Joseph smith was the only witness to the bom

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Christian

To demonstrate that EVEN ONE PERSON ANYWHERE could vouch for the supposed accuracy of smith's translation.

And I've produced three people who vouched for the accuracy of the translation, just not in the way that you demand (moving the goalposts).

BTW, WHY (if it was accurately translated) were over 4,000 CHANGES required to get from the first version to the version you have now???!!!

Mostly to standardize the grammar and punctuation and correct m****cript and typesetting errors, and some clarifications.

As I said, you have NOBODY but joe smith to vouch for ANY of the story he made up in his book but JOE SMITH HIMSELF.

Yes you said that, but you're wrong. I've produced three additional witnesses, so your claim is proven false.

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Christian

But as the heathen you are (if you are a true-blue mormon)

Let's examine your ***ertion. What is a heathen?

heathen noun

1: an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2: an uncivilized or irreligious person

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heathen

By virtue of being a so-called "true-blue Mormon," I acknowledge the God of the Bible. I am also both civilized and religious, therefore I can't be a heathen, and your entire rant is based on a falsehood.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Erundur

And I've produced three people who vouched for the accuracy of the translation, just not in the way that you demand (moving the goalposts).


Mostly to standardize the grammar and punctuation and correct m****cript and typesetting errors, and some clarifications.


Yes you said that, but you're wrong. I've produced three additional witnesses, so your claim is proven false.

Your answer here makes no sense. Now, if God was there helping JS with translating these gold plates, HOW would there ever be any grammatical errors or punctuation errors? My God doesn't make mistakes, HE knows ALL things!! And what would these clarifications that needed changing? erundur, you are grabbing at straws trying hard to explain things that logical people, who haven't been blinded by false teachings can see plainly. JS said, "the BoM was translated by the gift and power of God." His words, but seems that the God you worship doesn't know all things does he, else why the errors?

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by neverending

Now, if God was there helping JS with translating these gold plates,

The claim is that they were translated by the gift and power of God, not that God was physically there in the room with him, helping him translate.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Erundur

The claim is that they were translated by the gift and power of God, not that God was physically there in the room with him, helping him translate.

Since Smith couldn't even read or write English to any educated degree the BofM translation had to be given to him.. According to the BofM witnesses that you have been putting so much importance on Smith got every word of the BofM directly translated for Him by God:

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, page 12)

That would make be help the whole of the translation would be words used by God.. It should have been perfect requiring no changes at all. When the printer offered his services to make changes to the book to correct the grammar he was answered "When the printer was ready to commence work, Harris was notified, and Hyrum Smith brought the first installment of m****cript ... On the second day — Harris and Smith being in the office — I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: 'The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.' " (Memorandum, made by John H. Gilbert, Esq., September 8, 1892, Palmyra, N.Y., printed in Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, Introduction).

Looks like either the witnesses were liars or the errors in the BofM were given to Smith by the flawed mormon God and later almost 4,000 of them were corrected.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

[Erundur;152376]I have added three witnesses to the text of the Book of Mormon, proving the anti-Mormon position in this thread false.

You have shown a statement written by Smith saying what he wanted it to say.. The witnesses said that it was a spiritual statement again and again.. the Gold plates never left the Smith home during the time the witnesses say that they say the Angel and the plates.. The translation process continued after that moment in LDS history. This event was said to have occurred in June of 1829.. The History say it happened while the translation was in process (HISTORY of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of LATTER-DAY SAINTS Vol 1:Chapter 6).. If you insist that they saw the angel with their natural eyes the plates had to be there in vision only..

Wrong! The reference you cited states that Harris DID see the angel and the plates. (Mine eyes have beheld; mine eyes have beheld!) You should really read your sources before you cite them.

Sorry Whitmer said "in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony" Look it up is is from "Marvin S. Hill, "Brodie Revisited: A Reappraisal," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, (Winter, 1972): pp. 83-84."..

What are you talking about??? I quoted the source you cited which proves that you're wrong!!!

But the source said he saw the plates with spiritual eyes.. On another occasion Martin Harris was being interviewed by one John Clark a minister from New York. The questions and answers went this way:

"Did you see those plates?" Harris replied, he did. "Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?" Harris replied, "Yes, I saw them with my eyes,—they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man." "But did you see them with your natural,—your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this." Harris replied,—"Why I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith" (Ed. Dan Vogel, Signature Books, Early Mormon Documents Vol. 2 p 270).

That was the common theme of who the witnesses saw the plates and when it is clear from LDS history that only Cowdrey and Whitmer saw the plated and the Angel at first.

Joseph had the three witnesses pray continually in an effort to obtain a view of the plates, but to no avail. Finally: Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly withdrew from us, and we knelt down again, . . . presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates. . . . Smith then left David and Oliver, and went in pursuit of Martin Harris. . . . We accordingly joined in prayer, and ultimately obtained our desires, for before we had yet finished, the same vision was opened to our view, at least it was again opened to me, whilst at the same moment, Martin Harris cried out, apparently in an ecstasy of joy, " 'Tis enough; 'tis enough; mine eyes have beheld; mine eyes have beheld" (History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 54-55.)

The question is now, does anyone see visions with their natural eyes, or with spiritual eyes?

Prove it.

I can show you how eager Smith's early fiends were to rush off to Toronto to sell the copywrite of the BofM because Smith convinced them they would be successful. I could show you how Smith talked Ema to accept his marriage to other women. I could show you how his story of seeing God and Jesus though it has changed over the years still makes people believe that he was a prophet.. What do you need to see to believe that his fairy tales are just a con *** to give himself power over other and power over their purses..

Right; they plates were physically present and they saw them while in the spirit. "Spiritual" or "visionary" does not equal "imaginary"!

I agree bit it also doesn't mean physical.. To know if their vision was the truth of God or just a strong desire of their own deceitful heart is another matter.. As Martin Harris cried out, apparently in an ecstasy of joy, " 'Tis enough; 'tis enough; mine eyes have beheld.. He wanted that VISION so bad that His mind could have conjured up the entire event.. It's it easier to just hold faith in Jesus as we are directed in the Bible instead of trying to make a lie into truth? Hebrews tells us that the prophets were of the Old Testament and instead of them we now have Jesus. But that is too simple for the LDS. They have to invent a new gospel that really is a different gospel, A gospel Paul warned us about in Galatians 1:8-9..

"No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" - David Whitmer

But differently than he would see something tangible.. Spiritual eyes are real and I don't doubt that a man can have a vision. But the most these three had was a spiritual experience and what is more likely was a m*** hallucination..

All three of the witness wavered in their witness all those were reported to the church as I have pointed out. Yes they all said they saw the angel and the plates (the plates that were back in the house hidden away). And still all three said that they saw the plates with spiritual eyes and not with natural eyes.. Even to that God has told us is a problem:

James 1:6-8
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

It is clear from the yes and no answer they gave to the questions of how their witness was given that they did waver. Because they did waver they receives nothing from the Lord and that they were double minded men and unstable in all their ways. That is the truth and you must agree or deny that James 1:6-8 is God's word.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

The con-operator will always be in control of his eviroment and the tool inwhich he use to complete the confidence trick. Every LDSinc. TBM is Joseph Smith jr. (Mark). Nothing more, and nothing less.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

The con-operator will always be in control of his eviroment and the tool inwhich he use to complete the confidence trick.

That is what the atheists could say as an accusation against Jesus.

[John T]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

That is what the atheists could say as an accusation against Jesus.

Please clarify. Are you perhaps saying that you believe Jesus, the Son of God is a con artist?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

That is what the atheists could say as an accusation against Jesus.

There is no difference between an atheist and a TBM, except one believes in no god and the other believes in unlimited gods.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

There is no difference between an atheist and a TBM, except one believes in no god and the other believes in unlimited gods.

That is profound!.. There is no difference at all.. Both are in serious error.. To the Atheist God says "I AM" (Exodus 3:14) to the LDS He says "I AM ONE" (Deut 6:4).. IHS jim

[Christian]

Confused e posted:

Let's examine your ***ertion. What is a heathen?

heathen noun

1: an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2: an uncivilized or irreligious person

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heathen

By virtue of being a so-called "true-blue Mormon," I acknowledge the God of the Bible. I am also both civilized and religious, therefore I can't be a heathen, and your entire rant is based on a falsehood.

Let's see now. The God of the BIBLE is the ONLY REAL God existing anywhere ever (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8, etc etc etc)

The god of joseph smith is one of MANY so-called gods supposedly existing everywhere (pgp abraham 3 & 4 etc etc)

Nope, the god of mormonism is NOT the God of the Bible. Yes, you ARE a heathen, apparently. That is likely why you don't understand the Bible.

1 Cor 2:14-15
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV

This seems to describe you clearly.

in the BIBLICAL Jesus, (not the mormon demonic 'jesus' joe smith invented),
morefish

[Erundur]

Bigoted m posted:

Let's see now. The God of the BIBLE is the ONLY REAL God existing anywhere ever (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8, etc etc etc)

The god of joseph smith is one of MANY so-called gods supposedly existing everywhere (pgp abraham 3 & 4 etc etc)

Nope, the god of mormonism is NOT the God of the Bible. Yes, you ARE a heathen, apparently. That is likely why you don't understand the Bible.

Let's try this again.

heathen noun

1: an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2: an uncivilized or irreligious person

A heathen is someone who doesn't acknowledge the God of the Bible. I acknowledge the God of the Bible. Therefore, I am not a heathen. (second explanation)

1 Cor 2:14-15
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV

This seems to describe you clearly.

That's because you're looking at the situation through anti-Mormon blinders.

[alanmolstad]

The Mormon god is not the God of the bible, not the God of the old testament, not the God of the law and the prophets, nor the God that Jesus prayed to and taught us about....(and that's why the Mormons need to have their own bible, and their own prophets )

see this video to answer any questions about who the God of the Bible is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4AN2hHk7ws

or better yet, you can learn the biggest difference between the god of the christian Bible, and the god of the Mormons, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plX5SEHUNSM

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

The Mormon god is not the God of the bible, not the God of the old testament, not the God of the law and the prophets, nor the God that Jesus prayed to and taught us about....(and that's why the Mormons need to have their own bible, and their own prophets )

LDSinc. Act like the middle child, aways wanting attention. Joseph Smith jr. Went about looking for attention and it has never stopped. Sad to say mormonlandism has an eternal consequences of which for the TBM doesn't end will. This we try and bring to their attention, but with little success. Oh, Satan has worked his web so well with his servent Joseph Smith jr.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

LDSinc. Act like the middle child, always wanting attention. ......

so I take it you are not a middle child then?...

[Christian]

e posted:

Originally Posted by ChristianTo demonstrate that EVEN ONE PERSON ANYWHERE could vouch for the supposed accuracy of smith's translation.

And I've produced three people who vouched for the accuracy of the translation, just not in the way that you demand (moving the goalposts).

No, you have produced only three people who SAID THEY HEARD A VOICE. Why should we believe them? 13 members of the Utah lds church in Pocatello, Idaho also said they heard Jesus AND SAW HIM ON THE MOUNTAINSIDE and He told them the current lds church had apostasized.

Why should we believe those three who said they heard a voice, but not believe the 13 who swore in a booklet they signed and published, sending a copy to every household in Pocatello about 30 years ago?

Are your 'voices' better than your 'jesus?'

BTW, WHY (if it was accurately translated) were over 4,000 CHANGES required to get from the first version to the version you have now???!!!

Mostly to standardize the grammar and punctuation and correct m****cript and typesetting errors, and some clarifications.

But also to completely change many wordings, paragraphs, etc so they made better sense to the mormons.

As I said, you have NOBODY but joe smith to vouch for ANY of the story he made up in his book but JOE SMITH HIMSELF.

Yes you said that, but you're wrong. I've produced three additional witnesses, so your claim is proven false.

No, you have provided 'hearsay' evidence, people who have NEVER COMPARED ANYTHING, but SAY they have heard voices.

One man who offered me a cigar a few years ago said God had told him he would be the next presidend of the United States; I should vote for him. It didn't happen. He wasn't on the ballot at all, never became even a dog-catcher. Was the president of a 3 member motorcycle club though. . .

in the Name of the BIBLICAL Jesus Christ,
morefish (who does NOT believe the fairytale teller joe smith at all)

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Erundur

The claim is that they were translated by the gift and power of God, not that God was physically there in the room with him, helping him translate.

But of course it appeared one line at a time, and when that was transcribed correctly, that line disappeared and was replaced by the NEXT line.

But it looks like YOUR god screwed up. It had to be 'repaired.'

In the Name of the BIBLICAL Jesus,
morefish

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by John T

Please clarify. Are you perhaps saying that you believe Jesus, the Son of God is a con artist?

Of course not. How did you manage to end up thinking that?

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair View Post
The con-operator will always be in control of his eviroment and the tool inwhich he use to complete the confidence trick.

The above criteria could be used by an atheist to accuse Jesus of being a con artist. In my opinion, neither Jesus nor Joseph Smith deserve to be accused using those criteria. So it's not me who is accusing anyone at all. I am just saying that those who insist on accusing Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, should think twice, because their criteria could apply to Jesus or the Bible, if they are not careful. That's the problem with accusing other people--you have to be very careful when choosing what your accusation is based on, or the whole thing could backfire on you.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Of course not. How did you manage to end up thinking that?



The above criteria could be used by an atheist to accuse Jesus of being a con artist. In my opinion, neither Jesus nor Joseph Smith deserve to be accused using those criteria. So it's not me who is accusing anyone at all. I am just saying that those who insist on accusing Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon, should think twice, because their criteria could apply to Jesus or the Bible, if they are not careful. That's the problem with accusing other people--you have to be very careful when choosing what your accusation is based on, or the whole thing could backfire on you.

Your thinking is faulty Phoenix. First off, atheists don't even believe there is a God let alone Jesus Christ. The Bible is history where places and people can be verified that once existed and some still exist today i.e. cities, countries, even wells. Can the same be said of the BoM? Not one of the cities mentioned in that book has ever been found. The LDS Church won't even allow archaeologists to dig on the Hill Cumorah, why? Wouldn't the church want to find evidence of a great battle that is mentioned in that book? If evidence was found, wouldn't that prove the validity of the BoM? So, when there is reason to accuse, people have the right to bring things to light. And nothing is going to backfire.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by neverending

Your thinking is faulty Phoenix.

i don't think it is faulty.

First off, atheists don't even believe there is a God let alone Jesus Christ.

they probably believe that a person named Jesus existed in the 1st century, who used magic tricks and words to convince some gullible people that he was the son of deity. Some anti-lds people use the "con man" argument to accuse Joseph Smith, similar to how atheists can use it against Jesus' claims.

Wouldn't the church want to find evidence of a great battle that is mentioned in that book?

I hope not, because most or all of the new converts who joined the church based on that evidence, wouldn't be strong, faithful members. They would be trend-following members, their faith would be archaeology-based, and that's not the right foundation for a Christian's faith to have. If a newer discovery seemed to refute the former one, what will happen to the faith of those members? It will rise and fall with each announcement from some archaeologist, and be like an anchorless ship on the ocean, ****n left and right as the wind changes direction. Strong, lasting faith comes from a spiritual conviction, not from the Smithsonian. Having the Holy Spirit witness to your spirit that something (the Bible's claims, the BOM's claims, the reality of Jesus' love for you, etc.) is true, is the kind of conviction that can last when trials of your faith hit you--when others are mocking your beliefs, when sickness, unemployment, family strife, etc. make the going tough.
I will take a spiritual witness over 10 archaeological discoveries.

And nothing is going to backfire. [/SIZE]

An accusation that is so ill-considered that it can be used against one's own beliefs, is likely to backfire.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

i don't think it is faulty.


they probably believe that a person named Jesus existed in the 1st century, who used magic tricks and words to convince some gullible people that he was the son of deity. Some anti-lds people use the "con man" argument to accuse Joseph Smith, similar to how atheists can use it against Jesus' claims.


I hope not, because most or all of the new converts who joined the church based on that evidence, wouldn't be strong, faithful members. They would be trend-following members, their faith would be archaeology-based, and that's not the right foundation for a Christian's faith to have. If a newer discovery seemed to refute the former one, what will happen to the faith of those members? It will rise and fall with each announcement from some archaeologist, and be like an anchorless ship on the ocean, ****n left and right as the wind changes direction. Strong, lasting faith comes from a spiritual conviction, not from the Smithsonian. Having the Holy Spirit witness to your spirit that something (the Bible's claims, the BOM's claims, the reality of Jesus' love for you, etc.) is true, is the kind of conviction that can last when trials of your faith hit you--when others are mocking your beliefs, when sickness, unemployment, family strife, etc. make the going tough.
I will take a spiritual witness over 10 archaeological discoveries.


An accusation that is so ill-considered that it can be used against one's own beliefs, is likely to backfire.

"...because most or all of the new converts who joined the church based on that evidence, wouldn't be strong, faithful members. They would be trend-following members, their faith would be archaeology-based, and that's not the right foundation for a Christian's faith to have." Now this is definitely faulty thinking because if your church found evidence of all that has been written in your BOM, that would only strengthen a members faith. I don't understand your way of thinking at all. I've already said that we have evidence of the Bible, it contains historical evidence of people and places that HAVE been verified through archaeology. There is nothing wrong in proving that what is told in your BoM is true. And as for evidence NOT being found and what effect it would have on members, you don't have the right to think for other members, it would be up to each individual would it not? If members truly have faith in their leaders and the doctrines, I think nothing would cause them to be, "****n left and right as the wind changes." I can see that you are afraid to discover truth about your faith, and that is why your reasoning is faulty.

Going by this "spiritual conviction" isn't always the best way to accept doctrines for an evil spirit can give you a good feeling. NEVER go by feelings! I believe the witnesses to the BoM only made their statements to please JS. To claim they saw the plates only through spiritual eyes, leaves one to doubt the truthfulness of their testimonies. I will take archaeological evidence any day, which is TRUE evidence that something did exist. Psalm 22....it is evidence that Jesus is the Christ. The words of this Psalm was over 900 years before the birth of Jesus it was also a prophesy that came true. How does that lessen one's faith? Don't you want to know the truth?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by neverending

"...because most or all of the new converts who joined the church based on that evidence, wouldn't be strong, faithful members. They would be trend-following members, their faith would be archaeology-based, and that's not the right foundation for a Christian's faith to have." Now this is definitely faulty thinking because if your church found evidence of all that has been written in your BOM, that would only strengthen a members faith.

Even though Judas saw Jesus do lots of miraculous stuff, it didn't make him a more faithful disciple.

Some "traditional" Christians claim the Bible has an overwhelming amount of proof to support its claims, yet "traditional" Christianity has lots of wishy-washy members, members who are leaving for other religions, etc. Has the abundance of evidence for the Bible really strengthened the faith of traditional Christians? If Noah's ark was discovered next month, would it cause weak Christians to suddenly start attending church, loving their neighbor, feeding the homeless, and acting like the true disciples they should have been all along?

I don't understand your way of thinking at all.

My way of thinking comes from many years of observing people's behavior, and learning what motivates them and what doesn't.

I've already said that we have evidence of the Bible, it contains historical evidence of people and places that HAVE been verified through archaeology.

That didn't do much for Bart Ehrman's faith. In fact, look at some of the people who leave the LDS church and become atheists--why didn't all that Bible evidence keep their faith in the Bible strong?

There is nothing wrong in proving that what is told in your BoM is true.

Claims by some archaeologist are, as a rule, a poor subs***ute for a witness from God that comes as a blessing after a person has demonstrated faith. In other words, it usually doesn't work to take a faithless person, show him some artifact, and have that create faith and turn him into a person of faith.

And as for evidence NOT being found and what effect it would have on members, you don't have the right to think for other members, it would be up to each individual would it not?

YOU don't the have to right to decide how much evidence for the Book of Mormon God should allow to be discovered, or when He should allow its discovery.

I can see that you are afraid to discover truth about your faith, and that is why your reasoning is faulty.

I had strong faith in the reality of God & Jesus, and in the veracity of the Bible and Book of Mormon, before I learned of the evidences supporting the Bible and the Book of Mormon--and I continued to have faith in them after I knew about the evidence. I can't say that knowing of the evidence has made me a better Christian, or a more faithful LDS.
In my experience, a faith that isn't tested is a faith that can't get as strong as it could be. How strong does your faith need to be, if every Bible claim has been verified by the Smithsonian to be true? How strong CAN your faith be, in such a situation?

It seems you don't really understand faith.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

If Noah's ark was discovered next month, would it cause weak Christians to suddenly start attending church, loving their neighbor, feeding the homeless, and acting like the true disciples they should have been all along?

It's an interesting question...
Im not sure anyone knows for sure.

I do remember that even after God parted the red sea a few days later the Jews were already worshiping a different god, so that seems to suggest that miracles tend to not build up a person's faith like you would expect.....odd but kinda true.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

No, he was not the only one: Jesus was there, too, and He saw God. (It would be hard for Jesus NOT to see Him, since Jesus was standing directly to His right)

Isn't Jesus God? (John 1:1, Isaiah 9:6).. If Jesus is God who else but Smith was there to see God? You have two out here: 1. teach that Jesus is not God.. Or 2. teach that there is more than one God.. IHS jim