Posted on 05/27/2010 6:44:33 AM PDT by Colofornian
This is called poisoning the well John - and it doesn't work because the history of these witnesses has neutalized their testimony all by them selves. You claim Burnett to be disgruntled - yet by their very excommunication and departure from mormonism these 'witnesses' de facto denied their 'testimonies'.
Martin Harris: Belonged to five different religions before becoming a Mormon; after leaving the LDS Church he changed his religious affiliation 8 more times. The LDS publication Millennial Star reported that Harris “became partially deranged…flying from one thing to another.” Phineas Young wrote his brother Brigham, “Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon” Harris later joined the Strangites, a rival Mormon church, and even went on a mission to England for that group. The Millennial Star said, “In one of his fits of monomania, he [Harris] went and joined the ‘Shakers’ or followers of Anna Lee. …but since Strang has made his entry…Martin leaves the ‘Shakers,’ whom he knows to be right,…and joins Strang….if the Saints wish to know what the Lord hath said to him they may turn to…the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the person there called a ‘wicked man’ is no other than Martin Harris…Elder Wheelock will remember that evil men, like Harris, out of the evil treasure of their hearts bring forth evil things….” Harris became part of another “Testimony of Three Witnesses” which supported David Whitmer as the rightful successor to Joseph Smith.
Oliver Cowdery: According to Joseph Smith, while still a Mormon in good standing, Cowdery was deceived by false revelations received via a peep-stone belonging to a different Book of Mormon witness, one of the eight, Hiram Page. Years later Cowdery accused Joseph Smith of adultery and heresy. Smith accused Cowdery of stealing and uniting “with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs of the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints…” After Cowdery was excommunicated from the LDS Church, the Mormon publication Times and Seasons published a poem suggesting Cowdery had doubts about his testimony of the Book of Mormon. About the same time (1841), Cowdery joined the Methodist Protestant Church in Tiffin, Ohio. A sworn affidavit by a man named C.J. Keen recounts, “Mr. Cowdery expressed a desire to associate himself with a Methodist Protestant Church of this city….he was unanimously admitted a member thereof. At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism.” Cowdery was rebaptized LDS in 1848. However, according to David Whitmer, Cowdery died with a firm testimony that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and that Doctrine and Covenants was filled with errors.
David Whitmer: Was also deceived by Hiram Page’s peep-stone, and was accused of joining the same gang of “blacklegs” with which Cowdery was accused of being involved. Years after his 1838 excommunication from the LDS Church, Whitmer supported the Strangite movement for a time, but switched to a church being formed by William McLellin in 1848. Whitmer was to be the prophet of this new church, and in one revelation he claimed he received from God, he was told that the Mormons “polluted my name, and have done continually wickedness in my sight.” Whitmer never rejoined the LDS Church. In 1887, the year before his death, he published An Address to All Believers in The Book of Mormon. Whitmer wrote, “Now, in 1849 the Lord saw fit to manifest unto John Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself nearly all the errors in doctrine into which we had been led by the heads of the old [LDS] church. We were shown that the Book of Doctrine and Covenants contained many doctrines of error, and that it must be laid aside…. They were led out of their errors, and are upon record to this effect, rejecting the Book of Doctrine and Covenants… ” In another 1887 publication, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote, “If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by His own voice from the heavens, and told me to ‘separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints’… In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness.”
I fail to see where their 'testimonies' are more RELIABLE John. Or is the testimony of the three 'witnesses' just that of a disgruntled postal worker too? If that is the case, then they have in fact denied their testimony John. You can't have it both ways.
You are deflecting John. Since you have not denied the history of the writing of the bom, nor have you countered the deception produced in D&C 10, you seek to divert the issue. The answer is clear for those who want to see John, Smith used multiple sources to patch together his fictional bom account, then poorly lied about how it was written. Address the facts John, you've been lied to by your very own prophets on how the book was written.
That is exactly what happened with D&C 10 John - smith got caught in a lie and had to change the 'revelation' of D&C 10 to cover for it.
Mark Hofmann was so clever in his document forgeries that he deceived both LDS and RLDS historians, and also document experts.
I thought that mormons had prophets that could figure these things out from God.
The fact that all eleven of them remained true to their printed testimonies, despite frustrations and disappointments regarding the publishing organization, is overwhelming evidence that they had not engaged in deception.
From what I've posted earlier, this statement is blatantly false John. IF they had actually SEEN these 'plates' common sense would say that they would NEVER have been fooled by other peep stone users (One of the eight), nor would they have been excommunicated to begin with. The simple fact that they went to embrace other beliefs further undercuts this so called 'overwhelming' evidence.
Therefore, David Whitmer was badgered and hounded by persons eager to not allow the last remaining witness to die firm in his testimony. Yet he did die firm in his testimony.
Whitmer never rejoined the LDS Church - a statement against the plates in itself. Was likened unto a “dumb ass” by Joseph Smith (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 228). Hardly a resounding endorsement by the prophet. Cowdery left the church a final time before he died. Harris state "I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state."
What I take that to mean is that even though you may think that people have lied to deceive, that is no excuse for you to lie or quote lies about them. Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses by Richard Lloyd Anderson should be required reading for anyone wishing to criticize the witnesses without quoting lies about them in the process.
You have their history John, and by all practical standards, they are unreliable witnesses - going their own ways IN SPITE OF THIS 'WITNESS' after other 'witnesses'. "The History of the Church" records that the first two attempts of the three witnesses ended in failure. As Martin Harris felt that he was to blame for not being sufficiently sanctified, he withdrew from the group. After he'd gone Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer each managed to have a vision of the gold plates. Then a few days later Martin Harris was finally able to conjure up a vision as well. But it should be noted that in spite of the testimonies they had signed, in published interviews and notarized affidavits the witnesses freely admitted to only having seen the plates by faith with "second sight," or with their spiritual eyes, and then only after much struggling.
In the History of the Church, Volume 3:232, smith wrote: "Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." Apparently the witnesses were in constant trouble with the church, and were at various times accused of lying, stealing, counterfeiting, apostasy and fraudulent business activities. Yet Smith had chosen this type of person to testify to the existence of the gold plates. Hmm. Guess Mr. Anderson missed something.
Indeed - or false prophets too.
placemarker
In a handcart . . . .
Nothing like tradition...
So saying something similar about Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard's best-seller, makes that true as well? (What a low threshold of "truth" you adhere to, John)
Did Joseph Smith author, not just translate, the Book of Mormon? Exept for an ability to read, Joseph Smith was nearly uneducated.
You mention this, plus wanted documentation on the pre-actual translation process. John, we already have a fair amount! What do you think Joseph actually did prior to writing all this down? Why, he told various versions of it in story/tale form! How do we know this? (Always listen to the moms of 17 yo -- like Lucy Mack Smith describing her boy about the age of 17)...and if he could tell tales like the following at age 17, stop with the "uneducated" nonsense...giving dictation is just like tale-telling:
"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of the continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. On the twenty-second of September, 1824, Joseph again visited the place where he found the plates the year previous; and supporting at this time that the only thing required, in order to possess them until the time for their translation, was to be able to keep the commandments of God...he fully expected to carry them home with him. (Lucy Mack Smith, edited by Preston Nibley, History of Joseph Smith, p. 83, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1958)
What Mormons may miss in this account is that Lucy Mack Smith was saying Joseph gave these storied details before he ever even "interpreted" these gold plates. A lot of it was already there -- in his active, imaginitive mind!
And you need to answer these questions. Who was the author or authors of the Book of Mormon?
Come on, John. I know you're a literate person. You can read.
* On the 1830 version of the BoM, on the title page, Smith answers this plainly: Joseph Smith, Jr. AUTHOR and PROPRIETOR
* D&C 24:1 says he wrote the Book of Mormon (it doesn't say he "translated" them).
* Beyond that, whole chapters from Isaiah and other minor prophets (like 3 Nephi 24 & 25 is Malachi 3 & 4) are pulled wholesale into the BoM...13 such chapters, if my memory serves me correctly. 3 Nephi 21:12-18 resembles Micah 5:8-14. 3 Nephi 20:16-18 echoes Micah 4:12-13; 5:8-9.
* We know that the King James Version Bible became the plagiaristic source for Joseph Smith as he copied approximately 27,000 overall words airlifted, thee-for-thee and thou-for-thou, from the Bible into the Book of Mormon (even though 1830 America didn't use "thee" and "thou" in everyday language). That’s why you need to look at the 1830 version of the BoM, John. Because with the 4,000+ clean-up changes that smoothes things over, you have much less of a mountaintop-to-valley experience in reading the current BoM than the 1830 version.
Outright plagiarism from the KJV at times got Smith into trouble by revealing his true source -- that it wasn't "gold plates," after all, that he was "translating."
Example #1: 2 Nephi 23 of the Book of Mormon is a word-for-word theft of Isaiah 13 [and please note...that the italicized words of Isaiah 13, KJ Version during Joseph Smith's day, were not in the original Hebrew from which the KJV was translated...So if they weren't in the Hebrew, how did Nephi get them? Did he reach into the future of 1611 in the UK, and superimpose them into golden plates between 559 and 545 BC?]
Example #2 Per http://www.undergroundnotes.com/Smithbook.pdf -- In the "Mosiah" chapter fourteen in the Book of Mormon, Isaiah chapter fifty-three is copied word for word, including the italicized words that the King James translators added for clarity! There are sixteen italicized words from the King James Bible in "Mosiah" fourteen. The list of italicized words
are
and (three times),
there is,
our,
was (twice),
he was,
was any
his (twice),
a portion (once).
How did these italicized words from a 1611 translation get into a document that was supposedly written before the time of Christ? The answer is obvious: Smith copied them when plagiarizing the King James translation of the prophet Isaiah.
Example #3: Finally, compare 1 Nephi 22:20 in the Book of Mormon with Acts 3:22:
Acts 3:22, as cited by the Kings James Translators in 1611 using common 17th-century language of the era to translate something from over 1500 years prior:
For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you (Acts 3:22)
Now compare that to 1 Nephi 22:20, as cited by Joseph Smith in 1830 using common 1611 language to "translate" something supposedly originally said 2400 years earlier -- and 600+ years PRIOR to Peter's quotation.
The issue is not the paraphrases of the first 7 words of Acts 3:22 or the first 19 words of 1 Nephi 22:20...It's what follows: Acts 3:22: "A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you...like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you"
...Compared & Contrasted to...
1 Nephi 22:20: "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you"
Except for "unto your brethren" midway between the above two phrases in Acts 3:22, 'tis the exact SAME King James language "paraphrase," even though the NT was in Greek and the Book of Mormon supposedly wasn't -- and even though 19th century Americans were closer to 1950s American culture than 1611 speech wise!
Please note, John, that when you "paraphrase" someone you do exactly that -- you paraphrase. You don't quote someone word for word for 27 exact King James English words within two phrases -- putting the exact same semi-colon at the exact same spot...and you certainly don't quote exactly somebody supposedly speaking over 600 years in the future of your statement in a historical colloquialism from 200 years behind you in its exact translation. (Please also check Dt. 18:15, 18 and you'll see that indeed BOTH Acts 3:22 and 1 Nephi 22:20 are EACH paraphrases of those verses).
Bottom line: The apostle Peter paraphrased Moses in his original language; and the Book of Mormon writer -- IF it was a historical doc -- could also paraphrase Moses in his own language within a separate venue. (No concern in and of itself). It's only when you compare the additional generations of paraphrasing and translating that it becomes quite obvious where Smith got his source for 1 Nephi 22:20.
Illustration: If one of your FR posts was published in the year 3800 in a publication -- and they used an exact version of that quotation as it appeared in a British cockney-slang or Scottish colloquial vocab-adapted publication as published in the year 3575 -- I don't think future FReepers would tell us with a straight face that the author of the year 3800 publication "translated" the original Freeper source from gold-plated Freeper documents written in the year 2010...with his face stuck in a hat.
He'll never lead you astray . . .
You know, even before this whole bom thing got started, smith tried to make a living as a treasure seeker. In 1826 Joseph was brought before a justice to answer the charge that he was an imposter and was bilking people out of their money. In this smith would place a seer stone into a hat and look into it inorder to ‘find’ the treasure. My, now isn’t this intersting. Smith was employing a method of ‘divination’ to bilk people out of their money - a method he would also claim to use to ‘translate’ hidden golden plates. Why believe that a practice used to defraud people would be the same practice used by ‘god’ to ‘translate’ a book with absolute no historical veriacity - unless it was a scheme to bilk people out of money as well.
It was in 1885 when the Spalding manuscript was discovered in Hawaii. Many of the key comments on this discovery are preserved in volume 4 of RLDS church history, chapters 27 and 28. Suffice it to say that the Spalding-Rigdon theory on the origin of the Book of Mormon suffered a death blow by this confirmed discovery. Representatives from both the LDS and RLDS were anxious to obtain copies to publish to finally refute the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory, and this they did.
However, the aspect of this discovery that is most devastating to enemies of the Book of Mormon is the revelation that some of their predecessors had been knowingly telling lies.
The task of admitting this was left to a Joe Smith hater honest enough to acknowledge that lying had taken place. In the July 30, 1885, issue in the Boston Congregationalist was an article by the Reverend C. M. Hyde, D.D. entitled "Who wrote the Book of Mormon? Solomon Spalding not its author". That the Reverend Hyde was a Joe Smith hater is proven by the final sentence of the article: "While, on the contrary, all that is known of Joe Smith, his money-digging, his religious ranting, his schemes for getting a livelihood, corroborate the belief, in view of all the facts of the case, that he, and he alone, is the author of the Mormon bible and the founder of the Mormon church."
It therefore must have been painful to Reverend Hyde to have to admit (emphasis mine): "The story has not the slightest resemblance IN NAMES, incidents or style to anything in the Book of Mormon." The "IN NAMES" refers to a claim in Mormonism Exposed (1834) that states: "The names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory as being the principal heroes of his [Spalding's] tale."
Hyde must have felt some disappointment as he had to admit this (emphasis his): "It is evident from an inspection of this Manuscript, and from the above statements, that whoever wrote the Book of Mormon, Solomon Spalding did not. The testimony of the Conneaut people after the lapse of twenty years, as to their knowledge of the contents of Spalding's story, the Manuscript Found, is not to be relied upon, imperfect and contradictory as it is. The supposition that Spalding wrote another story, which he carried with him to Pittsburg, to the office of Patterson and Lambdin, to be printed; that he left it there, where it was found in 1822 by Rigdon when he worked in that office, and that Rigdon took this Manuscipt with him and published it through Joe Smith in 1830 as the Book of Mormon, is a most violent supposition, unsupported by any evidence whatever; Rigdon in fact, having never met Smith until after the publication of the Mormon bible."
Sadly, some diehard Joe Smith haters don't want to admit that some of their predecessors were liars. Some are still claiming that the Nephi and Lehi names were in another manuscript by another Spalding! This reminds me of Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive.
Spalding's ms was a likely contributor to smith's imagination - as well as those other books you avoid answering about. BTW, there were two Spalding ms involved "Manuscript Story" and "Manuscript Found". In fact "Manuscript Story" was incorrectly published as "Manuscript Found". But just to keep the record straight why do people look to spalding as a reference.
- The discoverers of both books claim to have discovered the records by using a lever to remove a rock under which the records were deposited
- Both books depict the goings-on of ancient settlers to the New World
- While making their initial oceanic crossing, the settlers in both books are blown by a fierce storm which makes them fear capsizement
- The civilized segments of the societies in both books are given strict charges to avoid intermarriage with the less civilized segments
- Both books mention horses being in America
- Both books discuss the division of the people into two major civilizations
- Forts in both books are identical in their manner of consruction
- The narrators of both books suddenly and inexplicably go out of their way to explain that the earth revolves around the sun
- Both books describe a messiah-like figure who appears suddenly, teaches the people, and ushers in an era of great peace
- Both books describe the settlers as having all goods in common at one point
- Both books, respectively, show the two major civilizations entering into a war of mutual destruction
- Both books at one point describe the populace as making use of elephants, which in fact are not in existence in America
As stated, smith used many sources as was proven in previous posts by comparing one existing book to the identical descriptions and language in the bom.
Sadly, some diehard Joe Smith haters don't want to admit that some of their predecessors were liars. Some are still claiming that the Nephi and Lehi names were in another manuscript by another Spalding! This reminds me of Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive.
Interesting how you hold to a 'testimony' of people excommunicated - yet reject a priori OTHERS testimony. Two edged sword there John.
I HAVE addressed the facts on how the book was written. I called attention to the exact sequence in which the book was written. Running the sequence backwards, we have printed first edition, printer's manuscript, dictated manuscript, Joseph speaking the words he translated from the plates, and plates, whose existence I painstakingly showed were examined by eight witnesses who turned over all of the leaves filled with engraved characters except for the sealed portion. That is the indication of their words.
I further told the truth that none of the witnesses denied their printed testimonies, thus establishing the sequence of engraved plates, orally translating the engravings, dictated manuscript, printer's manuscipt, and first printing of a book that has been translated into many languages, fulfilling the witnesses words "Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come," which of course mirrors one of the stated puposes of the Book of Mormon: "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting Himself unto all nations."
I notice that you do not give a source for these statements.
I provided a chronological time line John. You provided a mythology, not a single date. I showed where smith got caught in his lie in D&C 10 and had to later change the date of the 'revelation' in a later edition of D&C. Smith lied to you and every other mormon believer.
Your witnesses have impeached themselves and their credibility by their later actions. Contrary to this mythology of yours, later testimonies from these same witnesses tell us that they never saw with their physical eyes the plates, nor did they physically touch them. You witnesses speak out of both sides of their mouths John.
Further, you fail to address the historically documented fact that smith used the same method 'translating' the 'plates' that he did bilking people out their money as a treasure hunter. He just found it more profitable to play the part of a prophet.
John, the book is available on line for review. For instance in Chap 5 comes the references to elephants (mammoths) and horses. Descriptions of the forts are found in Chapt 10. Chapters 12 and 14 detail the wars.
Really John, do some research.
You claimed that two Spalding manuscripts exist or existed. Is this online book based on the manuscript that was discovered in 1885, or from a different manuscript?
If from a different manuscript, does it have Nephi and Lehi as main characters as was claimed in the 1834 Mormonism Exposed?
Why don't you give the link to the online book?
I thought that mormons had prophets that could figure these things out from God.
Church leaders don't directly involve themselves with such matters. Although church historians were deceived by Hofmann, in the case of the RLDS historian, he saw to it that an document of great interest to the RLDS was studied by a document expert and a handwriting expert, since the historian was not himself skilled in these areas. The forgeries were so skillfully done, using paper and ink from the period, that the experts reported to the historian that the document was genuine. Hofmann's forgery had even used phrases that Joseph Smith was using about that time. The historian reported what the experts had told him, and the church leaders, leaning on those reports, decided to go with it.
We all make mistakes of varying kinds. Hopefully, we can be wise enough to avoid making the same mistakes again.
"And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.