Preview of GodNeverSinned.com video project

[aaronshaf]

The question is worded in such a way as to show that the response makes the sensationalized question seem normal, when in fact the Church has no such doctrine you can turn to that the General Authorities ever discussed, except for the snippets you love to cite.

I've already answered this misguided objection when I responded to,

This problem is apparent in Aaronshaf’s inability after years of asking the same question and his still not being able to separate the answers, as either doctrine of the LDS church, or merely personal opinion/speculation.

I said,

Where have I conflated formal official doctrine with the actual beliefs of lay members?

You have it not only wrong, but completely backwards. I of all people understand that distinction very well. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that part of the very problem is that the Mormon Church does NOT have an official position on whether God was once a sinner.

Appealing to the issue of formal doctrine when challenged with the frequency of beliefs of lay members is often a method of deflection by Mormons. They want to conflate the two when convenient, yet point out the distinction as a means of deflecting when the two haven't even been inappropriately conflated.

[Richard]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

I've already answered this misguided objection when I responded to,

Not misguided at all Aaron, only to you. You took and sensationalized a snippet knowingly, just to make members seem confused and not sure of a question that was not asked properly. It's easy to do Aaron, I could just as easily have taken my video with my talking points, and stated that the Nicene Creed is part of your Christian Belief, but where can you show me in the Bible that Bishops and a Sun Worshipping Emperor had the authority to change scripture. If they answered that they did not believe it came from Mans interpretations, but it was the word of God as we find in the Bible, I would say where is the ***le, "Triune Trinity" found in the Scriptures? Interesting that possibly many have never even heard of the Nicene Creed, or how it ever had major influence on the nature of God.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Appealing to the issue of formal doctrine when challenged with the frequency of beliefs of lay members is often a method of deflection by Mormons. They want to conflate the two when convenient, yet point out the distinction as a means of deflecting when the two haven't even been inappropriately conflated.

Why do you suppose the members are not fully aware of all the Doctrine Aaron? Why would you think all Evangelicals were on the same page scripturally? Why would you ask a question in a specific way? Who did you think you were kidding with your supposed poll? You know and those of us who post here are very aware of your deceit, we have seen it on Utube when you rightessly proclamed that the Temple re-enactment was only to help lost member, not to mock or ridicule. Your whole mission and platform is to sensationalize with tabloid ridicule, gossip, and quoting enemies of the church. You and Russ use snippets of our Doctrine, yet never fully explain in full context Gods Gospel as we proclaim it.

Interesting that you pretend to be only a sevant of God in helping lost sheep, when in reality you're no better than those who crucified our Saviour.

Regards, Richard.

[theway]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

theway, the nature and worship and enjoyment of God is the most fundamental and basic issue of Christianity. When I mean "basic", I mean basic to Biblical Christianity.

The basics about the nature of God is important, and I find your response strange coming from a group whose theology makes knowing the basic nature of the Triune Trinity God impossible to comprehend.

In any case, not everything about God’s nature is necessary for us know, nor would it be good for our spiritual growth to know everything, especially if one is not willing to accept the answer.

However upon more than just a few seconds contemplation (I am spiritually and mentally challenged
after all) I realized that there was more than just a simple yes or no answer, but there exists a more appropriate response. Maybe there’s a reason that God has chosen not to reveal such things to man, It’s possibly the same response I give when my kids ask me whether I ever smoked, drank, made out, etc.. and that is “It’s none of your business “. Even if I had never done any of them it’s still not something that they need a response to.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Bat-man, they were praying. That's evidence toward the fact that it was visionary, and that they had their eyes closed. In any case, you still have no evidence that a random-p***erby would have also plainly seen the plates (however interpreted).

Aaron, how do you explain the testimony of the eight witnesses. You have stated that the first three saw with their spiritual eyes, so that leaves the eight who actually did handle with their hands the Br*** Plates. Did any of these eight witness ever deny what they saw and felt? I would say that the Three witnesses also saw physically the plates. Just my opinion.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

[aaronshaf]

Most Mormons apologists argue that the Three saw them with spiritual eyes in a vision, but that the Eight saw and held them with plain and natural eyes. But there are problems with the Eight too. Bill writes,

Later comments that could clarify the language used in the testimony of the eight witnesses are scarce, but several historians and researchers recount a statement made by John Whitmer that makes their experience sound similar to the three witnesses. Whitmer was excommunicated from the LDS Church on March 10, 1838 along with W.W. Phelps. Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer would also be excommunicated a month later. On April 5, 1839 Theodore Turley challenged John Whitmer to either affirm or deny his testimony regarding the gold plates. Whitmer responded by saying the plates ‘were shown to me by a supernatural power” (History of the Church 3:307). Why would supernatural power be necessary if the plates actually existed?

Hill commented on a letter written by Hiram Page to the Ensign of Liberty in 1848. In it Page defended his belief that the Book of Mormon was a work of the Lord. However, Hill conceded that Page did not actually say he saw the plates:

“With only a veiled reference to ‘what I saw,’ Page does not say he saw the plates but that angels confirmed him in his faith. Neither does he say that any coercion was placed upon him to secure his testimony. Despite Page's inconsistencies, it is difficult to know what to make of Harris' affirmation that the eight saw no plates in the face of John Whitmer's testimony. The original testimony of these eight men in the Book of Mormon reads somewhat ambiguously, not making clear whether they handled the plates or the ‘leaves’ of the translated m****cript. Thus there are some puzzling aspects to the testimonies of the witnesses. If Burnett's statement is given credence it would appear that Joseph Smith extorted a deceptive testimony from the eight witnesses. But why should John Whitmer and Hiram Page adhere to Mormonism and the Book of Mormon so long if they only gave their testimony reluctantly? It may be that like the three witnesses they expressed a genuine religious conviction. The particulars may not have seemed as important as the ultimate truth of the work” (Dialogue, Vol.7, No.4, pp.84-85).

Richard L. Anderson, in his faith-promoting book ***led Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, insists that readers must take the testimony of the eleven witnesses at “face value.” William D. Russell, a member of the Community of Christ and professor of history of the LDS movement at Graceland University, strongly disagrees.

“Perhaps one should not expect that a book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon published by Deseret Book Company would be anything other than an attempt to strengthen the reader's faith in the Book of Mormon. This book will be convincing to those already certain that the gold plates actually existed and that the eleven witnesses saw them. And even the detached reader will probably be convinced by Anderson's research that the witnesses were honest men who sincerely believed their signed testimony and probably stuck by their story as long as they lived. But Anderson is really trying to have us conclude more than this. He would have the reader be convinced that because these men were honest and reaffirmed their testimony when asked, they actually saw and handled plates which contained the records of an ancient people. I believe that Anderson-- like the eleven witnesses--is an honest and sincere man when he writes: ‘After years of working with their lives and their words, I am deeply convinced that their printed testimonies must be taken at face value’ (p. xii). But I don't believe that his research by itself requires this conclusion. As he admits, ‘spiritual truths must be spiritually verified’ (p. 82). Believers must make a ‘leap of faith,’ apprehending with their ‘spiritual eyes’ rather than their ‘natural eyes’ (“Investigating the Investigation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.16, No.2, pp.132-133).

It seems foolish to take the testimony of the witnesses at face value if there is further information available that helps us to understand how certain key words were understood and used by the writer/speaker. For example, if a person took the stand in a court room and said he saw the defendant use a gun to steal another person’s wallet, such an account would tend to carry significant weight with the jury. However, if the same person said he saw the defendant “in a vision” using a gun to steal a wallet, the strength of the testimony is incredibly weakened. Why? Because rational people do not equate visionary experiences with tangible, physical objects.

You can read more about the issue here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/ind...howtopic=16961

and here:

http://irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt1.html

http://irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt2.html

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Most Mormons apologists argue that the Three saw them with spiritual eyes in a vision, but that the Eight saw and held them with plain and natural eyes.

No, most Mormon apologists do not argue that the 3 witnesses saw the plates with spiritual eyes in a vision, if by "spiritual eyes in a vision" you are saying the 3 witnesses had their physical eyes closed when they saw the plates and a bright light and an angel of God who showed them the plates.

You are operating under a misunderstanding, as I've already explained to you in a previous post.

The main thing that sets what the 3 witnesses saw apart from what the 8 witnesses saw is that the 3 witnesses saw a bright light from heaven (with their physical eyes) while then seeing (with their physical eyes) an angel of God who physically showed (with their physical eyes) the plates... while the 8 witnesses saw no bright light from heaven nor an angel and instead only had Joseph to show them the plates (with their physical eyes).

In other words, the 3 witnesses saw the plates (with their physical eyes) accompanied by physical manifestations from God which they also saw with their physical eyes (such as a bright light and an angel of God), while the 8 witnesses saw the plates (with their physical eyes) but what they saw was not accompanied by physical manifestations from God.

That's the truth, aaron. Please stop misrepresenting us and our (LDS) beliefs.

[Richard]

Richard L. Anderson, in his faith-promoting book ***led Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, insists that readers must take the testimony of the eleven witnesses at “face value.” William D. Russell, a member of the Community of Christ and professor of history of the LDS movement at Graceland University, strongly disagrees.

Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses

by Richard Lloyd Anderson

I'll unload my briefcase before I unload on you. I visited with Matt Brown and heard that he did an incredible PowerPoint presentation and I simply pray for the Spirit of the Lord so I'll have the power behind the PowerPoint.

You can tell I'm a faithful Latter-day Saint because I'm going to start with an apology. I did hear early but prepared late so I've got an outline and I wish I had decided to speak on "explaining the witnesses" instead of "explaining away the witnesses" so my topic is what other people are doing "explaining away" and I'm trying to get behind that and try to understand about where they're coming from and what needs to be said.

The problem as I see it... I had a law school professor that said "I'll win any argument if you'll let me define the problem."

I have in my files, over the years, about fifty so-called interviews with Oliver Cowdery. "Interview" is a contact, basically, where they said something about The Book of Mormon, it might be detailed; it might be a speech; it might be something he wrote, and so on. And, in the case of David Whitmer, a long interview.

So, here are the statistics about... did I say fifty? Thirty for Oliver Cowdery; a minimum of seventy for David Whitmer; about fifty for Martin Harris; and a minimum of forty--probably one and a half times that much.

So I've got about two hundred times when one of the witnesses said, "I did sign the statement." "The statement means what it says." "I saw the angel." "I saw the plates." Or in the case of the eight witnesses, "I handled the plates." So two hundred very positive and specific statements in many cases and I'm dealing today with about eight or ten documents, in other words, five percent. And the question is: "Do you believe the 95 percent or do you believe the five?"

There's a paradox of this and that is the people that are attacking the witnesses and have in the past are basically saying, "well, they just dreamed it up; it's a matter of their exerting too much faith." And that's the paradox because I never would've set out this morning if I hadn't believed the Special Events Center was here, hadn't had faith that there was a crowd to speak to, et cetera.

Columbus started on faith, Edison started on faith, and it's that faith that is called a hypothesis in this scientific method. You have to conceive of something in terms of imagination and logical extension, extrapolation, before you ever really verify something beyond your little reality and so we're really dealing with that basic issue below.

Apologetics and the "Reasons Below"

I was talking with Scott Gordon this morning and I was explaining that Socrates got up and defended himself before they asked him to take the hemlock and two disciples, Xenophon and also Plato, wrote their approximation reconstruction of what he said and they're both called--in Greek--apologia and I said to Scott "not only does apologia really mean to answer or defend (transitioning to a verb) but it... in the case of Socrates he tried to distinguish between the charges that were the verbal attacks upon him and the real reasons below.

And if I wanted to work with that, I would just make an ****ogy which could be quick: That I spent about forty years talking about the New Testament, collecting books on the New Testament, I'm doing total Church History right now, I have faith that I'll make the circle and come back and use many of those books but I can't tell you how many books I have bought in terms of the reality of the resurrection. You know, is there really a intellectual argument or is there empirical proof that would establish the resurrection?

Well if I go into a courtroom and watch testimony and see a jury believe or not believe the various witnesses, I don't really distinguish between the evidence for the resurrection or the evidence for the witnesses.

But basically the field of New Testament studies is in the throes of this self-reappraising agony "Can we really believe?" and so many people write books about the resurrection ignoring the miracles of Jesus' life. Scores of them ignoring the personal testimonies of the gospel writers--two of those who had seen and felt Jesus in the resurrection--ignoring the speeches in the Book of Acts of Peter and John who had been there in the resurrection and Paul who had seen Jesus in a vision afterward.

And so, what is driving this is really not evidence at all. What's driving it is skepticism and the playing out of that skepticism by picking pieces of evidence, for instance, very quickly, one verse in Matthew said that Jesus appeared on the mount and... but some doubted. And you pick that out and think well, you know, there's a resurrection appearance so they weren't really sure of it but then you read the next verse and then it says literally (in Greek) "And Jesus walked toward them." Well if that was their initial fright, which other resurrection accounts describe and document, but the verification of the reality of Jesus physically is afterward but that one little thing, that one little tail wags a big dog.

And so, I apologize for the topic in a way, because you can really read the 95% and that is such consistent and powerful evidence and I just want to go on record saying that I think it isn't the evidence that I'm really talking about, there's a motivation of lack of faith underneath or lack of open-mindedness.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Richard]

All right, if you go back to the first reaction to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon in The Palmyra Reflector, ridicule is pretty standard; character ******ination; you can't take these people seriously and their claim to be liars or really stupid; easy to convince people and supers***ious.

And if you've read anti-Mormon approaches to the witnesses in the last five years, many of them are saying--they're not really many and I'm not... I'll be glad in questions to name people and so on but I'm really trying to work with issues--but the issue here is that people work with this idea that my approach in the little red book or the big blue book before that, the first edition, Investigating The Book of Mormon Witnesses, that approach says honesty and credibility was the hallmark of these people in their community.

Now I have to back off and say in the case of Martin Harris people said that he was terribly gullible because he believed the Bible and took literally the prophecies. So, credibility had a religious exception: he was credible in business but he wasn't credible in his religious at***udes.

And, so, anyway I'm told that credibility and character and honesty are all irrelevant, if you're going to be deceived you can be an honest person and be deceived so we don't even talk about that.

Well, if Mark Hofmann somehow got out and offered us a new set of documents, credibility might be an issue. If somebody is a known liar, you're not even going to get to first base in taking it seriously and so I say that these are really big issues and if you've crossed that huge chasm of having believable people who are saying "we saw the plates," "we saw the angel," or "we handled the plates," then you've really come a long way.

Oliver Cowdery's law partner said that he had never met anybody that was so well informed and this man went on to have a career in politics, a successful career in law. He did a really fine county history that's not a bunch of blurbs but real history and wrote two paragraphs on early pioneer lawyers in his county. His name is William Lang, he apprenticed in Oliver Cowdery's law office, and he said he had never met a person that was so well informed on so many different subjects. He sincerely admired the man's mind and his capabilities.

Well if I tell you that I've seen the northern lights in Utah that's a fairly improbable statement but it might be true sometime. You might say, "well does Anderson know the difference between the appearance of northern lights and the appearance of Salt Lake City in the distance?" And intelligence, perception is a great issue too. And these are really defined as, out of the way, that's irrelevant. It's certainly not irrelevant. We have substantial people bearing substantial testimonies.

A variation of this, their bad character, is quoting Joseph Smith on their bad character. And Joseph Smith has, I have to smile at it because we've all been in this mood and some of us have acted on it and others have had better judgment but anyway Joseph Smith says basically judgment for judgment, I mean he puts this at the beginning of this editorial in the Elder's Journal in 1838 and he's just had it with people that want to leave the Church and give him a bad time and all Missourians conspiring to throw the Mormons out and he is in a defensive mood and mode for sure. But he calls David Whitmer a dumb *** but he's talking about Balaam's *** in the Old Testament speaking the truth in spite of himself and he has an epithet for Martin Harris. I don't really recall that he says anything about Oliver Cowdery except he does feel betrayed.

And so Joseph Smith did label the witnesses with those labels and so if you quote Joseph Smith it looks pretty impressive: "These people weren't to be believed, and Joseph Smith said so, so don't believe their testimony of the Book of Mormon." Well that's a neat reversal of reality, just based on circumstances, but that plays into the whole issue.

I'm told in some books that they are impostors; they are part of a conspiracy. Well Joseph Smith went out of his way to alienate them as they left the Church. The Church in Far West went out of their way to alienate John Whitmer, Lyman Johnson as an ex-apostle was along for the ride out, and David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery and they were told you're not welcome in town--get out! (It happens in many frontier communities, and Latter-day Saints are not insulated from emotions trying to explain instead of justify.)

If you're run out of town and told that the people that you were with don't want you around anymore and some rather extreme charges are made about your honesty on the way out, you would have a pretty strong reaction and so you get into this set and subset of somebody accusing, counter-accusing and escalating a whole argument and these emotions actually went on.

The witnesses are victimized by this and Oliver Cowdery stayed out of the Church partly because he waited for an apology which never came. But in spite of that, he said "I know." So quoting Joseph Smith negatively is only to highlight the conflict that these witnesses bridged themselves and said for sure they had seen the plates in spite of all that.

Cultural Dismissal of the Witnesses

Basically they're saying these people couldn't help themselves, they were culturally impaired. In other words, everybody around them believed in ghosts, apparitions and the whole communities were out money digging.

Alan Greenspan wouldn't have had a very good projection if all that were true. Somebody had to keep the economy going and that's such an exaggeration to say, as one author does, lumping all the witnesses together. I wish I had somebody that had a basic college logic course to diagram this but you can see the holes in the argument: Some people in the community did money-digging, some people in the community saw ghosts and apparitions, therefore all the witnesses who came from that community are tainted. I mean there's the jump, with that apparition and money-digging tag, and therefore you couldn't believe them because they were all supers***ious.

It's a huge jump and a really stupid approach. I mean you've got to look at the people individually and all I can say is that every one of these witnesses--Matt Brown may have done something of this this morning--but every one of these witnesses responded to that.

In my red book is a documentation of David Whitmer being present because he wouldn't let the m****cript of the Book of Mormon go out of his hands when the RLDS committee came and was trying to do an edition of the Book of Mormon corrected by what they thought was the original m****cript--it was the printer's.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Richard]

Deceiving the Witnesses

A man who was pretty secular and skeptical said to David Whitmer to his face, "well, you might believe that you saw the plates and the angel, but you were probably deceived." And Joseph III said David Whitmer stood up to his full height which was nearly six feet and said, "No sir. I was not deceived. I saw, I heard." And he said it with such force that the man was uncomfortable and left the room and Joseph III left the room with him and said "Mr. Smith, this is preposterous that somebody could believe that, but one thing is sure and that is that David Whitmer is certain that he saw and he heard."

Every one of those men had that experience. David H. Cannon, brother to George Q. and president of the St. George Temple in his later years, told in his recollections of his life of visiting Martin Harris in Kirtland about 1860. He said "I asked him is there any possibility that you were deceived?"

For David Whitmer the best interview for you to go to is James H. Moyle, many of us know Henry D.; he was the father of Henry D. Moyle our First Councilor in the First Presidency to President McKay, and James H. Moyle was just out of law school in Michigan and he said that he just really worked David Whitmer over to try to see anything that would beat holes in the story. And he was candid; he wrote in his journal, I expected him to be more physical.

That's the nub of what we're talking about. David always said he did not handle the plates and for Oliver and for Martin you can get statements where they said they did handle the plates. Those two were translators; that's interesting, I can't go beyond that statement. But David simply said the angel was there, he described the various kinds of plates on the table, he described the Urim and Thummim, sword of Laban, etc. And he did so very specifically in interview after interview, very freely responding to people's questions and often writing the newspaper or making a comment in a letter afterwards saying they got most of it straight but these are the things that were wrong.

He had a very settled and detailed picture of what he saw and described and said "no, he was not deceived." Well, you might say that's simplistic; the man, if he's going to be deceived isn't going to know it. I don't think that's true.

I have a brother-in-law that I've talked to over the years until he's tired of the conversation, as am I. But he says anybody that is hypnotized--he's in clinical psych--certainly knows that he was in and out of that experience. I've been deceived in business plenty of times, sheriff of Soda Springs, Idaho, sent $20 back to two stupid missionaries that believed a guy's hard luck story and he was really a con man.

But in terms of perceptions when you really think about things, if you're careful, ****ytical--these people were--they knew whether they were deceived or not. So what we're doing now is really working with this concept of how current literature on Mormonism is trying to transfer the experience of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon into a subjective experience; they call it a "visionary experience."

David Whitmer would've agreed. That's what he told James H. Moyle, that it was a visionary experience. He had a vision. And then the dichotomy is set up, you know in terms of definitions right at the outset, do you have a vision or do you see a real experience? Well, you've answered the question right there. If you want to set up that dichotomy you don't need to discuss anything further; you've already defined yourself out of a real experience.

So somebody really has to believe that there is a hereafter, that there is a possibility of that hereafter speaking to us, there is indeed a possibility of a world beyond this world which isn't really very hard for me to imagine when I know so many worlds and sub-worlds of biology, astronomy, bacteriology and so on that are not apparent to me. There are worlds beyond mine. And these people come to tell us something about that, but the explanation is that they just talked themselves into the experience. So, let's deal with that.

Martin Harris and the "Eye of Faith"

Martin Harris is probably the first person to start with. He talked about his experience in terms of "the eye of faith." I have to believe that people remembered that accurately, but John H. Gilbert is the person that says most about this and I'd like to deal with Gilbert just a bit.

He was the compositor of the Book of Mormon and he said he asked Martin Harris, "did you really see the plates with your natural eyes as you're talking to me?" He said Martin Harris looked down at the floor--Joseph Smith looked down at the floor very often in contemplation I don't know that that means that he was ashamed--but he thought about his answers to the point and then he said "I saw this with the eye of faith."

Martin Harris had to have faith in the experience; he separated himself from the other two. That was his Achilles' heel--that he didn't have enough faith and maybe he was trying to explain to Gilbert how it happened and Gilbert took that in more simplistic terms.

All I can say is that when I deal with Martin Harris and his own statement, I want to make a comment on that in a moment, this is what he actually wrote to a person who inquired: "I received your favor. In reply I will say concerning the plates, I do say that the angel did show to me the plates containing the Book of Mormon.1" He saw the angel, he saw the plates; so whether you talk about "eye of faith" or not, if you take what Martin Harris actually said and then start to measure all these other things by that and see how consistent they are; sometimes witnesses are getting misquoted, sometimes they're quoted accurately but not with a realization of their whole experience and I feel that this fits within that dimension.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Richard]

Physical Evidence and the Witnesses

I just want to say something about the witnesses of the Book of Mormon in terms of evidence. When Lyndon Cook came out with his book on the David Whitmer interviews I was sad because I didn't do it--I'll have to admit that, you know it was in my files for twenty-five years and I was going to do it next year--so Lyndon at least really got something out, 80% maybe of the interviews, but then the other problem that I had was that what are people going to do with these interviews? Now they'll see David Whitmer saying "I handled the plates" in some interviews and "I didn't handle the plates" in other interviews. That's not David Whitmer's problem because he wrote letters making that absolutely clear where he stood.

But there is a problem of transmission of information and then, you know, just simple matters of copying. He wrote a letter to the Kansas City Journal in 1881 after they published an interview saying, "no, I did not say..." (Oh, what is it? He's talking about the seer stone and they goofed on something.) He said "what I really said was 'sunstone.'" Well, they got it wrong twice and so all I can say is that you need to control every interview with one of the witnesses by firsthand personal statements if you've got them and then the correlation of the body of evidence in secondhand statements. If you get something that is really atypical, it doesn't blend with what other evidence is coming from the witness, be skeptical of that.

We really do need to deal with firsthand evidence as much as possible and we've got many statements where the witnesses actually wrote their experience or commented on it directly.

Here is a man who has just written a book experimenting with how Joseph Smith projected all of these experiences in the Book of Mormon which is a key to his psychology insteanesses. He works with two things: they might have had--and these are his words--"They might have had a hallucination." And he has some statistic that some psychologist says 90% of the people in the world have had a hallucination. Well, just take that for granted; what did they see? Did they see a deer in the headlights instead of a cat when they were driving and tired at night?

This is a unique type of hallucination. To be in broad daylight and have a conversation with an angel, to hear the voice of God and the whole thing is too complex for that type of explanation. But the man that advances this says of his own theory "It is easier to explain the phenomenon generally than it is to discover principles that are in play in specific cases due to the subtlety of the unconscious coordination of experience." In other words, "I'm just guessing." And he says "probably," "might have," and so on with hypnotism and that theory too.

Stephen Burnett's Letter

Now let's go to some hard documents here. I'm going to go to a letter that is typically quoted and I say this is one of my 5% documents. The letter is by a man who left the Church, the letter is dated 1838, about May. Dan Vogel has put out a five-volume collection of documents, his commentary often is very good on a document, if you keep him on the facts instead of the interpretation of the facts. It's very worth looking at his documents and this is a letter from Stephen Burnett and it is in one of his five volumes.

Stephen Burnett is on his way out of the Church, he's concluded the Book of Mormon isn't true, he's writing to Lyman Johnson who is his business partner. They both lost money and he starts to gripe and complain about that to begin with, so you know the motivation is basically hostility. Then he said "I went to the Stone Church," which is the temple in Kirtland, "but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in a public congregation that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination." Now really that's the jump there. He only saw the plates in a vision. Well, David Whitmer said he only saw the plates in a vision. Does a vision comprehend the reality of an angel being there in the midst of glory? An angel putting his hands on your head and ordaining you to the Aaronic Priesthood as Joseph and Oliver said? That's a dimension of reality we don't know.

Christ coming in a closed room--"vision" doesn't automatically mean a subjective, non-objective, non-real experience. And so, Martin Harris does stand up and say (I have to believe he said something like this) that he saw the plates in a vision.

But then Burnett said "or imagination," now that's 1838 and that's not a new discovery. There's a man named Ezra Booth who left the Church in 1831 after he went to Missouri. He has his issues with Joseph Smith, some of them are more serious than this one, but he says that Joseph said Missouri was the promised land and he had a better farm in Ohio than any land he found in Missouri. If you live either in Ohio or Missouri you can laugh at it, but anyway, Ezra Booth says there is such things as witnesses of the Book of Mormon. This is his 1831 letters to his pastor or a pastor, and they're published in the Ohio Star and then they're picked up in 1834 by E.D. Howe writing his Mormonism Unvailed, so that's the easiest place to get them. He says these witnesses stand up in the midst of large congregations and testify that they saw the plates, but he said "I had the privilege of finding the revelation that told them they could see the plates."

Oddly enough, that was not published in the Book of Commandments, but it was published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and it is also in the Kirtland Revelation Book, so we know that the m****cript was there early and for some reason it didn't get into the Book of Commandments. Booth says, "when I looked at this revelation," this is Section 17, "it tells the witnesses that if they have faith they can see the plates," and so he says that's the secret. I'm going to read his words: "They were informed that they should see and hear these things by faith, and then they should testify to the world, as though they had seen and heard."2 Okay, if they're going to see them by faith, then they have to testify as though they had seen. So he switches reality on them and then he said "after all, it amounts simply to this--that by faith or imagination, they saw the plates."

There you are defining yourself out of pursuing the witnesses further because Booth says, in 1831, faith equals imagination or non-reality, and Burnett says Martin Harris said he saw in a vision, which means imagination. Well so much for that if you don't want to hear the evidence stop at that point. I'm going to go to another document, I'm going to come back to this document and maybe deal with it a little bit more.

I'm going to switch the subject to the eight witnesses. And the eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon said that they had handled--the word is "hefted." That's interesting because in 1828 it probably has the connotation of measuring a weight, in other words, estimating the weight of something you're lifting. They saw the curious characters--that had a connotation in a generation that knew Latin better than we do--curae in Latin is "care," and curious actually has, as one of its senses in the nineteenth or eighteenth century, of being "carefully made" or "made with care." So they said "we saw those engravings, we looked at them carefully, saw that they were made with care, lifted the plates, turned over the leaves," etc.

This is what Burnett says about that experience, and I want you to keep in mind what I said about first and second-hand. He says "Martin Harris said that he saw the plates only with his natural eyes in vision...never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination, and that the eight witnesses never saw them and hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but they were persuaded to do it."

There's a lot of ways to interpret that. One of them is that they never saw the plates the at all; others that they saw the plates in a vision and didn't really handle them and they were persuaded to make that statement.

I'm not sure that the eight witnesses made that statement. All eight of them never made that statement, I've got something like sixty times when those witnesses say essentially, "yes, what I wrote in the Book of Mormon was true."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Richard]

And I'm told by some of the books on this subject now, "oh, well, those statements are just pro forma public statements and we have to go find what really happened." Well you know that's like telling your teenage kid "what part of no do you not understand?" What part of 'hefted' and 'seeing the curious characters' don't you understand?

And John Whitmer one time when he was asked, Joseph III did this, wrote to him and said "I want you to reiterate your testimony of seeing the plates." According to the family John Whitmer wrote back and said "I'm not going to reiterate my testimony because I never quit bearing it," in other words, "go see what I've said before." Another missionary came to John Whitmer and he wrote this, that "what I have said in my testimony was true, is true and will be true for eternities to come."

So those men said they stood by their testimony and so the testimony said they saw and handled, and I'm supposed to believe on this secondhand statement of a very hostile and angry man in Kirtland that Martin Harris said the eight witnesses admitted that they didn't see or they only saw in a vision?

This latest book that I mentioned that is doing a subjective *** of reducing the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith's personal experience, and so he's translating the Book of Mormon, that book says "well, the eight witnesses, while this is hearsay, nevertheless Martin Harris knew the eight witnesses, knew them well."

What an irrelevant statement! I mean, the question is whether you can look at that statement and believe that it came from the eight witnesses and if you said "well, nevertheless Martin Harris knew the eight witnesses well," what does that have to do with it? Can we really believe that anyone of the eight witnesses made this statement? It goes totally contradictory to everything else they said.

All right, so I'm p***ing by the Peter Burnett letter and I hope I've given it a decent funeral.

Theodore Turley's Statement

Let me take the other biggie that is used by both Vogel in his ****ysis and Palmer in his book.

I just want to say something about Palmer, I wasn't going to make this personal. It's still an issue; I'm not. I don't know him; he's probably a fine person, etc. Palmer does about twenty pages and then he has a statement saying "now let's look at the firsthand statement," and he quotes what the eight witnesses said. In the meantime, in those twenty pages, he's given you a script of what they saw, they somehow go into a cave in the Book of Mormon and see the plates. It has nothing to do with their statements, and so this is absolutely developing a counterfeit story and telling you that that is history.

Okay, now back of all this is a statement of John Whitmer and he is talking to Theodore Turley, and Theodore Turley is one of the Church agents left in Far West, Missouri, in 1838. He goes into a home to transact some business and there's several people that are leaders of the old settlers' party. They're ridiculing him and abusing him verbally and John Whitmer comes in and does the same and Turley says, "well, I don't know about this because he said some of you here say that you saw and then you apparently say you didn't see," and John Whitmer picked it up and said, "do you hint at me?"

And then this is what Turley reports--now this is a memoir in Nauvoo that Turley writes down four years after the fact. You're trusting his memory, but this is what he says. He said "I call on you, John Whitmer, you say Corrill is a moral and good man." I want to quote Corrill in a minute. "Do you believe him when he says the Book of Mormon is true, or when he says it is not true?" And he said Whitmer asked "Do you hint at me?" Turley replied, "If the cap fits you, wear it; all I, know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith."

Well, I open the Book of Mormon, and that it isn't what it reads. It reads that he saw the characters and hefted the plates. So Turley thinks that John Whitmer has testified to an angel. That's got to get into the mix here some way.

Whitmer replied, "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." Well that is exactly what Whitmer said in a dozen other very well recorded statements that he saw, handled, and lifted. And then he said, "they were shown me by a supernatural power." If you want to be a good prooftexter--and these people are--they pull out "supernatural power" and say, "Aha! That's the subjective experience. They weren't really handling...that's the giveaway." Again, do you believe the 95% or the 5%?

Now Turley, in reporting that, may be reporting John Whitmer's language because John Whitmer had been a scribe for the Book of Mormon and it's so interesting to me that in one other interview--it's by Myron Bond--John Whitmer said as we were translating I felt a supernatural power. When John Whitmer wrote his editorial farewell, in The Messenger and Advocate, in 1836 he said "I handled the plates, I want the readers to know I lifted the plates, I handled the plates and I know they're translated by the power of God."

He felt the power of God, which was a supernatural power, and that may be John Whitmer's language and that may be the issue: That he felt such a spiritual force when he was translating the Book of Mormon and when he actually had the privilege of lifting the plates that he would say that. But it's not an either/or; it's a both/and. I mean it's silly to even talk about that in terms of the evidence we have.

But you do have in John Whitmer's statement the misconception of the interviewer that he'd seen the plates and obviously the tendency of the interviewer to want to make seeing the plates something more. I mean, I didn't restate that correctly, the interviewer said he had seen an angel and the plates--misconception. And some of that misconception may be creeping into that interview. It's the only one we've got where he says that there was a supernatural power because the interviewer wants there to be more than just handling the plates.

Well, I did a little article, I'm not asking you to read it but I'm just using it as an exhibit called Personal Writings of the Witnesses of The Book of Mormon and those personal writings are impressive. Whether it's Hyrum Smith; whether it's John Whitmer; whether it's Martin Harris; whether it's David Whitmer; they say, "We saw. It was not an illusion."

David Whitmer's most famous statement about that is his so-called interview with John Murphy from a nearby town in Missouri called Polo. John Murphy had been a Protestant missionary and he came in with some sophistication to try to take David Whitmer apart on this. And he published his statement saying that David Whitmer said "well, it was like the Methodists." John Murphy asked him a series of questions and got him to say, "yes, it was similar to the experience of the Methodists when they get up in a testimony meeting and say they know that Christ is the Savior." And he said, "so that's all it is."

Of course, that's the trap because something is like something else doesn't mean that it should be reduced to something else. Because something was a vision doesn't mean that it is less than reality; it's a vision of greater reality. And every one of these witnesses of the Book of Mormon whether the three or eight are consistent.

Summary

A lady asked me this morning "Did they really substantiate their testimony?" There is not one reliable record where they denied that testimony, all three of the witnesses bore that testimony on their deathbeds. And in this case of John Murphy, David Whitmer issued his own statement in 1881, published it in the newspaper, issued it as a pamphlet, incorporated it in his 1887 An Address to All Believers in Christ, saying "if you didn't understand me then, I hope you'll understand me now--it was no deception, it was real."

So I don't dislike David Whitmer and the other witnesses to respond to those criticisms, they do that very well.

And so I would say these witnesses are capable, they're perceptive, they're intelligent enough to know whether they were the victims of deception; they were motivated to expose if there was a conspiracy. They did not. And I think the whole issue is an issue of speculation versus documentation and if you don't believe that I will just show you the counter-explanations that are laced with 'possibly', and it 'perhaps' happened this way and if somebody isn't any more sure of his ground than that, I'd like to stay with the witnesses that are sure of their ground.

I'd like to come back to Section 17, which Ezra Booth said was the giveaway. They were supposed to have faith to see these objects and the first verse in Section 17 names the objects, five of them: plates, sword of Laban, interpreters, etc.

David Whitmer was cross-examined and examined and even though Joseph Smith, in his record, doesn't say that all those objects appear; you get any one of the witnesses in terms of detail and they go into that detail and they verify the revelation in a remarkable way. And the revelation includes this statement saying, they will testify that "my servant Joseph will not be destroyed."3 I feel these witnesses are a powerful support to the prophet Joseph.

Not only did Joseph have visions, they had similar verification physically and spiritually and there is nothing that I have found that would make me feel a bit to the contrary intellectually or spiritually. And I guess I should bear that testimony of my whole personality involved in this, and I have looked for whatever contradictions--I made up my mind early if they were there I'd find them--I haven't found them. I say that in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[HickPreacher]

Richard, when I cut and pasted your last message in a series unbroken posts for Aaron it took 18 pages of MS Word space in a single file. That is an excessive amount of material to post. What kind of communication strategy do you think you are using?

It appears to me that the "God Never Sinned" Video has gotten you upset.

I have shared this video's link to number of people who have Evangelical Seminary connections and ***ociations who are very shocked at what these people interviewed say about God once being a mortal man that could have been a sinner. I am sure that Graduate Students at various Evangelical Colleges will be viewing the video and this board in the coming days.

It is shocking to me to see this video, and I was a Mormon for 17 years of my young adult life. The content of this video is incredible-- it is not a scientific study-- and does not say that it is such. Nevertheless, what the LDS on the video say is shocking, incredible and significant.

This video could turn out to be significant to the general public, so what is posted here on this board related to the video may be viewed with a very critical eye. You should be aware of this so that you can stand as a good example of who you want you represent.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by HickPreacher

Richard, when I cut and pasted your last message in a series unbroken posts for Aaron it took 18 pages of MS Word space in a single file. That is an excessive amount of material to post. What kind of communication strategy do you think you are using?

It appears to me that the "God Never Sinned" Video has gotten you upset.

I have shared this video's link to number of people who have Evangelical Seminary connections and ***ociations who are very shocked at what these people interviewed say about God once being a mortal man that could have been a sinner. I am sure that Graduate Students at various Evangelical Colleges will be viewing the video and this board in the coming days.

It is shocking to me to see this video, and I was a Mormon for 17 years of my young adult life. The content of this video is incredible-- it is not a scientific study-- and does not say that it is such. Nevertheless, what the LDS on the video say is shocking, incredible and significant.

This video could turn out to be significant to the general public, so what is posted here on this board related to the video may be viewed with a very critical eye. You should be aware of this so that you can stand as a good example of who you want you represent.

Apparently your not following the thread:

Aaron posted the following:
Richard L. Anderson, in his faith-promoting book ***led Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, insists that readers must take the testimony of the eleven witnesses at “face value.” William D. Russell, a member of the Community of Christ and professor of history of the LDS movement at Graceland University, strongly disagrees.

It was a re****al good buddy. It was a answer about the witnesses. Sorry to hear you quit the Church, the doors are always open, and your more than welcome to check in once in awhile.
Not being sarcastic, it was meant with sincerity.

R.


Post Script:


Am I upset? not really for Aaron is only using duplicity and is knowingly asking a question that is not Doctrinal.
The question is worded in such a way as to show that the response makes the sensationalized question seem normal, when in fact the Church has no such doctrine you can turn to that the General Authorities ever discussed, except for the snippets you love to cite.

God was once a man.
We can become Gods and Goddesses.
God had a Father and a Mother, etc, etc.

Quote:
Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."
So you see my friend, if Hinckley does not understand all the circumstances, why should we know any more then the Prophet of the Church. I would suggest to all, that the question is irrelevant, since there is no authoritative answer. You are mocking and trying to ridicule with some kind of false justification that you're only trying to open the eyes of the Believers. What you have succeeded in doing Aaron, is contending and kicking against the *****s, you loose when it come to debating against the Holy Ghost. Nice try, but as usual you miss the mark, and fall prey to the deceit Satan uses, false, pretentious, and condescending rhetoric.

[aaronshaf]

Am I upset? not really for Aaron is only using duplicity and is knowingly asking a question that is not Doctrinal.

I'm going to start an FAQ, because this silly objection has been addressed multiple times.

This problem is apparent in Aaronshaf’s inability after years of asking the same question and his still not being able to separate the answers, as either doctrine of the LDS church, or merely personal opinion/speculation.

Where have I conflated formal official doctrine with the actual beliefs of lay members?

You have it not only wrong, but completely backwards. I of all people understand that distinction very well. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that part of the very problem is that the Mormon Church does NOT have an official position on whether God was once a sinner.

I also posted a blog post this morning on this very issue:

http://blog.mrm.org/2009/04/respondi...ne-deflection/

If a majority of church members believe something bad, and it happens to be fostered or implied by the rest of the traditional Mormon worldview, the LDS Church leadership still has a responsibility not to acquiesce to it. Otherwise they are complicit to a degree in the continuance of the belief among lay members, all the while having the ability to reverse the popular belief.

Also, what matters to outsiders like me is not merely abstract official doctrine (whichever of the varying standards you use to define that; Mormons themselves simply disagree over what cons***utes official doctrine), but also what beliefs are actually held among members. I know it is embarr***ing that many Mormon members believe that God the Father could have been a sinner, but the Mormon worldview and historic leadership have something to account for that. They are not off the hook just because they haven’t put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.,

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Vlad III

Pssst....Russ......Mormons actually think/opine/speculate/conjecture outside of the church. We think and wonder and try to connect dots. That is normal.

LOL....on one hand you Mormon-antagonists criticize LDS for being blindly led and brainwashed and being non-thinkers. Then on the other hand you criticize LDS for thinking too much!

Vlad, sure, thinking, pondering and trying to connect the dots is what we all do. As you say, it's normal.

To consider/think/opine/wonder/ponder/pray that God was once a sinner is foreign to Christian concepts and theology.

When we consider that God is omniscient, we just don't wonder if he ever sinned.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

I'm going to start an FAQ, because this silly objection has been addressed multiple times.



I also posted a blog post this morning on this very issue:

http://blog.mrm.org/2009/04/respondi...ne-deflection/

Aaron, I was thinking (while reading your blog) that you could interview many Christians (Catholics, Protestants, etc) who believe abortion should be legal. If you found a hundred Catholics who held this belief, what exactly would you gleen from that? Would you believe that was something taught in the Catholic Church? Or even a commonly held belief (if say you only interviewed a 100 people...out of how many millions of Catholics?). What have you really learned from that kind of exercise?

[aaronshaf]

Libby, fair question, but it's a particularly poor example.

Roman Catholicism has an explicit, strong official doctrine denouncing abortion and any attempts to legalize it.

Mormonism has no official doctrine that gives explicit rock-solid ***urance that God the Father never sinned. That's a big part of the problem.

One can reasonably infer from the pattern of interviews that Mormonism simply doesn't give clarity on the issue. But it of all issues should be clear.

God. Never. Sinned.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Libby, fair question, but it's a particularly poor example.

Roman Catholicism has an explicit, strong official doctrine denouncing abortion and any attempts to legalize it.

Mormonism has no official doctrine that gives explicit rock-solid ***urance that God the Father never sinned. That's a big part of the problem.

One can reasonably infer from the pattern of interviews that Mormonism simply doesn't give clarity on the issue. But it of all issues should be clear.

God. Never. Sinned.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. That probably wasn't a good example. But, I am sure there must be erroneous beliefs held by people of other religions, for lack of explicit teaching/understanding.

I'll throw one out there that I, particularly, had trouble with, and that was the idea that babies possibly go to hell (if they are non-elect). I realize only a relatively small group probably hold that opinion, but (IMHO) it's a horribly, distorted characterization of a loving and just God.

But, we're only human, and these kinds of erroneous beliefs are bound to pop up, in any given Christian group. IMO, it simply means we (none of us) have perfect understanding. I think God is big enough and gracious enough to forgive that, if we are sincerely seeking understanding of Him..and mainly seeking His Will.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Libby, fair question, but it's a particularly poor example.

Roman Catholicism has an explicit, strong official doctrine denouncing abortion and any attempts to legalize it.

Mormonism has no official doctrine that gives explicit rock-solid ***urance that God the Father never sinned. That's a big part of the problem.

One can reasonably infer from the pattern of interviews that Mormonism simply doesn't give clarity on the issue. But it of all issues should be clear.

God. Never. Sinned.

Aaron, I've already shown you that this isn't precluded, and you've never been able to come up with an intelligent response. Quit pretending you're right in spite of that.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=aaronshaf;11507]I'm going to start an FAQ, because this silly objection has been addressed multiple times.
I also posted a blog post this morning on this very issue:

Aaron stated, "If a majority of church members believe something bad, and it happens to be fostered or implied by the rest of the traditional Mormon worldview, the LDS Church leadership still has a responsibility not to acquiesce to it. Otherwise they are complicit to a degree in the continuance of the belief among lay members, all the while having the ability to reverse the popular belief.
Also, what matters to outsiders like me is not merely abstract official doctrine (whichever of the varying standards you use to define that; Mormons themselves simply disagree over what cons***utes official doctrine), but also what beliefs are actually held among members. I know it is embarr***ing that many Mormon members believe that God the Father could have been a sinner, but the Mormon worldview and historic leadership have something to account for that. They are not off the hook just because they haven’t put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.,

In Moses 5 of the Pearl of Great Price we read that after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, “Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden…

And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”

“with an eye single to the glory of God,” as stated in the fourth section, fifth verse, of the Doctrine and Covenants–not for what we want to do, but rather for what the Lord wants us to do, when he wants us to do it, and in the way his work needs to be carried out. There will be times when we shall not understand why.

“Nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted” and “I know not, save the Lord commanded me”.”

In 1831 the Lord said this to his Church:

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for be that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore be receiveth no reward.

"Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to p*** much righteousness;

"For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

"But he that does not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is ****ed." (D&C 58:26-29)

Aaron accuses, "They are not off the hook just because they haven’t put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.

If the First Presidency has not received revelation concerning the nature of God in all things, then as Adam and Even, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." Members, General Authorities, all walk by Faith, many things revealed in partiality, have never been explained in fullness. What one member believes, or many members believe is not going to change what has been revealed, and is the Word of God, we Aaron are not all on the same plain, some are more committed then others, some more studious, some more spiritual, some more faithful, some more active and some less active, wonderful is the agency of man.

Your criteria and expectations are the precepts and theories of man, but as we all know:
"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord.
'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

[aaronshaf]

But, I am sure there must be erroneous beliefs held by people of other religions, for lack of explicit teaching/understanding.

The problem with the God-was-a-sinner-possibility-belief is that it is a natural extension of the Mormon worldview for many Mormons, and there is no official position in ins***utional Mormonism which deems it erroneous. If it is so erroneous, the LDS leadership have a responsibility to put out an official First Presidency statement STRONGLY denouncing any notions that God as ever possibly a sinner. Of all issues they consider, I guarantee you, this is the most important. I have talked to a General Authority about this issue and he simply didn't care enough about it. He blew it off. As it is, the LDS leadership just allows its members go to on believing this kind of tragic thing. They won't play the role of true spiritual shepherds like they claim to be. They are instead wolves who acquiesce to millions of Mormons believing God could have been a sinner.

That is shameful.

God does not forgive the persistently unrepentant. Those who do not repent of believing God could have been a sinner will go to everlasting punishment.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

God does not forgive the unrepentant. Those who do not repent of believing God could have been a sinner will go to everlasting punishment.

It's not your *** to condemn people to hell, Aaron, but your accusations are still meaningless in light of that fact that you were shown that the Bible absolutely does not preclude that belief and you were unable to even respond. Isn't it all about the Bible for you? Why don't you believe it?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

The problem with the God-was-a-sinner-possibility-belief is that it is a natural extension of the Mormon worldview for many Mormons, and there is no official position in ins***utional Mormonism which deems it erroneous. If it is so erroneous, the LDS leadership have a responsibility to put out an official First Presidency statement STRONGLY denouncing any notions that God as ever possibly a sinner. Of all issues they consider, I guarantee you, this is the most important. I have talked to a General Authority about this issue and he simply didn't care enough about it. He blew it off. As it is, the LDS leadership just allows its members go to on believing this kind of tragic thing. They won't play the role of true spiritual shepherds like they claim to be. They are instead wolves who acquiesce to millions of Mormons believing God could have been a sinner.

That is shameful.

God does not forgive the persistently unrepentant. Those who do not repent of believing God could have been a sinner will go to everlasting punishment.

The question is irrelevant to what is so much more important Aaron, Christ when preaching to the disciples kept a pretty focused sermon dialogue. Faith, Repentance, Baptism and Confirmation. Testing ones faith comes first, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. If Joe or Mary have one idea of the Gospel, I have another, and the new convert is still holding on to old beliefs, is it up to the General authorities to force them to change their beliefs, hardly, they will emphatically state, Take it to the Lord, and ask for Wisdom. If they receive no clarity then I imagine that the Lord will reveal it when He so desires to reveal even more of his Doctrine or principles. This is a huge stumbling block for Evangelicals, for there Faith is in the Word and not the witness of the Holy Ghost.

[nrajeff]

AARON, where is YOUR denomination's Official Statement on the Question of Whether or Not it is Possible that Jesus could have Sinned at Some Point in His Existence? I want to see that statement, now, or I will have to conclude that your church is "shameful" for not having a statement prepared.

[JDErickson]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

AARON, where is YOUR denomination's Official Statement on the Question of Whether or Not it is Possible that Jesus could have Sinned at Some Point in His Existence? I want to see that statement, now, or I will have to conclude that your church is "shameful" for not having a statement prepared.

Hi Jeff,
What do you personally believe in regards to God possibly being a sinner in a past mortal probation?