck."Or is the Book of Mormon not
ancient and a product of 19th century as it appears to be?
The tangible evidence of the Book of Mormon is all the evidence given by Divine
design with intent to test the faith and eligibility for exaltation of
individuals to inherit the Celestial Kingdom. That is what mortality (this life)
is all about.
Joe Moe,My point is this.This goes to religion in
general, but lets use the LDS.They KNOW that the BOM is true.
Therefore, any contradictory information has to have an explanation. Staunch
believers leave absolutely no room for the possibility that it is not true.In searching for the truth, one must leave all possibilities on the
table.Me? I dont know. I think the LDS may have the correct
religious flavor. But, I also leave open the possibility that the Buddhists or
Muslims may also be the correct one.And, then there is the real
possibility that there is no higher being.I don't know. And
that does not bother me.Show me a religion that does not have a
power, control and money as key elements and you may pique my interest. Until
then, they all look to be contrived by man for gain.
JoeBlow, you are arguing with hypotheticals, not facts. Might as well say,
"What if he also said 'I saw a pink monkey reading the
Bible'!" Testimony shared over decades, until death especially, is
historically given more credence than a random statement, or one that is later
rescinded, for logical reasons.Also (attn: scojos) remember that
there were 12 people who signed their names to their statements, and never
changed their statements, so focusing on one witness is a red herring, anyway.
Believe MH or not, but what about the rest? They said they saw or held the
plates themselves. It would a be a strange court of law that would take
affidavits from twelve adults saying they saw/held something, with no evidence
to the contrary, and not accept it as legal fact.After all, besides
skepticism (which is not all bad, may I say, if it is used wisely), what
evidence does ANYONE have that they did NOT see/hold the plates? Believe what you may about the contents or use of the plates, why would anyone
work so hard to debunk their existence, in the face of strong supporting
evidence and no contradictory evidence? This perplexes me. My3commentsAreUp:(
@Joe Moe-#1On 11 August 1838, Seventy Warren Parrish
wrote in a letter, “Martin Harris, one of the subscribing witnesses,
has come out at last, and says he never saw the plates, from which the
book purports to have been translated, except in a vision, and he further says
that any man who has says he has seen them in any other way is a liar,
Joseph [Smith] not excepted.” (Warren Parrish to E. Holmes, 11 Aug.
1838, The Evangelist) (Palmer, p. 205) “Harris testified to Anthony
Metcalf of Elk Horn Idaho, that ‘I never saw the golden plates, only
in a visionary or entranced state… While praying, I passed into a state of
entrancement, and in that state, I saw the angel and the
plates.’” (Martin Harris interview by Anthony Metcalf).
(Palmer, p 198)
Ok, so the premise is that Mr Harris did not recant his story on his deathbed.
And that adds credence to the truthfulness.Hypothetical question.If he had recanted and say he made it all up, wouldn't the faithful
discredit his deathbed confession?just saying.
This is "The man who knew""Until 1831, Harris lived in
Palmyra, New York, where he was a prosperous farmer. Harris's neighbors
considered him both an honest and superstitious man. A biographer wrote that
Harris's "imagination was excitable and fecund." For example,
Harris once imagined that a sputtering candle was the work of the devil. An
acquaintance said that Harris claimed to have seen Jesus in the shape of a deer
and walked and talked with him for two or three miles. The local
Presbyterian minister called him "a visionary fanatic." A friend, who
praised Harris as being "universally esteemed as an honest man," also
declared that Harris's mind "was overbalanced by
'marvellousness'" and that his belief in earthly visitations of
angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy. "
John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked
Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?"
According to Gilbert, Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes
up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.'" Two
other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates
with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes." In 1838,
Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the
plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination." A neighbor
of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen
[the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." NEED MORE ??
@Joe Moe"would it not have been easier for such to say they were
wrong, or lied under pressure, or some such excuse? "Hypothetically, if it were all made up and you're one of the main people
in it, you have thousands of followers who sacrificed a lot to join the
church... are you sure you really want to tell them it's all made up?
I'm pretty sure that runs a high risk of ending violently.
Red Corvette, not sure where you got the "spiritual eyes" thing, but
even if one witness phrased it that way, there were eleven plus witnesses who
saw the gold plates, and some of them held the plates. So you'll have to
expand your skepticism.Also, in the face of skeptics like yourself,
and having apostatized from the church as some of them did, would it not have
been easier for such to say they were wrong, or lied under pressure, or some
such excuse? Yet even those witnesses who were estranged from the church never
recanted their testimony of the plates, or the angel that presented the plates
to some of them.
Awesome story, thanks!