tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post2696800114986011318..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: What Paper and Wood Tell Us About the Gold PlatesJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-22817820484443986192016-06-06T11:52:07.893-05:002016-06-06T11:52:07.893-05:00The differences I mentioned are sometimes differen...The differences I mentioned are sometimes different in kind and sometimes in scale. I speak with considerable familiarity with both Mormonism and Protestant culture. I did go to the temple and I had my endowment. I'm also a freemason so I'm privy to two secret/sacred "cults," as it were. At present I am the board chair for Buildings and Grounds for a Disciples of Christ church. <br /><br />THE OPEN CANON<br /> The very fact that the canon WAS expanded ever so little, makes the case. Those Christians who are fixed on sole scriptura can't cope with the Book of Thomas. <br /><br />MORMONS DON"T PASS THE PLATE <br />Sure. There is a Mormon joke. <br /><br />"Do you know what the difference is between sacred and secret"?<br />"No")<br />"Sacred is what the temple ceremony is, Secret is what the church financial records are."<br /><br />Never the less, the Mormon church in the less wealthy part of Indianapolis is just as nice, nearly identical, to the church in the upscale suburb. A great deal of money goes to build churches and other facilities in places that could not otherwise have it. I compare this to the church I know attend. The congregation built this beautiful building in 1950 and payed for the building for a congregation in Africa. Sixty years later, the previous paster embezzled $350,000 dollars from the church because he could. He was clever, but the congregation didn't want to do the work or assert the authority to prevent such a thing. New pastor, not likely to be an embezzler, but the same sheepish behavior by the congregation. <br /><br />There is also a vast difference in scale. Yes some of the General Authorities are paid salaries or receive services in kind like housing and all the curia in the Church Offices are paid. Some General Authorities are so wealthy by the time they receive their office they are only compensated for expenses. Meanwhile the elaborate volunteer governance are not paid anything at the parish, diocese, and archdiocese level. This is a significant difference.<br /><br />PREEXISTENCE OF SOULS<br />I was just telling you how I think Mormonism is different without considering whether you might like it or not. There are some things I find horrific in mainstream Christianity, like the notion of Christ the cosmic whipping boy who dies for our sins. From life, I don't think it works that way. When I was a military commander and had authority to discipline I never found some just punishment. The scales are never balanced, and the scales are mostly irrelevant. What I wanted from my wondering soldier was a change of heart and mind. <br /><br />UNIVERSALISM<br />I don't think you have this quite right. First you need to dump the word salvation. In mainstream Christianity we start out damned and and get saved or not. Mormon's progress or don't and that is there choice. No one is being forced to progress. You go when you are ready. I got crosswise with a Mormon seminary teacher once. I asked if the three kingdoms (or the many mansions) to which we go are like different trains (Express, Passenger, Freight) running on the same track of progression. He was adamant that they were separate tracks. He was offended by the idea that someone less valiant. as they say, could ultimately be exalted just by taking longer. He was comfortable with damnation. I am not. I don't think God damns anybody. God is like the father of the prodigal son—ever ready to receive us when we mature. I offer this because, growing up, my father and the other adults would go round and round about these theological ideas. I rarely find conventional Christians engaging this way. <br /><br />CATCHES<br />Yup, Mormon catches, Buddhist Catches, Evangelical catches. All three beat dialectical materialism.Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248795648166253210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-44668258371761845112016-06-06T09:32:50.114-05:002016-06-06T09:32:50.114-05:00*An open canon
But it can only be filled by certa...<i>*An open canon</i><br /><br />But it can only be filled by certain people who, since 1978, have not added one revelation or prophecy to it. <br /><br /><i>*A highly organized community but one not driven or controlled by professional clergy. There is no clergy and lay. Everybody is clergy. Thus, I tend to think of religion as work as much as worship. Other Christian denominations seem more like theatre.</i><br /><br />It IS controlled by professional clergy. The General Authorities, where the buck stops, are all paid. <br /><br />As far as everyone being clergy, at least in the Anglican tradition, all church goers have "ministry." Some have an ordained ministry (bishops, priests, deacons), and the rest have a lay ministry. <br /><br />So this is not unique to Mormonism.<br /><br />As far as theatre goes...I don't think you've been to the temple, where patrons indeed sit in a theatre and watch a movie. And this is said to be the highest expression of the Mormon faith. <br /><br /><i>*Mormons don't pass the plate. Resources are distributed world wide so that Mormons all over the world have a similar religious experience.</i><br /><br />No, they don't pass the plate, but they are told that if they do not pay tithing, they will be denied the presence of their families for all eternity, that they'll burned at the last day. And there is absolutely zero accountability for where all this money goes. Zero! The Episcopal Church reveals its budget, on its website. Two clicks, and you can see all their financial info. The LDS church stopped doing this in the late 50's, at the time that it got heavily involved in investment funding under N. Eldon Tanner, who pulled the church out of a deficit of several million dollars. <br /><br /><i>* A concept of preexistence of souls in which we participate in the decision to enter mortal life.</i> <br /><br />But if we choose not to enter, we are damned. The concept of a pre-existence muddies the theological waters. It begins to open the door for the occultic doctrines of God as an exalted man, the plurality of gods, eternal progression as a state of polygamist increase, etc, etc, etc. <br /><br /><i>* I kind of universalism in which no one will be damned unless they damn themselves.</i><br /><br />But in Mormonism, there are two definitions of damnation. 1. Outer darkness. 2. Anything except exaltation. In Mormonism, even the saved can be damned. One can be saved in a degree of glory but damned in that they are cut off from the presence of the Father, their family, and their progression. <br /><br /><i>* A robust vision of what heaven is—being part of sublime creative community.</i><br /><br />Not too different from the rest of Christianity.<br /><br />So, yes....Mormonism has some unique elements, but they all come with a catch.Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-21185452774343030522016-06-06T08:53:45.841-05:002016-06-06T08:53:45.841-05:00Distinctive Features
Terryl and Fiona Givens book...Distinctive Features<br /><br />Terryl and Fiona Givens book, "The God Who Weeps: How Mormons Makes Sense of Life," is a comprehensive and eloquent explanation of the profound differences between Mormonism and other Christian denominations. <br /><br />Here are a few points.<br /><br />*An open canon<br /><br />*A highly organized community but one not driven or controlled by professional clergy. There is no clergy and lay. Everybody is clergy. Thus, I tend to think of religion as work as much as worship. Other Christian denominations seem more like theatre. <br /><br />*Mormons don't pass the plate. Resources are distributed world wide so that Mormons all over the world have a similar religious experience. <br /><br />* A concept of preexistence of souls in which we participate in the decision to enter mortal life. <br /><br />* I kind of universalism in which no one will be damned unless they damn themselves. <br /><br />* A robust vision of what heaven is—being part of sublime creative community.Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248795648166253210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87962660318009503472016-06-06T07:15:15.168-05:002016-06-06T07:15:15.168-05:00I'm curious about what features of Mormonism w...I'm curious about what features of Mormonism would be identified by Mormons as distinctive. Apart from the issue of whether the LDS Church is right or true: how is it simply different? <br /><br />Catholics can point to a spiritual atmosphere thick as incense with the lives of all those saints, and to an ongoing personal commitment to examination of conscience and confession. Mainstream Protestants emphasize personal study of the Scriptures and a direct relationship with God. Pentecostals are big on spiritual gifts like prophecy and speaking in tongues, and on the sense that conversion to Christ really makes a huge difference in the here-and-now.<br /><br />Suppose we set aside the argument about whether Mormon thought and practice must be right, whatever they are, because they are what God Restored through Joseph Smith, and instead just ask what there is in Mormon practice and thought that would be valuable or ring true in real life, no matter how they were developed. What things would one list?<br /><br />I'm not asking skeptically. I expect there's a good answer. Maybe several.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77774224866306053492016-06-05T09:17:19.194-05:002016-06-05T09:17:19.194-05:00Jeff
Thanks for responding. I am sorry if my blunt...Jeff<br />Thanks for responding. I am sorry if my blunt expression offended. I do think Joseph Smith was a rustic, that is, a person of limited education, a rube. I also said he was a genius. He learned fast and with age he became eloquent, deeply insightful about inconsistencies in the protestant churches of his day, he was both inspired and inspirational, and he ultimately martyred himself for what he believed in. On the other hand, he did some very foolish things. Marrying himself to a 16 year old servant in his own house secretly from his his wife and everyone else is hard to warrant. Wrecking the newspaper office in Nauvoo was an impulsive blunder. Yet, a close study of Calvin, Luther, George Fox and any number of Popes shows equally compromised or just odd leaders, sometimes much worse than Joseph Smith. So I don't judge religions by its founders or its leaders. I look at the character of its community and its members.<br /><br />I read the BOM growing up and was serious about it. I wanted a testimony and prayed that God would "manifest the truth of it unto (me), by the power of the Holy Ghost." It didn't happen. When it was about time to get that mission call, I still had no confirmation. So instead, I joined the Army and went to Viet Nam. There my Mormonism protected me. I did not drink, or smoke, or take narcotics, thus I was alert and able to follow the training I had been given. I got no sexually transmitted disease. I was like one of Helaman's 2000 and rose quickly in the Army. <br /><br />After my tour I went to BYU, still without a testimony, but Utah has perfectly good desert, so I went there to find a testimony and lost 31 pounds in 28 days in fasting and prayer and still did not get a testimony. I did have a religious experience, which happens to many, although not most people. See "The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature" by William James. Those who have had such an experience can no more deny the existence of God than deny the sky is blue. Like the Brother of Jared, "I had faith no longer, but knew, nothing doubting."<br /><br />Mormon doctrine claims that we are here to learn to be like God. We are here is to learn to make moral decisions and accept the consequences of making those decisions and grasp the flaws and virtues of their often mixed results. I was challenged to take responsibility for deciding what church was right, and for that matter, what was right for my whole life. God was not going to be my answer man. Prayer is helpful, but ultimately, it is our decision.<br /><br />My conclusion, at this juncture, is that Joseph Smith was right that Christianity had been corrupted. There was no true church. His mistake was to create a new church that was going to be the true church, not merely a better church. There still is no true church. Whatever church Jesus may have created was flawed right outside the gate because it was made of people. It is the same with the Mormon church. The Mountain Meadows Massacre is proof of that. Parley P. Pratt getting himself shot in Arkansas while pursuing another man's wife is proof of that. The sordid doctrine that floated around when I was young about blacks and the mark of Cane is proof of that. <br /><br />Which is not to say, that other churches don't have their problems. I have met people who have Catholic damage, Pentecostal damage, atheist damage, and Mormon damage. They all need a refuge from the confused and abusive people and institutions who are supposed to help them but who have hurt them. <br /><br />So, what I admire about Mormonism is the character of its community, which in my experience, has been mostly wholesome most of the time. I could praise the best qualities of the church and count the flaws in the protestant churches I have attended and worked in, but I think it's best to try and compare churches by the good they do rather than their flaws. <br /><br />Does that clarify things?<br />Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248795648166253210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40640521247221512892016-06-04T13:12:01.562-05:002016-06-04T13:12:01.562-05:00I'm also curious about your experience with th...<i>I'm also curious about your experience with the Book of Mormon? For some of us a great deal of what makes the Church meaningful and relevant is the personal, spiritual connections that come through studying the scriptures and seeking to live the precepts of the Church, which would be hard or impossible to do if we thought it was all a fake man-made organization.</i><br /><br />I'm not Morgan, obviously. <br /><br />The precepts of the church are really not much different from the precepts of all Christians everywhere. There is certainly a debate about certain doctrines, but in terms of lifestyle, all Christians generally agree. <br /><br />So, living Christian precepts as a Mormon is not much different from living Christian precepts as a Lutheran, or as a Methodist, or as a Presbyterian. The feeling of the Spirit that comes from living these precepts has nothing to do with denomination. One shouldn't assume that a spiritual red stamp on one's good Christian life is an indication that one's denomination is God's one true church. <br /><br />In fact, devote Buddhists often live in what could be described as a very Christian way. Yet, Buddhism is a "man-made" organization, according to Mormons. If it isn't, then I am not sure what exactly an organization would have to look like to be labeled "man-made" by a Mormon. <br /><br />That is a good question right there: From the Mormon point of view, what is a "man-made" organization? Let's have a list. Just a few. Is the Catholic Church a "man-made" organization? <br /><br />If so, is it "hard or impossible" for Catholics to have personal, spiritual connections as Catholics? <br /><br />See, this talk about "man-made" vs "God-made" organizations is very typical of Mormon rhetoric, but I am not sure what anyone really means by it. <br /><br />Are you saying that people in "man-made" religions can only have spiritual connections if they are duped enough to believe their religion isn't man-made? <br /><br />Or are you saying that spiritual connections in these kinds of organizations is literally impossible? It makes a big difference. <br /><br />If you accept the former, then your own spiritual connections may actually be more a sign that you are duped than a sign that you are in the one true church. <br /><br />If you believe the latter, then you have to account for all the spiritual connections people who are not Mormons have in their respective "man-made" religions. Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49124370642722598212016-06-04T10:06:19.562-05:002016-06-04T10:06:19.562-05:00Morgan, yes, there's room for those who like t...Morgan, yes, there's room for those who like the Church but don't like major factors like Joseph Smith, the Temple, the scriptures or parts thereof, etc. But once you've gone past uncertainty or doubt to feeling like you can dismiss him as rube (with such unflattering and harsh language), the distance is rather great. I'm curious about what keeps you involved and how much involvement there is? I'm also curious about your experience with the Book of Mormon? For some of us a great deal of what makes the Church meaningful and relevant is the personal, spiritual connections that come through studying the scriptures and seeking to live the precepts of the Church, which would be hard or impossible to do if we thought it was all a fake man-made organization. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4471279750501829022016-06-03T13:52:07.538-05:002016-06-03T13:52:07.538-05:00James,
I would be very interested in why your sc...James, <br /><br />I would be very interested in why your science background encourages you to believe seriously in a trinitarian God. Would you care to elaborate on that? <br /><br />Thanks,Everything Before Usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16627342357275610202016-06-02T18:29:10.922-05:002016-06-02T18:29:10.922-05:00What? James. You blaspheme. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED...What? James. You blaspheme. THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. <br /><br />Ah well, there is something good that comes from bigotry cloaked in a lab coat. It's comforting to see that other people besides Mormons can be dogmatic. <br /><br />I would still like to hear from a Mormon about whether "belief" or a testimony are the only grounds for being a Mormon. I know there are cultural mormons in Utah and Idaho, but not where I live. The Roman church is interesting that way. If you want to become a Catholic you have to go through a very narrow belief gate to get in. However, people who are born Catholic frolic in a much bigger court yard. They believe in things which would make a Jesuit shriek.<br /><br /><br /> Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248795648166253210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-9291493184906698442016-06-02T14:56:53.211-05:002016-06-02T14:56:53.211-05:00Scientism isn't much like science, in my exper...Scientism isn't much like science, in my experience. The real universe is a stranger and more wonderful place than any mythic realm I know; the error of the myths is not believing in magic, but just in believing that magic is simpler than it actually is. Electric motors are miracles; they require faith, but only in the sense that you need to invest time and effort to make one. Or so it seems to me. <br /><br />I've never read Pratchett. A horrible admission, but there it is. If he had only written three books, I probably would have read them, but by the time I started getting the idea that I should read him, I just didn't have time to read so much. Maybe this Christmas I'll look out for Hogfather, though.<br /><br />James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48080896282001040172016-06-02T07:43:18.611-05:002016-06-02T07:43:18.611-05:00James
We are not so far apart except I think you u...James<br />We are not so far apart except I think you under estimate Santa Clause. Our world would be greatly impoverished without fables, myths, and other lore. Lore teaches us what science can not. Huston Smith's recent book, "Why Religion Matters" makes this case very well. It may be this distinguished scholars last and most important work. Modernity and its close cousins scientism and dialectical materialism offer meagre guidance for how we should live our lives. Your triune God is invisible through these lenses. Jeremy Bentham attempted to reduce morality into an equation and ends up with an impossible process. <br /><br />A good Christmas time read is "Hogfather." Sir Terry Pratchett, the author, though an agnostic, never the less grasps the importance of fable in his hilarious book, where in Christmas is anthropomorphized as Hogfather. Anthropomorphized Death discovers that Hogfather is missing and goes on a quest to find out what has happened to him. It is an urgent mission because Death knows that if Hogfather does not show up for his annual journey the universe will cease to exist. It's absurd, I know, and yet I found the story both funny and touching. Death saves Christmas.<br />Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248795648166253210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4944783986480584982016-06-02T03:58:37.900-05:002016-06-02T03:58:37.900-05:00The best responses to Morgan will be from other Mo...The best responses to Morgan will be from other Mormons, but for what it's worth I can maybe share a related perspective.<br /><br />I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I don't really believe in the details of the traditional Christmas story about Jesus's birth, either. I do believe he was born, but I can't help noticing how drastically the two Biblical accounts of his birth differ from each other, and that makes me feel that I can't rely on either of them to be strictly accurate. So I'm agnostic about all the angels and shepherds and stars that are so big at Christmas. I still sing along with the carols, though, and even read out the lessons. I don't feel bad doing that, because I don't really feel that church Christmas pageants are making strong claims for literal truth of all the details. They're just performing a sort of traditional ritual whose only serious claim is that Jesus somehow arrived in the world. I do believe in that basic claim, so I'm fine with the Christmas performances.<br /><br />For most of the rest of the year, though, I work at research and teaching in theoretical physics. I'm trying to understand the universe that God has made and still sustains. I believe quite seriously in a trinitarian God, and often think about how an analogous triad of background, pattern, and detail appears when human beings experience the natural world. I think I have about as simple and direct a sense of working directly with the ultimate power in which I believe as any pagan who is painting an idol.<br /><br />So I'm agnostic about the beginnings of Matthew and Luke, but I take the beginning of the Gospel of John quite literally (insofar as you can call it "taking it literally" when the text is so abstract). I find no great trouble in taking some parts of traditional Christianity in a Santa-Claus-like way, but I think my life would be very different, and I think I would be a very different person, if I didn't believe in other parts of my faith in dead earnest. Among other things, I doubt I would hang around for Christmas pageants, if I really thought the whole faith was just like Santa Claus.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4499496281670351032016-06-01T12:46:20.065-05:002016-06-01T12:46:20.065-05:00This whole long dialogue is motivated by a desire ...This whole long dialogue is motivated by a desire to find the truth of the existence of the golden plates. For many, perhaps most, Mormons their participation in the church hangs on faith, meaning belief without proof, often expressed as a testimony, and the idea that the church is "true." There is another connotative meaning to the word faith, that is, when we talk of having faith in a person. The oldest meaning of faith was trust. In my 66 years of experience I have found that I can have faith in people who believe in things I don't believe. These people were trustworthy in the sense that they had good intentions and followed through with competent action. The same goes for institutions. <br /><br />I grew up in the church and found it to be a safe and loving place to be as opposed to the public School in St. Louis. However, by the time I was old enough to go on a mission, I did not have a testimony. Love for the church and its people, I did have, but I really could not say it was "true." Because of the preoccupation of so many Mormons with "having a testimony," "without a shadow of doubt" I felt I couldn't be a Mormon. I left the church hoping to find some alternative community that would give me all the beauty, love, and sense of purpose the church had provided. It never happened. I visited dozens of churches and read about hundreds. My experience in other churches has been disappointing. I am reconciled to the idea that there is no "true" church.<br /><br />Now, for instance, I know of Hopi Indians and people of other nations who live in two worlds . On the one hand the Hopi understand modernity and make use of it, but they prefer to live in a world of make believe. It is just more comforting for them to live among friends and relatives who like the story of how Spider Woman led the people from the previous world through the sipapu into this world and are quite willing to believe that the tiny sipapu in the kiva is an actual portal from a spirit world different in nature from the world we live in. Further, the merit of the tiny sipapu is established by the notion of the actual sipapu in the Grand Canyon. <br /><br />I happen to like the stories in the Mormon scriptures and much else, like the children's song "give said the little stream" and the unique system of non-professional church governance, and the fact that the church has a rational welfare system. I like and largely trust Mormons in a way that is harder to come by among gentiles. <br /><br />So, I wonder if Mormanity has room for a dialogue about being in the church and not having a testimony. I really think that Joseph Smith was a genius who was also a rube, and probably a con man, as horny as Bill Clinton, who never the less created a new kind of spiritual and social community that has evolved erratically into a grander institution than he imagined. It has been molded by experience and the hearts and minds of the likes of Lisa Roxy Snow, Brigham Young, Levi Savage, Porter Rockwell, David O. McKay and my own ancestors. Can I be a Mormon and not believe that Mormon was a real person? Is it enough that I believe in Mahonri Moriancumer the same way I believe in Santa Clause. Yes, Virginia there is a Liahona and God does live in a place called Kolab.<br /> <br />Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248795648166253210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-42462253310640023862016-05-31T07:59:37.174-05:002016-05-31T07:59:37.174-05:00I got distracted by the later threads and didn'...I got distracted by the later threads and didn't notice this response here by Vance until now.<br /><br />My position is that the Statement of Eight Witnesses is unconvincing, and even worse. It actually arouses suspicion, because it has features that could and should have been avoided if the plates were genuine, but that would be necessary features if they were a fraud.<br /><br />First of all it's a vague statement that says almost nothing about the physical features of the plates. Secondly the witness names are all put to one collective statement, instead of them providing independent accounts. Thirdly the witnesses were all closely connected to Joseph Smith in personal ways. And fourthly the language is weaselly in a couple of crucial places, allowing loopholes for alternate readings that do not unequivocally endorse the physical reality of the plates.<br /><br />You argument seems to be, Vance, that whatever limitations the Statement may have had, it was widely represented as an unequivocal affirmation of physical plates. If the witnesses heard their statement misrepresented (I understand you to say), they would surely have corrected the misinterpretation, and explained what they really meant.<br /><br />If that's your point, I think you're projecting back too much later history to the time of the witnesses. Nowadays the physical reality of the plates is a huge sticking point, and Mormon apologists point earnestly to the witness statement in order to establish it. Was it even such a big deal, though, back then? <br /><br />The casual attitude to physical detail which is displayed by the Statement itself implies a similar attitude in its intended audience. So, no, I don't think that the witnesses would have been much troubled with people over-interpreting their vague statements in more concretely literal terms than they ever intended. I doubt that the issue even came up much.<br /><br />And if such a casual public attitude seems hard to swallow even for the magical worldview of old New England, then let me put it this way: it's exactly as hard to swallow as the fact that the Statement of Eight Witnesses is itself so vague about something as fundamentally important as the detailed physical characteristics of the plates. You have to swallow either both, or neither.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26571269868471119512016-05-28T09:26:05.124-05:002016-05-28T09:26:05.124-05:00Vance –
If the evil conspirators existed, they w...Vance – <br /><br />If the evil conspirators existed, they would have changed the 116 pages to contradict any retranslations or new translations. Therefore, the 116 pages scenario was not just a learning experience. It also bought the three Nephites time to execute the evil conspirators so that a whole nation would not dwindle in unbelief. Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61511062244937847682016-05-24T15:19:06.262-05:002016-05-24T15:19:06.262-05:00I must confess, James, that your position seems a ...I must confess, James, that your position seems a bit baffling. The Eight witnesses was offered as proof of the physical existence of the plates, with engravings and people turning pages. Now, you've parsed it to the point where maybe kinda if we are being technical it is possible they were pulling a fast one and meant pages of paper and so forth.... but that's incredulous. The point of the 8 Witnesses was to say, "We saw the plates." That's what until I read your statement, everyone took it to mean. Including the 8 witnesses. <br /><br />To say that in reality they were stating they had seen engravings reproduced on paper and multiple objects and carefully weaved a narrative that only appears to suggest they handled the gold plates: well, what's the difference between that and they just flat out lied?<br /><br />I mean, their testimony has always been pointed to as evidence of the physical existence of the plates. For you to claim that they really meant something else and were just fine with Joseph and the Mormons trumpeting this (false) interpretation of their statement really is just another "they were liars." <br /><br />Your view of "Well, with the right hyper technical legal parsing, it's possible that they made an accurate statement but the plates didn't really exist!" is rather ludicrous. Everyone knew their statement was the primary evidence for the physical existence of the plates. If they were truthful, then they wouldn't have allowed this "Well, the plates didn't really exist, but we didn't lie to make that statement!" bit. They would have spoken up and said something like, "No, we really just handled the leaves of the finished book and Joseph twisted it." Or else they were not truthful, in which case why not lie about it completely? Your half version ("Well, technically speaking it's possible for this to all be true and not true!") is nonsense, James, and you know it. Vancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55167827270365930492016-05-24T04:15:14.284-05:002016-05-24T04:15:14.284-05:00As it happens, I believe in God. If you add up Chr...As it happens, I believe in God. If you add up Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, a clear majority of human beings believe in God. In particular I'm a sort of Anglican-Lutheran hybrid. I don't think I'm lukewarm about my own faith. I'm just skeptical about the Mormon faith. <br /><br />And I'm also skeptical about the power of reason and evidence to support religious belief. When someone points to some fact and declares, "There are no reasonable explanations for this fact except my belief," then my experience suggests that that person has simply failed to think seriously about other explanations. I respect faith, and I believe that God does, too. I'm not a fan of simply kidding oneself. And I don't think God values that, either.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74031841446548056352016-05-23T18:55:41.717-05:002016-05-23T18:55:41.717-05:00God knows whether you're being a Laodicean, Ja...God knows whether you're being a Laodicean, James. It is not for me to judge. And if you don't believe in God, then my apologies, and as my friend would say, he believes in you. Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53038703519255425922016-05-23T15:26:11.597-05:002016-05-23T15:26:11.597-05:00I do allow some possibility, in principle, that th...I do allow some possibility, in principle, that the 8+3 witnesses might have been wise and honest when they allowed their names to be put to those statements, but then have somehow gone downhill later and fallen out with Joseph Smith. I am not claiming to present a compelling case against Mormonism. <br /><br />In fact I doubt that such a logically compelling case can be made. I'm not Mormon, and don't really see how I could become one, so Mormon answers to seeming problems don't always come naturally to me; but from time to time I think I can see a consistent Mormon answer of some kind or other, and then I try to suggest it here. The particular Mormon answers that other people provide here often surprise me, but I am not surprised by the fact that answers exist. I generally assume that they do.<br /><br />My point is rather negative: the witness statements are far from being compelling evidence for Mormonism. There are problems with them. They have some disquieting features, which in some ways fit well with a fraud theory. <br /><br /> The Statement of Eight Witnesses has some tendency to support the physical reality of the plates, and an intelligent Mormon may well believe the Statement (and believe that it means the plates were handled despite the awkward "leaves" formulation). By no means, however, does the Statement "demonstrate" the physical reality of the plates. If you think it does, I think you're kidding yourself. An intelligent and honest-minded person can absolutely read the Book of Mormon witness statements, check out all the available historical evidence, and conclude, "Nope — it was a fraud." That conclusion might not even seem like a difficult decision; but it does not require foolishness or laziness or wickedness. It's a perfectly reasonable way of looking at the evidence we have.<br /><br />If you have reasons besides the Witness Statements for believing in the Book of Mormon, then I don't think any of my speculations about the witnesses should sway you from your belief. On the other hand, if you have your own doubts about the Book, but feel compelled to believe in it because of those incontrovertible Witness Statements, then I guess I am telling you that they're not really so incontrovertible. I'm sorry, but that's the truth as I see it.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-35898280091486583312016-05-23T14:24:06.004-05:002016-05-23T14:24:06.004-05:00James: you are arguing an issue that is impossible...James: you are arguing an issue that is impossible to refute to your satisfaction. Posit: None of the witnesses left. Your argument: they were all in on the fraud. <br /><br />Posit: lots of them left: They all knew it was a fraud! <br /><br />Thus, you leave no room for them to, well, not be a fraud. An honest investigator would leave room for the idea that in fact they were telling the truth.<br /><br /><br />From the point of view of God, however, wouldn't it be more "powerful" as proof for these guys to have a clear beef with Joseph Smith later, leave the church, but they never denied what they saw? That's far more evidentiary powerful than the "well, of course they were faithful--they obviously were part of the fraud!" argument that is raised about people like Hyrum. <br /><br />The witnesses actually have two separate purposes, thus your "Some of it was spiritual which means nonexistent and we can dismiss it!" is off base.<br /><br />The 8 witnesses, among others, are there to satisfy the whole "Did Joseph have the plates or not?" Note carefully that they restrict themselves to the existence of the plates and the engravings on the plates. If all we had was the 8 witnesses, what would that show? Well, that Joseph had some plates with carvings. Nothing about whether any translation was accurate.<br /><br />That's the three witnesses. We aren't expected to believe the plates existed because of the Three witnesses. As you point out, James, it was a "spiritual" witness. You dismiss their evidence because, you say, it could have been hallucinatory. Well, maybe, if they were the only ones. The Eight demonstrate the physical reality of the plates, with absolutely no supernatural flimflammery. But the Three demonstrate that the translation was true and that God approved of what Joseph was doing. The 8 show the existence, the 3 show it's approved of God. The witnesses were designed by God to demonstrate and provide evidence for two separate questions; namely whether 1) the plates existed and 2) whether God was involved in the process. <br /><br />As for your "How could they possibly have fallen away?" stuff: angels and miracles do not provide lasting conversion. How many times did Moses lose people, despite all the miracles they had seen? Jesus lost Judas... but He also lost lots of people after they had seen the miracles of the loaves and fishes when He gave the "Bread of Life" sermon. As for why many if not most of the witnesses fell away; God had reasons, first of all. Second, most of them knew they were "better" than Joseph and could do a better job. When they couldn't, well, pride reared its ugly head. Vancenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3619135264253300042016-05-22T12:04:27.450-05:002016-05-22T12:04:27.450-05:00If one selected any random group of eight average ...If one selected any random group of eight average early Mormons who were not blood relatives of Joseph Smith, how many of them would have left the movement within ten years? Perhaps one or two? Three or four? Yet all three of the Three Witnesses, and three of the five non-Smiths among the Eight Witnesses, were all soon excommunicated. The other two Whitmers in the Eight died soon after the Book of Mormon was published. So six out of six surviving non-Smiths among the witnesses all left the church within a few years. That must have been an especially high rate of attrition, or the Mormon movement would never have grown.<br /><br />Even Jesus did have one bad apple in his dozen, though it's not clear from the gospels how many miracles Judas Iscariot had actually seen, or how much he ought to have known about what he was really doing. But the non-Smith witnesses to the Book of Mormon seem to have all been bad apples. Were all those witnesses an especially corrupt or foolish crew, traitors like Judas, who would make poor choices in the face of true knowledge?<br /><br />What would it say about the Book of Mormon, if all its non-Smith witnesses were such corrupt or foolish people? Weren't the witnesses supposed to be too shrewd and strong-willed to be duped, and too honest to deny what they knew to be truth even if they had wanted to deny it? <br /><br />How could such shrewd and honest people leave the prophet's church, if they had really seen convincing proofs of the divine revelation?<br /><br />I'm afraid the fact that so many witnesses left the church seems to put the witness evidence for the Book of Mormon into a double bind. If the witnesses were being corrupt or foolish when they left Smith's church, then how do we know they weren't also being corrupt or foolish when they stood as witnesses for Smith's revelation? If they were wise and honest when they stood as witnesses, how do we know they weren't also being wise or honest when they left the church?James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15435798402466982692016-05-21T17:44:41.812-05:002016-05-21T17:44:41.812-05:00On a side note that pertains to a recent post abou...On a side note that pertains to a recent post about Book of Mormon language. There were two interesting quotes in the article. It appears there is strong evidence that Harris spoke in Early Modern English:<br /><br />“I do say that the angel did show me the plates containing the Book of Mormon.”<br /><br />As did John Whitmer:<br /><br />“I now say I handled those plates. There was fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16437437454217368012016-05-21T15:17:52.553-05:002016-05-21T15:17:52.553-05:00I know, it gives one pause... Judas betrayed Jesu...I know, it gives one pause... Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied him, there are many unfortunate instances of government workers with high level clearances selling documents to the other side. History is replete with individuals making poor choices in the face of the kind of knowledge that they have. It's crazy but it happens.<br /><br />Steve<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66717291278732806612016-05-21T13:27:01.503-05:002016-05-21T13:27:01.503-05:00I had the same reaction to Rappleye's argument...I had the same reaction to Rappleye's argument about "strong-willed" people. In fact the whole argument about witnesses who left the Church but never recanted seems a bit problematic to me. It does mean that people who probably didn't like Joseph Smith didn't withdraw their testimony just to hit back at him; and that's something. But when I hear, "They all left Joseph's Church but still didn't recant," I feel like saying, "Wait, what?" at that first "They all left" part.<br /><br />They saw an angel deliver golden plates to Joseph Smith. But then they left him? Or competed with him for leadership? Really? Were they hoping to find another prophet with two angels? Were they expecting to get an angel of their own? I mean, lots of Mormons stuck with Smith, without seeing any plates or angels. So why would people who had seen such tremendous proof of him not be at least as faithful as everyone else? What the heck?<br /><br />Maybe Satan somehow tempted them especially hard, just because they were witnesses. But the other explanation that occurs to me is that whatever they saw or felt, or didn't, actually made them believe in Joseph Smith <i>less</i>, once they thought about it. And then the thought also occurs, that they might have refrained from recanting their testimonies because those testimonies were their own best claims to fame — and if they recanted, they would never be able to un-recant. Their one claim to fame would be forever gone.<br /><br />This is speculation, of course. But it's speculation to try to resolve a major puzzle that is certainly there. How could people who had really been given tangible proof of Joseph Smith's revelation not remain his faithful followers for life, like all the hundreds who had never had proof?James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75808168483140575142016-05-21T13:01:15.662-05:002016-05-21T13:01:15.662-05:00Interesting read. Some things in it tickled my bra...Interesting read. Some things in it tickled my brain a bit. Rappleye points out a couple of problems of evidence in the story without really meaning to. The first is a problem many have with the testimony of the three witnesses. Based on the accounts, theirs was a spiritual witness rather than a physical one. Harris wasn't included in the initial witnessing with Smith, Cowdery, and Whitmer because he wasn't yet spiritually prepared. It wasn't until he was alone with Smith that he had his witnessing experience. This spiritual, rather than physical, witness of the plates taints the testimony with doubt. <br /><br />This brings up the second problem I see, that of the witness of Mary Whitmer (surprising that this was put forth as proof). Her witness is similar to that of the three witnesses except that Joseph, the supposed on-earth, tangible steward of the plates, was not present. To me this weakens the testimony of the others as it seems anyone could be a witness if she cose to do so, with or without Joseph's permission. <br /><br />Another, larger problem of the witnesses that wasn't addresses in Rappleye's article, is the fact that all witnesses were insiders. There was no outside, independent observer of the plates. All who bore witness of them were already on board with Joseph's cause. A believer can make all sorts of rationalizations and perform mental gymnastics so that their beliefs can sqare with their observations (this blog is explicit evidence of that phenomenon). For the witnesses to have held real, convincing weight, they should have included an outside observer, one who didn't have a vested interest in the outcome of the testimony. Even better would have been a skeptical outsider who was converted as a result of seeing and handling the plates. <br /><br />A third problem with Rappleye's article is this quote:<br /><br />"Several left the Church while continuing to bear their witness of the plates. As Richard Lloyd Anderson noted, several were strong-willed individuals who “tended to compete rather than cooperate with [Joseph Smith’s] leadership.”32 Given such circumstances, it would be impossible to keep a conspiracy under wraps, and their tendency to compete with Joseph’s leadership indicates they are not likely to be easily duped."<br /><br />The problem with this statement is that many of those witnesses who competed with Joseph's leadership sought to establish their own religions (or join with others who had), likely because they saw that Joseph, could do it and saw how he did it, and thought they could replicate it. Some even returned after Joseph's death and tried to assume leadership of the church. It's possible they were less likely to be duped, but it's also possible that they had more to gain by not recanting their testimony. <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com