Smith made sure nobody could SEE anything. . . [Archive]

alanmolstad

03-03-2014, 03:55 AM

As for the issue of not allowing people to see the plates:

Here is what i think of that whole topic.

If I were wanting to fool people, then I would do about the same as what Smith did.

If I had some fake plates that I made myself, and then came up with a story about finding them in the backyard, the last thing I would do is try to really prove my story to people.

I would NEVER send them off to a University to be researched!

In-fact, i would never want the plates photographed even!

I would hide them.....under the bed if guests came over that I didn't know...
I would make sure that the people that did see them had some type of investment in them being real before I let them see them, and i would NEVER allow the plates to examined by scientists or real researchers or anyone for the matter who were not members already of my inner circle .

The idea i would have is that any person i even allow to glimpse quickly the plates would have a vested interest in the plates being real,

After all the best way to fool people is to get people to fool themselves.

On the other hand, it does kinda mean also that a lot of people are going to be wise to the scam I'm pulling on people because of the way I'm hiding the plates from being studied and verified as would be the real case if I actually had found some plates in my backyard.

I mean, lets face it, if I actually did dig up something ( like a dinosaur bone, or plates of Gold) my first response would be to call in some experts from the University to come have a look and take the bone off for study.

I do know that at work one time we dug down 36 'feet and found a tree branch with bark on it.
I took it to the guy who is in charge of the University geology department and he dated it between 8,000 and 18,000 years for me .

One time we also dug down about 10 feet at work and found a bone that I took to a local University professor and it was identified as a Bison foot bone from a young animal....again likely 100s of years old.

So I do understand the difference between what would be expected if the thing a person claims to have found is FAKE or not.

Christian

03-04-2014, 10:38 AM

You're mistaken. At least eleven other people saw the engravings on the plates.

NOT ONE of them saw any engravings THEY COULD UNDERSTAND. NOT ONE could say 'yep, Joe got it right' regarding the supposed 'translation' of those plates. . .

NOT ONE.

In the Name of Jesus,
fish

RealFakeHair

03-04-2014, 11:22 AM

NOT ONE of them saw any engravings THEY COULD UNDERSTAND. NOT ONE could say 'yep, Joe got it right' regarding the supposed 'translation' of those plates. . .

NOT ONE.

In the Name of Jesus,
fish

Remember the lost 119 pages. Oh jo was smart not to re-translate them. I wonder why?

Erundur

03-04-2014, 11:51 AM

NOT ONE of them saw any engravings THEY COULD UNDERSTAND.
Much better.

Phoenix

03-04-2014, 05:18 PM

As for the issue of not allowing people to see the plates:
Here is what i think of that whole topic.
If I were wanting to fool people, then I would do about the same as what Smith did.

Didn't Moses do about the same as what Smith did--he claimed that God had written commandments on a piece of rock, and everyone had to take his word for it since he made sure that he was the only "witness" to this miraculous recording process?

If I had some fake plates that I made myself, and then came up with a story about finding them in the backyard, the last thing I would do is try to really prove my story to people.
I would NEVER send them off to a University to be researched!

Did Moses ever send the stone 10 commandments tablets off to The Hebrew University to be researched? No

In-fact, i would never want the plates photographed even!
Did Moses ever allow the stone 10 commandments tablets to be photographed? No

I would hide them.....under the bed if guests came over that I didn't know...
Didn't Moses hide the stone 10 commandments tablets inside a box and forbid everyone except a few chosen ones to look inside?

I would make sure that the people that did see them had some type of investment in them being real before I let them see them
Didn't Moses make sure that the only people allowed to look inside the Ark were men, men who had some type of investment in his religion?

, and i would NEVER allow the plates to examined by scientists or real researchers or anyone for the matter who were not members already of my inner circle .
And Moses never did any of that stuff. Am I wrong?

After all the best way to fool people is to get people to fool themselves.
Isn't that what anti-Semites could say about Jews who believe that those stone tablets really existed, and were really written on by God Himself--that the best way to fool people is to get people to fool themselves?

I mean, lets face it, if I actually did dig up something ( like a dinosaur bone, or plates of Gold) my first response would be to call in some experts from the University to come have a look and take the bone off for study.
But let's face it--if God had led you the thing you dug up, and it was something sacred, and God had told you NOT to call in experts from the University, you'd probably obey God....wouldn't you?

alanmolstad

03-04-2014, 06:43 PM

Didn't Moses do about the same as what Smith did--
you mean part the Red Sea?......yes i remember it was in all the papers........quite a thing to behold....brought a tear to my eye...

Phoenix

03-04-2014, 07:17 PM

you mean part the Red Sea?......yes i remember it was in all the papers.....
Not in any Egyptian papers, apparently....

alanmolstad

03-04-2014, 07:50 PM

Not in any Egyptian papers, apparently....oh I don't know about that....have you checked the Reformed-Egyptian Times for a story about Smith parting the Red Sea?

Phoenix

03-04-2014, 11:02 PM

oh I don't know about that....have you checked the Reformed-Egyptian Times for a story about Smith parting the Red Sea?

Can you post a HTML link to it?

alanmolstad

03-05-2014, 06:29 AM

I don't think it was actually Moses that inspired Smith when he was developing his cover story, however there is a source that I think is very credible as being what Smith had in mind at the time.

While the connections between Smith's religious teachings and the masons is strong and well documented, I actually think that there is a stronger source of inspiration that Joe Smith relied on when he dreamed up his back-story/cover-story to his Goldenish Plates.

I think that Smith took aspects from the traditional story behind the Quran and used it as his framework for the story he invented for the Plate's so-called "discovery".

Back in Bible school I learned about different religions and their history.
One of the things I noticed is that the way Smith seems to have been inspired by the story told about the origin of Islam.

(Muslims believe that the Quran was verbally revealed from God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel.)

I think Smith was inspired by the romance of the mystical teachings of Islam's beginnings, and about the history of the Holy land.
I think that Smith saw in the story of the origin of Islam a type of theme that he liked.
The way the Quran is so venerated by believers.
The way the Quran is seen as being so perfectly translated to people from heaven.
The way that Muhammad is honored, and that he every word is taken as being directly from God , person-to-person.
Even the use of the term "Prophet" in Islam seems to be an influence here.

Now as far as the idea of putting a rock in a hat?...and where that idea came from?....Thats another subject...LOL

alanmolstad

03-05-2014, 07:07 AM

if God had led you the thing you dug up, and it was something sacred, and God had told you NOT to call in experts from the University, you'd probably obey God....wouldn't you?

I think a while back I went into this question before, perhaps with Fig?....

Im not sure what we were talking about at the time, but at some point in our conversation we came to the similar question of "Would Alan do something God told him to do, if what God said went against the teachings of the Bible?"

My answer then is the same answer I got now....my answer is "No!"

Now this struck some posters here as being contradictory of me , in that I claim to be a good Christian and a true believer in God, yet if I was ever told a message by God, (or an angel sent by God) that disagreed with what I read in the bible, that I would disregard the newer message in favor of the Bible's message.

But my reasons for this are based on the scripture that the "faith" was once for all delivered to us.
There is nothing new coming down the pipe....Nothing new that changes what is already taught.

Therefore if any spirit, angel, or a divine being claiming to be 'a god' brings me a message that is different than what we already have in the Bible I would reject it instantly.

I also remember that one Bible verse that specifically warned us about things like Mormonism that are going to pop up in the later days, and to be on guard against them.

Therefore...um...where was I?
One moment while I review what I started talking about...

Oh yes, the question of God telling me stuff that is crazy and my following them?....ahh...My answer is, "Not a chance".

Jesus was a ministry of openness, Nothing Jesus taught was in secret....nothing was to remain hidden.
So if God ever did decide to send Alan a message?, well thats fine with me as long as the good Lord conforms his message to being in complete agreement with what is already taught in the Bible, then I got no issues with it.

But if God were to send me an angel with a message, and a new set of teachings that go against the Bible?.....I believe my response to that angel would be "Bite me"

Phoenix

03-05-2014, 03:55 PM

"Would Alan do something God told him to do, if what God said went against the teachings of the Bible?" My answer then is the same answer I got now....my answer is "No!"

... I was ever told a message by God, (or an angel sent by God) that disagreed with what I read in the bible, that I would disregard the newer message in favor of the Bible's message.
What if Abraham had thought that way when God gave him a message to cut his son open? What if Abraham had said "That disagrees with what I read in the scriptures, so bite me" ?

Therefore if any spirit, angel, or a divine being claiming to be 'a god' brings me a message that is different than what we already have in the Bible I would reject it instantly.
What if the Holy Spirit told a pre-tribber that the rapture will happen after the tribulation? To a pre-tribber, that message would be different than what we already have in the Bible, so if the pre-tribber instantly rejected that message from the Holy Spirit, would that be a good thing?

Oh yes, the question of God telling me stuff that is crazy and my following them?....ahh...My answer is, "Not a chance".
Don't you think Abraham thought the message to slaughter his son Isaac was stuff that was crazy? Should Abraham have said "not a chance" ? Was that the correct response? What does the Bible have to say about whether he made the right choice or not?

But if God were to send me an angel with a message, and a new set of teachings that go against the Bible?.....I believe my response to that angel would be "Bite me"
If God sent an angel to a Catholic with the message that Mary didn't live a sinless life, then to the Catholic that would be a new set of teachings that go against the Bible. Should the Catholic tell the angel "bite me" ?

Isn't it more correct to say that if God were to send you an angel with a message that goes against your preconceptions of what the Bible teaches, you would automatically jump to the conclusion that it's the angel who is going against the Bible, and not you, even though the converse is possibly true?

alanmolstad

03-05-2014, 04:07 PM

What if Abraham had ....
Abraham was under the Old Covenant, the Christian is under the New.
The Old was never as good as the New....

The Christian has "faith" in the New Covenant, and it is this "faith" that has been given "once for all"

So there is no new this or new that is coming down the pike....

it's all here,,,now,,ready to be grabbed and taken into the heart!

no need to ask the question- "do I know all the inner secrets?", there are none!

no need to have to follow the silly teachings of false Prophets that really were only in it for the girls anyway.....They are false!

No need to worry that if you drop away from an organization you will miss the latest teachings from the Lord.....There wont be any!

It's all right here, right now.
It's available to the world.

No need to practice handshakes, no need to put on special clothes, no need to say special words to a person behind a screen.

But if you want to still do the handshake thing, then go get a dog to play with, they love to do that "Shake!" thingy....:)

Apologette

03-05-2014, 07:54 PM

You're mistaken. At least eleven other people saw the engravings on the plates.

Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, said they saw the plates with their third eye. In other words, in vision.

Apologette

03-05-2014, 07:56 PM

What if Abraham had thought that way when God gave him a message to cut his son open? What if Abraham had said "That disagrees with what I read in the scriptures, so bite me" ?

What if the Holy Spirit told a pre-tribber that the rapture will happen after the tribulation? To a pre-tribber, that message would be different than what we already have in the Bible, so if the pre-tribber instantly rejected that message from the Holy Spirit, would that be a good thing?

Don't you think Abraham thought the message to slaughter his son Isaac was stuff that was crazy? Should Abraham have said "not a chance" ? Was that the correct response? What does the Bible have to say about whether he made the right choice or not?

If God sent an angel to a Catholic with the message that Mary didn't live a sinless life, then to the Catholic that would be a new set of teachings that go against the Bible. Should the Catholic tell the angel "bite me" ?

Isn't it more correct to say that if God were to send you an angel with a message that goes against your preconceptions of what the Bible teaches, you would automatically jump to the conclusion that it's the angel who is going against the Bible, and not you, even though the converse is possibly true?

Calvin, Catholics, blah, blah, blah. Why couldn't people examine the plates? Because they were bogus! We can examine early m****cripts of the Bible, why not some supposed etched plates? I'll tell you why, because they could have been easily detected to be made of tin or some alloy. That's why he kept them covered - and you people buy this idiotic story? By the way, aren't you currently suspended from here?

Erundur

03-05-2014, 09:22 PM

Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, said they saw the plates with their third eye. In other words, in vision.
David Whitmer said, "Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time." In other words, not just in vision.

alanmolstad

03-05-2014, 09:28 PM

David Whitmer said, "Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, ....

"a spiritual view" eh?
That kids, is one of the more funny sentences I have read in a long time...;)

Does anybody actually buy into that kinda.....um.....interesting 'answers' ?

It reminds me of something a child would say when they get caught red-handed....

I think the the Mormons should just stick with the cl***ic - "The dog ate it"
It would be a lot more believable.

alanmolstad

03-05-2014, 09:36 PM

That reminds me of the excuse that the JWs use .

The JWs predicted for years and years that the Lord would return on a known date.
Well, naturally the date came and went and Jesus did not return.

So in order to put a better spin on things the JWs came up with the excuse that "Jesus did actually return when we predicted, just invisibly"

It's very cl***ic....."Yes, I saw the Golden tablets!"
Well, I mean in the spirit. But I truly saw them!
Yes I saw them, I saw them!
Well, I saw them in a vision, but it was not just a vision because I saw them with my own two eyes.

Well, I mean with my own two spiritual eyes... But they were my very real spiritual eyes!"

There is literally Nothing you could say now that would cause me to think for one moment that the plates were really seen in person by anyone....your witness is a joke guy....

There is nothing you could say that would cause me to take such line of reasoning or excuses serious.

Zeus

03-05-2014, 09:43 PM

that, is one of the more funny sentences I have read in a long time...;)

Does anybody actually buy into that kinda.....um.....interesting 'answers' ?

It reminds me of something a child would say when they get caught red-handed....

I think the the Mormons should just stick with the cl***ic - "The dog ate it"
It would be a lot more believable.

That reminds me of the excuse that the JWs use .

The JWs predicted for years and years that the Lord would return on a known date.
Well, naturally the date came and went and Jesus did not return.

So in order to put a better spin on things the JWs came up with the excuse that "Jesus did actually return when we predicted, just invisibly"

It's very cl***ic....."Yes, I saw the Golden tablets! Well, I mean in the spirit. But I truly saw them! Yes I saw them, I saw them!
Well, I mean with my own spiritual eyes... But they were my very real spiritual eyes!"

Perhaps a little less mocking of others and their beliefs might invite more people to dialogue with you.

Phoenix

03-05-2014, 09:46 PM

Abraham was under the Old Covenant, the Christian is under the New.
Yet both Abraham and Christians have been willing and able to obey God if He tells them to do something, no matter how crazy it sounds to unbelievers. Do you disagree?

The Christian has "faith" in the New Covenant, and it is this "faith" that has been given "once for all"
Shouldn't the Christian have faith in God, too? And be willing to do what He tells the Christian to do, no matter how crazy it is going to sound to unbelievers? What if Peter, James, John, and Paul had told Jesus "You want me to do what? That's crazy, man. Bite me!" ?

But if you want to still do the handshake thing, then go get a dog to play with, they love to do that "Shake!" thingy....:)
Doesn't the Bible say something about how spiritual things will always seem foolish to the spiritually immature?

alanmolstad

03-05-2014, 10:05 PM

Yet both Abraham and Christians have been willing and able to obey God if He tells them to do something, no matter how crazy it sounds to unbelievers. Do you disagree? re?

i believe i made myself very clear already on this same question....

If anyone....a preacher....an angel....a god....a bunch of carpooling gods....peter paul and mary.....or even francis the talking mule say they have a message and that message goes against the message we already have given us in the bible...

"BITE ME!"

so is there any lingering doubts as to my views on this question?.......... anyone?

Phoenix

03-05-2014, 10:39 PM

i believe i made myself very clear already on this same question....

If anyone....a preacher....an angel....a god....a bunch of carpooling gods....peter paul and mary.....or even francis the talking mule say they have a message and that message goes against the message we already have given us in the bible...

"BITE ME!"
so is there any lingering doubts as to my views on this question?.......... anyone?

There is the question of why you seem to be avoiding the following questions:

What if Abraham had thought

"If I was ever told a message by God, (or an angel sent by God) that disagreed with my current beliefs about His will, I would disregard the newer message in favor of the Bible's message"

when God gave him a message to cut his son open? What if Abraham had said "That disagrees with what I read in the scriptures, so bite me" ?

What if the Holy Spirit told a pre-tribber that the rapture will happen after the tribulation? To a pre-tribber, that message would be different than what we already have in the Bible, so if the pre-tribber instantly rejected that message from the Holy Spirit, would that be a good thing?

Don't you think Abraham thought the message to slaughter his son Isaac was stuff that was crazy? Should Abraham have said "not a chance" ? Was that the correct response? What does the Bible have to say about whether he made the right choice or not?

If God sent an angel to a Catholic with the message that Mary didn't live a sinless life, then to the Catholic that would be a new set of teachings that go against the Bible. Should the Catholic tell the angel "bite me" ?

Isn't it more correct to say that if God were to send you an angel with a message that goes against your preconceptions of what the Bible teaches, you would automatically jump to the conclusion that it's the angel who is going against the Bible, and not you, even though the converse is possibly true?

alanmolstad

03-05-2014, 11:48 PM

There is the question of why you seem to be avoiding the following questions:

What if Abraham had thought....?
I already answered this issue......see post #15 above.

god can NOT say even one small word that goes against what the bible already teaches.....not one small word!

Now would you like to ask that same question a few more times?....
Do you think if you reword the same question a few different ways that you might get a different answer from me one time?.....
Is that what you are thinking?

Look.... Paul clearly knew what to warn us about dealing with Smith' s claims....
Paul's instructions on how to respond to Smith are clear...

We can go over this time after time.....We can reword the question each time....but the answer of "Bite me'" is still my only answer.

It's not going to ever change.
Because it's the only answer.

alanmolstad

03-06-2014, 01:07 AM

We can go over this time after time.....we can reword the question each time........

In an effort to stop us from going over and over the same question as I talk about in the above post, Im going to try something here now.
Too many times when a Christian such as myself attacks Smith's doctrines he puts the Mormon he is talking to on the defensive and at that point the ability of the christian to reach the Mormon simply comes to a halt.

Well I don't want that to happen, so I need to think of a way to get my point across to you without directly attacking a doctrine of smith, yet will show you why Smith's doctrines were all wet .

So, Im going to need a new teaching....something unknown before ...something no one has ever brought up on this topic, something totally unconnected to Smith or his doctrines.

(are you ready? Here we go)

A STORY:

One day Alan is out for a walk and suddenly an angel from heaven appears to him.
Alan stops, and kneels to the ground and asks, "What can I do for you?"

The angel speaks, "Alan, you have found favor with the Lord. Now rise and hear what the Lord commands you to do"

So Alan stands up, takes out a pad of paper and pen and starts to take careful notes.

The angel speaks, "This is what the Lord wants you to do. Take your car, drive backward to the next city. There the Lord asks you to get a *** pulling guts out of chickens for 2 years. At the end on the 2nd year the Lord asks you to get in your car and drive sideways back to this city"

Alan writes down the words the angels speaks, then speaks to the angel as he finished writing the last sentence-

"...sideways back to this city...",,,ok, right I got it. I shall do all that the lord has asked of me....It shall be done"

The angel smiles at how careful Alan was to record all that the angel had said, and then speaks once more to Alan.

The angel says, "Oh by the way Alan, the truth is that Jesus is female"

Alan looks up at the angel a moment, then closes his note pad, puts things back into his pockets, turns his back to the angel and returns to what he was doing a moment before the angel had appeared.

"Bite me!" Alan shouts over his shoulder at the surprised angel..."And you can go tell your god to go "Bite me" too"

-End of story-

So what is the point of this story?....The point is that God can tell us to do many new things,,,God is always busy with doing God-stuff, and so I can understand the from time to time to this very day the Lord is sending out his angels to carry His word to people.

So there is no problem with God telling us to do things, even to do things we dont fully understand the reason behind and might actually seem kinda crazy to us at first.

So the angel could tell you to drive a car backward to a different city and that is ok with you Alan?.....Yes!

But then in the story the moment the angel tells Alan that "Jesus is female" this seems to change things?....Yes!

Why?.... Telling us to do new and different things is fine. they are fine because they dont go against what is already told us about the faith in the bible.
But the moment the angel in the story tried to introduce a new teaching, it was a trip-wire....its how we know that the angel was actually NOT from Heaven!....

So why was it ok to ask Alan to do all kinds of crazy things, yet not ok to teach him something different about God?.....Because one thing was against what we know from the bible about the faith that was "once for all given" and the others were not.

Phoenix

03-06-2014, 06:26 AM

I already answered this issue.....
You know you haven't answered my questions. What isn't known for sure, is why.

Now would you like to ask that same question a few more times?....
I don't want to re-ask those questions you aren't answering, but I will re-ask until you answer them because it is important that you answer them because they address the validity of your post that inspired them.

Do you think if you reword the same question a few different ways that you might get a different answer from me one time?.....
I don't want to re-word them. I want you address them exactly as they currently exist.

Is that what you are thinking?
No

By the way, did you notice how I directly answer your questions with direct, non-evasive answers, including "yes" or "no" where appropriate? Is there any chance you can do me that courtesy as well? It would cut down on unnecessary "friction" in my opinion, and save us both time, and would therefore be appreciated.

Look.... Paul clearly knew what to warn us about dealing with Smith' s claims....
Aren't my questions more about your position on messages from God than they are about Smith's claims?

Paul's instructions on how to respond to Smith are clear...
I am not Smith. You need to respond to me, not him.

We can go over this time after time.....
The thing is, we don't need to go over it time after time if you'd stop the evasiveness. One time would be enough.

We can reword the question each time.
I don't see a need to re-word my questions. They are fine just the way I originally typed them.

...but the answer of "Bite me'" is still my only answer.
The question is: Is it the correct answer? Your "reluctance" to answer my questions might make people think you're not sure that it is.

alanmolstad

03-06-2014, 07:21 AM

You know .....

"You know...."
(Let me tell you what I know)

What I know, is that I spent a lot of time on the answers to all your questions in the posts that are already there for you to read.

I actually woke up last night at around 1:00 in the morning and fired up my computer when the idea I had to approach this from a non-confrontational "Jesus is female" story idea popped into my head.

Im afraid that is about the best way I have to reach out to you with this.

but....

But I am also an example of Proverbs 16:32, so lets see if I cant go over the same questions,with my same answer of "Bite Me" in a way that is not too boring for both of us to read though?

_–---------_--------------------------------------------------------

My answer is "Bite me"

My answer to all the "But what if God says...?" questions is "God can tell us all kinds of new and interesting and fun things, but God also can not say even one small word that goes against what is already clearly taught in the Bible"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the heart of what Im saying.
But because I got a little time left before i have to get going to work, I will push on with more of this answer.
I will try to write stuff in a non-confrontational manner, not offending anyone of any faith yet still getting back to the heart of what i have said above-

So God can tell us new things about himself and about Jesus?.....Oh yes, God can bring to us all kinds of new things!

Like what for example?......Well God can tell us what Jesus looked like for one. That would be very cool to finally learn. There is nothing in the Bible that really deals with what Jesus looked like as a person.

So an angel could show up and tell us just stuff that is not talked about in the bible at all?....Well no, God can tell us about all kinds of stuff that is found in our Bible. Its just that what any angel or any prophet says can't DISAGREE with what is found in the Holy Bible. So we can learn all kinds of things that are new to us.

What you are talking about are the essential teachings of the bible correct?....Yes, the core christian teachings are presented in the text and found within the christian church.,

What about the non-essential doctrines of the many different denominations? for example about Mary? .....The same rule applies.
God can tell us all kinds of new and fun things about Mary, as long as what is being told to us does not disagree with what already appears in the bible.
What we find is that on many of the issues that the different sister churches disagree on issues that are more to do with different traditions and not based on the text.

For example lets say that a church teaches that Mary had red hair.
Lets say that there was a church that teaches that Mary had red hair, and to be a member of this church you also had to believe that Mary had red hair.
God can send an angel and tell us that Mary had green hair.
God is allowed to do this because there is nothing against God doing this in the Bible because Mary's hair color is not talked about in the bible.

The teachings about the hair color of Mary might be something that different denominations split over, but the disagreement is based on different traditions and not based on a Bible teaching.
Mary's hair color is a "non-essential" teaching.

So an angel can teach us all kinds of new non-essential things?....oh yes!
The list is endless of the things we might one day learn. things that the bible simply does not talk about, or things that do not disagree with the text as found right now.

But nothing essential?...No, for the Christian faith is already given to us, There is nothing new to be added that will change what we already have received in the bible.

So an angel could show up and tell us that we should all own guns?...yes and I would believe that, It does not go against the scripture we already have.

But an angel could not say that Jesus was female?....nope, the moment you hear an angel or a prophet try to bring out a new teaching like that you know its from Satan!

So what does this all mean when dealing with the story told by Joe Smith and his being visited by angels?
It means that the moment any of us hear an angel start to teach doctrine that is different than what we already have received in the Bible, that our correct response is to turn our backs to that angel (or whatever it is) and tell them to "Bite me, go get lost! And tell this god of yours that he can just get lost too"

But what if there are all kinds of angels singing "Holy, Holy, Holy" in the background?.....It doesn't matter, we were actually warned by Saint Paul to expect that the devil would one day show up in the form of a angel from heaven with a "different gospel"
we were told to expect this stuff that Smith claimed happened , and we were told what our response to such a story should be.

The words of Paul , his warnings are now fulfilled.

So it does not matter how many ways we re-ask the same question, my answer to the angel would always be to "Bite me"

Ma'am

03-06-2014, 09:48 AM

They couldn't 'see' what was printed on the supposed plates. They couldn't 'see' the plates later to see if they were 'translated' correctly. They couldn't 'see' any evidence of any 'Nephites' ever existing in the real world. You are supposed to BLINDLY BELIEVE that joey smith saw ANYONE/ANYTHING in the woods.

JESUS did HIS 'thing' out in the open before THOUSANDS of witnesses.
The Apostles did their 'thing' in the open before THOUSANDS of witnesses.
joey smith. . .requires hidden handshakes, tokens, special underwear, and magical phrases to do HIS 'thing.'

Comments?

in Jesus,
fish

Joe's things aren't God's "things."

Ma'am

03-06-2014, 09:50 AM

"a spiritual view" eh?
That kids, is one of the more funny sentences I have read in a long time...;)

Does anybody actually buy into that kinda.....um.....interesting 'answers' ?

It reminds me of something a child would say when they get caught red-handed....

I think the the Mormons should just stick with the cl***ic - "The dog ate it"
It would be a lot more believable.

Most of the original witnesses left the LDS, often angry at Joe Smith. They never recanted of "seeing" the golden plates, because if they did and admitted they had not, then they would have been guilty of knowingly perpetrating a fraud, that bilked people out of their hard-earned cash ,and they could have been brought up before a court of law on fraud charges. I think it's called "bunko" today.

alanmolstad

03-06-2014, 10:35 AM

It has been a while from when I last have studied about the so-called witnesses of the Golden Mormon Plates and if any of them later changed their minds?

It would be interesting to see how many of the known people who had once claimed to have seen Joe's plates, that later on at one point or another changed their tune?

Christian

03-06-2014, 10:35 AM

Remember the lost 119 pages. Oh jo was smart not to re-translate them. I wonder why?

Most likely because he couldn't remember the story he had told the first time. . .

Christian

03-06-2014, 10:39 AM

Perhaps a little less mocking of others and their beliefs might invite more people to dialogue with you.

You missed the point Z. The point is that nobody but joey smith knew if any of the 'stuff' ON those supposed plates really MEANT anything at all. ALL you have is joey smith's word that there was any 'bom' on there at all. . .the whole mormon religion hangs on the word of joey smith, conman, peepstone gazer, necromancer, adulterer.

alanmolstad

03-06-2014, 11:43 AM

RealFakeHair

03-06-2014, 12:24 PM

http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses

I have been doing a search of the guys who at some point in history actually made a claim to have seen the Golden Plates that Smith claimed were real.

I found this website ( http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses ) and after reading what is there I have started to come to the same conclusion that a lot of former Mormons and Christian writers have also come to...

My conclusion?> I don't think the so-called witnesses saw squat!

I believe it is called (groupthink) there have been many psychological studies over the years on why people see things that are not there in a group surrounding. There was just something on the TV last week on such a happening where people saw things that the camara clearly shown wasn't there.

Phoenix

03-06-2014, 01:17 PM

"You know...."
(Let me tell you what I know)

That is part of your problem IMO, and the main reason why your posts aren't achieving their desired outcome: Some of the things you claim to know, are actually only things you believe. And that becomes very important when you claim to know what God would or would not do, and what you personally will allow Him to do, or will prohibit Him from doing.

What I know, is that I spent a lot of time on the answers to all your questions in the posts that are already there for you to read.
Isn't it strange how you spent more time, and more creative effort, dancing around my questions than it would have taken to just answer them? Did you realize that answering my questions would show the one flaw in the foundation upon which your whole conclusion (that you have the ability to tell, with 100% accuracy and objectivity, whether a given message goes against the Bible or not) is built?

("Would Alan do something God told him to do, if what God said went against the teachings of the Bible?" My answer then is the same answer I got now....my answer is "No!"... I was ever told a message by God, (or an angel sent by God) that disagreed with what I read in the bible, that I would disregard the newer message in favor of the Bible's message... Therefore if any spirit, angel, or a divine being claiming to be 'a god' brings me a message that is different than what we already have in the Bible I would reject it instantly...if God were to send me an angel with a message, and a new set of teachings that go against the Bible?.....I believe my response to that angel would be "Bite me")

I actually woke up last night at around 1:00 in the morning and fired up my computer when the idea I had to approach this from a non-confrontational "Jesus is female" story idea popped into my head.
You constructed a fallacy where you used an example that virtually all of us would agree with, and used it to "prove" something that we would not agree with. Like saying "Oranges are obviously orange, therefore we can always know what color apples are."

Im afraid that is about the best way I have to reach out to you with this.
The best way to answer my questions would be to...answer my questions. I can guess as to your reasons for spending time and energy not answering them, but my preference would be that you just answer the questions so I don't have to guess.

But I am also an example of Proverbs 16:32
Then do you have the patience to just answer my questions?

Like what for example?......Well God can tell us what Jesus looked like for one. That would be very cool to finally learn. There is nothing in the Bible that really deals with what Jesus looked like as a person.
Then God could tell us whether Jesus got married, because that would be very cool to finally learn, and there is nothing in the Bible that really deals with whether He did or didn't. Do you disagree?

Now there is an additional question for you to answer, after you answer my original ones.

I sincerely look forward to your answers. I hope they are forthcoming.

alanmolstad

03-06-2014, 01:31 PM

Then God could tell us whether Jesus got married, because that would be very cool to finally learn, and there is nothing in the Bible that really deals with whether He did or didn't. Do you disagree?

(* = The following is just as far as I know)

There is nothing in the Bible about Jesus being married one way or the other.
There is no sin in being married.(Im married after all)
It does not change who Jesus is.
It does not change who God is.
It does not deal with the question of the path of salvation given us in our faith.
It does not deal with the resurrection.

There is nothing for the idea...in the Bible*
There is nothing against the idea...in the Bible*

Therefore if true, and this was the case then the Christian church would have no issues with believing it
If this were not the case then the Christian church would have no issues with that too.

It is a non-essential teaching therefore.

As I said before, God can tell us all kinds of new things, as long as the new revelation does not disagree in the smallest way with the 'faith that was once for all given"

Matters of what Jesus looked like, or his hair color, or if he got married, or if Jesus liked to play baseball, or if Jesus had a great singing voice, or a tin-ear.....all these such questions might be interesting to learn one day, but do not effect the Faith, Dont change who God is, Dont change anything at all...and therefore are a moot point.

There is a difference in learning something that is new, and with learning something that disagrees.

Jesus is male, this is a Bible teaching of our faith. (see 1st Tim 2:5)
This means that an angel can show up and teach me that Jesus was 5'11" tall and while this would be new information, it does not disagree with what the bible already says.

So because of this an angel can not teach that Jesus was female.

The angel is prohibited from teaching this.

Why?

Because God is prohibited from sending an angel to teach this.

So the Holy Spirit can move my heart to learn all kinds of new things and be moved to do all kinds of things no one has ever done before.
But the Holy Spirit can not get me to believe in something that goes against the bible.

So, if there is a verse in the Bible that teaches that Jesus was never married, or from the Old Test that predicted that the future King would never be married (I know of no such verse) then if an angel showed up and said "Jesus was married" I would tell that angel to "bite me"

RealFakeHair

03-06-2014, 02:03 PM

If Jesus was married, He would have made a lousy husband. First He hung around 12 other men all day, went to parties with rich men and publicans. Had other women washing his feet with their hair, and didn't have a steady ***!

alanmolstad

03-06-2014, 02:22 PM

If Jesus was married,

There really is only the one story to look at when dealing with the question of Jesus being married, and that at John 2:1-11.

But there are a few words here that seem to suggest that it was not the wedding of Jesus personally, but that he and his men were just invited guests.

Aside from this one story the Bible really has nothing to say on the question one way or the other.

So what does this mean to my comments?...
It means that we cant run around and say "Jesus was married" because we cant use the lack of support in the Bible as the support for the idea.

You cant say, "We can believe he was married because there is nothing in the bible that says he wasn't"

So you cant twist the lack of support for a teaching into looking like it does support that teaching.

You need stronger support than "ZERO SUPPORT" for a teaching that is kinda huge like a guy being married or not...

RealFakeHair

03-06-2014, 02:50 PM

There really is only the one story to look at when dealing with the question of Jesus being married, and that at John 2:1-11.

But there are a few words here that seem to suggest that it was not the wedding of Jesus personally, but that he and his men were just invited guests.

Aside from this one story the Bible really has nothing to say on the question one way or the other.

So what does this mean to my comments?...
It means that we cant run around and say "Jesus was married" because we cant use the lack of support in the Bible as the support for the idea.

You cant say, "We can believe he was married because there is nothing in the bible that says he wasn't"

So you cant twist the lack of support for a teaching into looking like it does support that teaching.

You need stronger support than "ZERO SUPPORT" for a teaching that is kinda huge like a guy being married or not...
You can also say I am the spitten image of Carry Grant, just because there is no picture of me looking like Carry Grant.
PS do not ask for my photos.

neverending

03-06-2014, 04:16 PM

That is part of your problem IMO, and the main reason why your posts aren't achieving their desired outcome: Some of the things you claim to know, are actually only things you believe. And that becomes very important when you claim to know what God would or would not do, and what you personally will allow Him to do, or will prohibit Him from doing.

Isn't it strange how you spent more time, and more creative effort, dancing around my questions than it would have taken to just answer them? Did you realize that answering my questions would show the one flaw in the foundation upon which your whole conclusion (that you have the ability to tell, with 100% accuracy and objectivity, whether a given message goes against the Bible or not) is built?

("Would Alan do something God told him to do, if what God said went against the teachings of the Bible?" My answer then is the same answer I got now....my answer is "No!"... I was ever told a message by God, (or an angel sent by God) that disagreed with what I read in the bible, that I would disregard the newer message in favor of the Bible's message... Therefore if any spirit, angel, or a divine being claiming to be 'a god' brings me a message that is different than what we already have in the Bible I would reject it instantly...if God were to send me an angel with a message, and a new set of teachings that go against the Bible?.....I believe my response to that angel would be "Bite me")

You constructed a fallacy where you used an example that virtually all of us would agree with, and used it to "prove" something that we would not agree with. Like saying "Oranges are obviously orange, therefore we can always know what color apples are."

The best way to answer my questions would be to...answer my questions. I can guess as to your reasons for spending time and energy not answering them, but my preference would be that you just answer the questions so I don't have to guess.

Then do you have the patience to just answer my questions?

Then God could tell us whether Jesus got married, because that would be very cool to finally learn, and there is nothing in the Bible that really deals with whether He did or didn't. Do you disagree?

Now there is an additional question for you to answer, after you answer my original ones.

I sincerely look forward to your answers. I hope they are forthcoming.

What I find sad about this comment is that you believe totally in the JS vision but you have admitted here that if such a thing happened to you, you would reject it. You have forgotten that what JS was told went against what is written within the Bible. The many foreign doctrines of Mormonism that teach falsehoods such as temple marriage, baptism for the dead, pre-existence, becoming a god and creating ones own planet and populating it. Does any of this ring a bell?
The idea that Christ was married is so laughable and sad at the same time. If this were so, we'd have little demi-gods running around the earth. Christ's entire purpose was one thing, to come and die for mankind's sins, nothing more. He had no carnal desires no matter how anyone wants to paint this picture. If Satan couldn't tempt Christ do you think he would be tempted by women? Your god is a very weak god if you think so.

Phoenix

03-06-2014, 05:07 PM

What I find sad about this comment is that you believe totally in the JS vision but you have admitted here that if such a thing happened to you, you would reject it.
Where did I admit that?

alanmolstad

03-06-2014, 06:31 PM

Where did I admit that?
LOL...Just like then I wondered when they got the "universalism" comment too....

neverending

03-06-2014, 09:45 PM

Where did I admit that?

I beg your pardon for I read the comment all wrong, totally my fault. :(

alanmolstad

03-06-2014, 10:01 PM

I forgive you..

Phoenix

03-07-2014, 07:42 AM

I forgive you..

me too. it happens.

neverending

03-07-2014, 09:45 PM

me too. it happens.

Thanks too for understanding. Have a good evening and weekend.

Christian

03-09-2014, 11:23 AM

Much better.

100% TRUTH, that nobody could verify ONE WORD of the bom, whether it was from joe smith's imagination or if any of it at all came from the plates.

Just as I have been saying. . .

James Banta

03-09-2014, 03:07 PM

100% TRUTH, that nobody could verify ONE WORD of the bom, whether it was from joe smith's imagination or if any of it at all came from the plates.

Just as I have been saying. . .

I can show the original language codex that were used by the scholars to do the translation. I don't ask to see the original plates, just a copy on paper of the original language.. The LDS can't or won't do that.. That makes the BofM that much less believable. We have one and only one man's word for the translation.. That isn't the was a scholarly translation is made.. IHS jim

dberrie2000

02-11-2017, 07:38 PM

As for the issue of not allowing people to see the plates:

Here is what i think of that whole topic.

If I were wanting to fool people, then I would do about the same as what Smith did.

If I had some fake plates that I made myself, and then came up with a story about finding them in the backyard, the last thing I would do is try to really prove my story to people.

So--you believe that Smith faked an angel showing the three the plates in a vision?

Testimony of Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. 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; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

alanmolstad

02-11-2017, 10:07 PM

So--you believe that Smith faked an angel showing the three the plates in a vision?

oh man.....where to start?

I believe Smith faked all of it,,,from the start to the ending ...

When Smith would tell a young girl "God has given you to me as wife" that was just Smith faking it to jump into a girls bed..

When Smith would tell people that if they hired him , he could find buried treasure on their land,,,that I believe was Smith just faking it.

When Smith would tell husbands that it was the lord's will they they offer their wives to him for sex, that was in my view just another moment that Smith was faking it.

When Smith would tell some husbands that God wanted them to go on a distant mission, only to then have Smith come sniffing around the wife the moment the husband was out of town,,,that also was another example of Smith faking it.

So in other words, we have a religion here that was started and run by a guy who faked it all.

as for the so-called witnesses?......faked it as well.

Oh Im sure they tried to say things so that had an "out" and a way to deny this or that later with and if the "jig is up"

One of the tip-offs is the idea a guy might come up with by saying he saw something with "Spiritual eyes" rather than just our normal physical human eyes....or saying they saw something in a vision of an angel, etc...

It reminds me of the story of the "Emperor's Clothes"..where everyone in the kingdom would always swear up and down that they "saw the clothes"...until a little boy spoke that he didn't....and suddenly everyone started to laugh...

When speaking on the topic of the witnesses to the book of Mormon?...the Emperor has no clothes!

alanmolstad

02-12-2017, 12:54 AM

here is something that shows what I feel about the BOM and its supporters.

"Conclusion:

All the Mormon witnesses are as worthless as they are unreliable who recanted their testimony.

Modern Mormon "spin doctors" write all kinds of articles claiming that the witnesses may have denied the Mormon church but they never the book of Mormon. Now you know that is a lie.

Some Mormons will agree that all three witnesses denied the book of Mormon but came back to deny their denial. Imagine the twelve apostles suddenly denying Jesus rose from the dead in public, only to ask people to ignore their denials and accept their testimony once again. This the apostles of Christ never did.

Only the deluded could possibly believe the outrageous fairytale called Mormonism."

(see http://www.bible.ca/mor-witness-book.htm for more information on this topic)

dberrie2000

02-12-2017, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostSo--you believe that Smith faked an angel showing the three the plates in a vision?

Testimony of Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. 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; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

oh man.....where to start?

I believe Smith faked all of it,,,from the start to the ending ...

Please do venture your postulation as to how Joseph Smith faked an angel coming down from heaven--and laying the plates before the three witnesses.

alanmolstad

02-12-2017, 08:59 AM

Please do venture your postulation as to how Joseph Smith faked an angel coming down from heaven--and laying the plates before the three witnesses.

Specific details of the three witnesses:

False Witness #1: Martin Harris:

Was known for being very unstable religiously. Over his whole life he changed his affiliation over 13 times.

Martin Harris was first a Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationist, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon.(Mormonism Unveiled, E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 260-261)
After Martin Harris' excommunication in 1837, he changed his religion eight more times, going from the Shakers to one Mormon splinter group to the next, and back to the main group in 1842.(Improvement Era, March 1969, p. 63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164, Brigham Young)
In 1846, (after his excommunication in 1837) Martin Harris was preaching among the Saints in England for the Apostate James J. Strang. (Church Chronology, Andrew Jensen, 1899, p. 31; Millennial Star, vol. 8, Nov. 15, 1846, pp. 124-128.)
He signed his name to a statement: "Testimony of three witnesses: We Cheerfully certify...The Lord has made it known to me that David Witmer is the man. David was then called forward, and Joseph and his counselors laid hands upon him, and ordained him to his station, to succeed him...He will be prophet, seer, Revelator and Translator before God." Signed Martin Harris, Leonard Rich, Calvin Beebe. Of course this never came to p*** as Brigham young became Joseph Smith's successor.
The Mormons stated of Martin Harris and a few other men within the pages of the church's official newspaper at the time, "a lying deceptive spirit attend them...they are of their father, the devil...The very countenance of Harris will show to every spiritual-minded person who sees him, that the wrath of God is upon him." Latter-Day Saint's, Millennial Star, Vol 8 pp124-128.
Phineas Young wrote to his older brother Brigham Young on December 31, 1841, from Kirtland, Ohio: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was for the Book of Mormon" (Martin Harris - Witness and Benefactor of the Book of Mormon, 1955, p. 52)
Martin Harris testified that his testimony for Shakerism was greater than it was for Mormonism. The Shaker's "Sacred Roll and Book" was also delivered by an angel. (Case Against Mormonism, Tanner, Vol. 2, pp. 50-58; Martin Harris-Witness & Benefactor, BYU 1955 Thesis, Wayne C. Gunnell, p.52.)
In the Elder's Journal for August, 1838, Joseph Smith denounces Martin Harris as "so far beneath contempt that to notice him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make. The Church exerted some restraint on him, but now he has given loose to all kinds of abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, and all kinds of debauchery."(Gleanings by the Way, J. A. Clark, pp. 256-257)
Like David Whitmer, Martin Harris later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates with "the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes". This we believe is the truth but it should eliminate him automatically as a witness none the less. This of course proves Mormonism is a fraud and that the Nephi Plates never existed and no one actually saw them. (The Braden & Kelly Debate, p. 173)

alanmolstad

02-12-2017, 09:00 AM

alanmolstad

02-12-2017, 09:01 AM

alanmolstad

02-12-2017, 09:03 AM

So,,,,How to totally fake a story and have witnesses to the same faked story?

All you need is other guys who want in on the same faked story.

alanmolstad

02-12-2017, 09:14 AM

and like I said above....one of the key things to notice is how people will kinda fudge their words in order to have a safe way "out" of a story they may have told in the past.

As we see in the link's information, we do see that the so-called "witnesses" would later kinda fudge on their wordings, and admit that when they say that they really "saw" the angel and the golden plates, that they meant that they sorta saw them......

They sorta saw them,...not with their real eyes...but more with that good-old wonderful "eye of faith".

When I look at that fact I just smile......"Yah right guys.....sure...you bet-cha"

dberrie2000

02-12-2017, 01:37 PM

Specific details of the three witnesses:

False Witness #1: Martin Harris:

Was known for being very unstable religiously. Over his whole life he changed his affiliation over 13 times.

Martin Harris was first a Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationist, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon.(Mormonism Unveiled, E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 260-261)
After Martin Harris' excommunication in 1837, he changed his religion eight more times, going from the Shakers to one Mormon splinter group to the next, and back to the main group in 1842.(Improvement Era, March 1969, p. 63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164, Brigham Young)
In 1846, (after his excommunication in 1837) Martin Harris was preaching among the Saints in England for the Apostate James J. Strang. (Church Chronology, Andrew Jensen, 1899, p. 31; Millennial Star, vol. 8, Nov. 15, 1846, pp. 124-128.)
He signed his name to a statement: "Testimony of three witnesses: We Cheerfully certify...The Lord has made it known to me that David Witmer is the man. David was then called forward, and Joseph and his counselors laid hands upon him, and ordained him to his station, to succeed him...He will be prophet, seer, Revelator and Translator before God." Signed Martin Harris, Leonard Rich, Calvin Beebe. Of course this never came to p*** as Brigham young became Joseph Smith's successor.
The Mormons stated of Martin Harris and a few other men within the pages of the church's official newspaper at the time, "a lying deceptive spirit attend them...they are of their father, the devil...The very countenance of Harris will show to every spiritual-minded person who sees him, that the wrath of God is upon him." Latter-Day Saint's, Millennial Star, Vol 8 pp124-128.
Phineas Young wrote to his older brother Brigham Young on December 31, 1841, from Kirtland, Ohio: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was for the Book of Mormon" (Martin Harris - Witness and Benefactor of the Book of Mormon, 1955, p. 52)
Martin Harris testified that his testimony for Shakerism was greater than it was for Mormonism. The Shaker's "Sacred Roll and Book" was also delivered by an angel. (Case Against Mormonism, Tanner, Vol. 2, pp. 50-58; Martin Harris-Witness & Benefactor, BYU 1955 Thesis, Wayne C. Gunnell, p.52.)
In the Elder's Journal for August, 1838, Joseph Smith denounces Martin Harris as "so far beneath contempt that to notice him would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make. The Church exerted some restraint on him, but now he has given loose to all kinds of abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, and all kinds of debauchery."(Gleanings by the Way, J. A. Clark, pp. 256-257)
Like David Whitmer, Martin Harris later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates with "the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes". This we believe is the truth but it should eliminate him automatically as a witness none the less. This of course proves Mormonism is a fraud and that the Nephi Plates never existed and no one actually saw them. (The Braden & Kelly Debate, p. 173)

Not one word there about any witness denying their testimony of the reality of their witness.

Claiming they saw the plates in a heavenly vision, or with their spiritual eyes--is not a denial of what was claimed in their testimony, and does not disqualify what was seen and born testimony to--anymore than the witness of all those in the Biblical text--who, in vision--saw the Lord or heavenly messengers--with their spiritual eyes.

dberrie2000

02-12-2017, 01:40 PM

So,,,,How to totally fake a story and have witnesses to the same faked story?

All you need is other guys who want in on the same faked story.

Again--how did Joseph Smith fake an angel of God coming down from heaven?

Testimony of Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. 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; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

dberrie2000

02-12-2017, 01:51 PM

False Witness #3: Oliver Cowdery:

Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the Mormon church and joined the Methodist church.
In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated "Or Book of Mormon not his word, because denied by Oliver". Seasons and Times, Vol 2, p482
The Mormon church accused Oliver Cowdery of Adultery and claimed he had joined "a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs".
Oliver Cowdery was the Church's second Elder, often called the "Second President." The early day companion of Joseph Smith, he was scribe for the Book of Mormon, present at the "Restoration of the Priesthood,' and as close to the real truth as any man.(Pearl of Great Price, JS 2:72-76)
However, in 1838 in Kirtland, Oliver confronted Joseph Smith with the charge of adultery with Fanny Alger, and with lying and teaching false doctrines.(Private Letter to Brother, Warren Cowdery, by Oliver Cowdery, Jan. 21, 1838)
Joseph Smith denied this and charged Cowdery with being a liar.(History of the Church, vol. 3 pp. 16-18 and Elder's Journal, Joseph Smith, July 1838.)
Church records now show Miss Alger was Smith's first "spiritual wife." Oliver was telling the truth!(Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 233)
Cowdery was excommunicated for this and other "crimes."(History of the Church, vol. 3, pp. 16-18) Later, as a Methodist, he denied the Book of Mormon (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, p. 482 and Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, p 56 and "Oliver Cowdery-The Man Outstanding," Joseph Greehalgh, 1965, p. 28)
Cowdery publicly confessed his sorrow and shame for his connection with Mormonism.(The True Origin of The Book of Mormon, Charles Shook, 1914, pp. 58-59)
While the Mormon church claims he rejoined them in the fall of 1848, (Historical Record, 1886, vol. 5, p. 201) they also accused him later that year, with trying to "raise up the Kingdom again" with the Apostate, William E. McLellin.(The Mormon frontier, Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p. 336)
Oliver Cowdery was publicly charged by Joseph Smith and leading Mormons with stealing, lying, perjury, counterfeiting, adultery, and being the leader of a gang of "scoundrels of the deepest degree!"(Senate Document 189, Feb. 15, 1841, pp. 6-9 and Comprehensive History of the Church, B. H. Roberts, vol. 1, pp. 438-439)
Joseph Smith listed Oliver Cowdery as among those, "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." (History of the Church, vol. 3:232)
Oliver Cowdery died claiming that the book of Doctrines & Covenants must be discarded.

Again--nothing there about Oliver Cowdery denying his testimony, as one of the witnesses.

Oliver Cowdery rejoined the church I believe in 1848--and died shortly thereafter of health problems in 1850.

His wife's statements about Oliver Cowdery following his death:

Oliver's wife, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery (1815-1892), had known him when he was taking dictation during the translation of the Book of Mormon, before their marriage. Said she of his lifelong commitment: "He always without one doubt…affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon" (Anderson, 1981, p. 63). This confidence stood the test of persecution, poverty, loss of status, failing health, and the tragic deaths of five of his six children. Dying at forty-three, Oliver was surrounded by family members who told how he reaffirmed the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the restored priesthood-and voiced total trust in Christ. Just before rejoining the Church, he penned his inner hopes to fellow witness David Whitmer: "Let the Lord vindicate our characters, and cause our testimony to shine, and then will men be saved in his kingdom" (Oliver Cowdery to David Whitmer, July 28, 1847, Ensign of Liberty, 1:92).

dberrie2000

02-12-2017, 02:06 PM

False Witness #2: David Whitmer:

David Whitmer said in 1887: "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints...'" Address to all believers in Christ, p27, 1887
David Whitmer belonged to at least three Mormon splinter groups at different times, but he died still rejecting the LDS Church and its priesthood.
Like Martin Harris, David Whitmer later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates "by the eye of faith" handled by an angel.(Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831)
David Whitmer changed his story about seeing the plates and later told of finding them lying in a field and later still, told Orson Pratt that they were on a table with all sorts of br*** plates, gold plates, the Sword of Laban, the 'Director' and the Urim and Thumim. (Millennial Star, vol. XL, pp. 771-772)
During the summer of 1837, while in Kirtland, David Whitmer pledged his new loyalty to a prophetess (as did Martin and Oliver) who used a black seer stone and danced herself into 'trances.'(Biographical Sketches, Lucy Smith, pp. 211-213)
It was the start of the finish for him. It ended in 1847 in his declaration to Oliver that he (Whitmer) was to be the Prophet of the New Church of Christ and Oliver a counsellor.(Letter to Oliver Cowdery, by David Whitmer, Sept. 8, 1847, printed in the "Ensign of Liberty," 5/1848, p. 93; also see 'Ensign of Liberty,' 8/1849, pp. 101-104)
In the meantime, he was excommunicated and roughly put out. His and Oliver's families were, in fact, driven into the streets and robbed by the Mormons while Whitmer and Cowdery were away trying to arrange a place to flee.(John Whitmer's History of the Church, Modern Microfilm, SLC, p. 22)
Cursed by leaders such as Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer was denounced by the Prophet Joseph Smith as a "dumb beast to ride" and "an *** to bray out cursings instead of blessings." (History of the Church, vol. 3, p 228)

I leave you with David Whitmer's published account--in 1887--"An Address to All Believers in Christt"--shortly before his death in 1888.

"It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon; and that the other two witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that Book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 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.'' He died here in Richmond, Mo., on March 3d, 1850. Many witnesses yet live in Richmond, who will testify to the truth of these facts, as well as to the good character of Oliver Cowdery. The very powers of darkness have combined against the Book of Mormon, to prove that it is not the word of God, and this should go to prove to men of spiritual understanding, that the Book is true. To show the reader what I have had to contend with, I give you below a copy of a leaflet which I had printed and distributed in March, 1881.

"A PROCLAMATION"

"Unto all Nations, Kindred Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come:

"It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the BOOK OF MORMON.

"To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement:

"That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of

the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published.......

DAVID WHITMER."

"Richmond, Mo., March 19, 1881."

"We, the undersigned citizens of Richmond, Ray County, Mo., where David Whitmer, has resided since the year A.D. 1838, certify that we have been long and intimately acquainted with him and know him to be a man of the highest integrity, and of undoubted truth and veracity.

"Given at Richmond, Mo., this March 19, A.D. 1881.
Gen. Alexander W. Doniphan.
Hon. Geo. W. Dunn, Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit.
Thos. D. Woodson, President of Ray Co. Savings Bank.
J. T. Child, editor of Conservator.
H.C. Garner, Cashier of Ray Co. Savings Bank.
L. C. Cantwell, Postmaster, Richmond.
Geo. I. W***on, Mayor.
Jas. A. Davis, County Collector.
C. J. Hughes, Probate Judge and Presiding Justice of Ray County Court.
Geo. W. Trigg, County Clerk.
W. W. Mosby, M.D.
page 9
[p. 10]
W. A. Holman, County Treasurer.
J.S. Hughes, Banker, Richmond.
James Hughes, Banker, Richmond.
D. P. Whitmer, Attorney-at-Law.
Hon. Jas. W. Black, Attorney-at-Law.
Thos. McGinnis, ex-Sheriff Ray County.
J. P. Quesenberry, Merchant.
W. R. Holman, Furniture Merchant.
Lewis Slaughter, Recorder of Deeds.
Geo. W. Buchanan, M. D. A.K. Reyburn."
From the Richmond, (Mo.) Conservator, March 24, 1881.