One thing that bothers me when people say Joseph and the witnesses had a "magical worldview" is they often accept D. Michael Quinn's thesis at face value. Anyone who finds Quinn's book convincing should know that when the second edition of that book came out, William Hamblin wrote a very lengthy review in FARMS that completely tore the book apart. Time and time again he showed that Quinn was misrepresenting the sources he cited in his footnotes. It's entitled "That Old Black Magic" and it's 170 pages long. John Gee also wrote a great review of the book in that same issue of FARMS called "An Obstacle to Deeper Understanding". I much prefer Bushman's thesis that Joseph believed in a much milder form of folk Christianity. It squares with the data much better.
@bobocomments
28 күн бұрын
I love that paper. Hamblin was my professor at BYUJ
@mcable217
28 күн бұрын
@@jacobmayberry1126 clearly everyone was at least a little more magically inclined than we are today given the belief in the numerous seer stones produced and used in early Mormonism e.g. Hiram Page. I’ll have to read the Hamblin’s critique.
@mcable217
28 күн бұрын
@@bobocomments Sad to see he left the church.
@jacobmayberry1126
27 күн бұрын
@@mcable217 no one denies the use of seer stones, but Quinn's thesis takes it much farther than that. And it's a bit of a stretch to say that the "magic worldview" caused these men to be convinced that they say plates that weren't really there or saw gold plates that were really tin plates.
@jacobmayberry1126
27 күн бұрын
@@mcable217 he didn't leave the church. He became disappointed with some of their curriculum choices later in life but he never left the church.
@perryekimae
28 күн бұрын
I've already made my comments at length on the witnesses on your other videos. So, I'll just comment a point of strong agreement and let Dan Vogel's comments speak for the criticisms. I absolutely agree that the evidence for the plates is better than the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. When I hear Christian apologists try to attack Mormonism, this is among my favorite things to point out to them. I still find the evidence for the plates that Joseph described to be incredibly lacking (and I'm agnostic on whether there was any sort of physical artifact or not), but the evidence for the plates is MUCH stronger than the evidence for Jesus's resurrection.
@perryekimae
24 күн бұрын
44:00 I know I said I wasn't going to get into the weeds here, but I think I can maybe clarify this part of the discussion. If I recall this part of the LDS Discussions episode on this, the point about the angel appearing in glory and all that had more to do with the constraints placed on who could be witnesses. If the angel could appear as just some dude and the plates were just a physical object, why could the plates not also be shown to hostile witnesses, whose concurrence with the testimony of the friendly witnesses would lend invaluable credence to the veritable existence of the plates.
@mormonismwiththemurph
24 күн бұрын
I guess 2nd Nephi 27 says the plates would been shown to the 3 witnesses by the power of God and others according to the will of God. So the believing position would be similar to Christ's ressurection, God has selected a few witnesses to see the plates and likewise a few with Jesus ressurection. My recollection from my response video was that the power of God shouldn't be needed to see an angel or it be some visionary thing. That it should be a natural viewing of the angel. My thoughts were if they described the angel as just a man with a sat of plates, skeptics could argue that doesn't sound like an angel coming down but could be a random guy with plates.
@mcable217
28 күн бұрын
Murph can you do some discussion formats? Have on someone like Dan Vogel or julia from analyzing Mormonism at the same time for a discussion with Steven? I think it’d be interesting.
@mormonismwiththemurph
28 күн бұрын
That would be interesting, what I've found though when I've mentioned the idea of a discussion/debate most from either side don't want to do it and would rather talk to me to address it.
@CallredMD
28 күн бұрын
I’m sure it is only the apologists that refuse a discussion format. I am positive that Dan Vogel or Bill Reel or RFM, would be more than willing to be part of a discussion panel
@jeremims9044
27 күн бұрын
Murph just stated either side don't want to do it. Unless you know them personally and have had that kind of discussion with them, I'd stick to what murph states as fact on that issue.
@mcable217
27 күн бұрын
@@mormonismwiththemurph that’s a shame, I appreciate you bringing everyone on your show. Keep it up 👍
@jacobmayberry1126
27 күн бұрын
@@CallredMD Dan Vogel is on record refusing to have a dialogue with Robert Boylan over modalism in the book of mormon. He said it was because he couldn't understand his accent lol. It's not just the apologists.
@danvogel6802
28 күн бұрын
These guys do not understand the Burnett letter. Harris didn't complain that he was being misunderstood. Harris didn't divide the dissenters; they were already divided over the BofM. No evidence was given to show that Burnett and Parrish misrepresented or "conflated" something Harris said. Neal and Stephen just assert it. Hyrum's comment that he had only two eye and two hands shows the dissenters were claiming the 8 saw the plates with spiritual eyes, and Burnett gives us the details of how that started. The "only imagination" comments is Burnett's conclusion; it is only one way to interpret a visionary claim. Harris saying he saw the plates through the cloth is an example of seeing the plates with spiritual eyes, which is the manner in which he previously said the 8 saw the plates. This is the context of Hyrum's comments about the same time.
@TroyLeavitt
27 күн бұрын
Mr. Smoot repeatedly makes an error of confirmation bias in that, on the one hand, he dismisses the portions of testimonies where the witnesses speak of seeing via spiritual eyes as being misrepresentations or fabrications by non-believers. On the other, he accepts those snippets of testimonies that confirm a more literal viewing as having greater importance because it is what he wants to believe. You can clearly see this double-standard and penchant for confirmation bias whenever apologists like Mr. Smoot approach claims made in the early Church that they do NOT accept. For example, the LDS apologists require higher standards of evidence and testimony when it comes to the Voree plates of James Strang than they do for the Gold Plates of Joseph Smith. If they were consistent, they would recognize that both sets of plates and their witnesses have very similar issues.
@jacobmayberry1126
27 күн бұрын
@@TroyLeavitt if you actually read what Stephen and Neal have produced on the witnesses you wouldn't be making these criticisms. I don't think you're familiar enough with the source material to be criticizing him. They're not simply dismissing instances where people say they saw with their "spiritual eyes". They're saying that if you exegete that phrase properly, you'll realize that what they meant wasn't to say that that the experience wasn't physical, but that God had to transfigure or prepare their eyes so they could withstand the presence of a heavenly being. Martin Harris firmly believed that "no man could see God and live" and therefore in order for a person to withstand the presense of a heavenly being, his eyes had to be prepared for it. Hence the phrase "spiritual eyes". It's referring to the eyes themselves not the experience. Burnett misinterpreted that phrase to suit his own purposes. Also, if you can show that the witnesses of the voree plates meet ALL the criteria that the Gold plates witnesses do, then I'll take your point seriously, but simply appealing to them without bringing the receipts is just lazy.
@jeremims9044
25 күн бұрын
@TroyLeavitt aside from sheer numbers (of witness testimony) being on the side of apologist views for the witnesses, you have all the direct statements from the witnesses themselves, including direct clarifications, supporting Smoot/Rappleye. The ones that support critical viewpoints are almost all 3rd hand with some 2nd hand. So essentially you're giving outsized weight to mostly later, not direct statements that are far far fewer in number over the legion of supportive quotes including 1st hand accounts. The Strang plates don't have any witnesses that were shown plates by an angel and have a voice from heaven state they are correct. They are not the same experience.
@danvogel6802
24 күн бұрын
@@jeremims9044 I think a better example that Strang is the Shaker witnesses who saw the holy roll and angel. If we are talking about the three witnesses, you can quote sources all day and not get away from the fact that they had a vision. Consequently, the question of hallucination must be asked. Group hallucination is possible, although it's only Cowdery and Whitmer. I think James Henry Moyles interview with Whitmer is most telling. He asked the right questions, not just verification, which most interviewers focused on. He asked if the atmosphere was normal. Whitmer told him there was a light a a soft haze, and compared it to the Apostle Paul's vision, where those with him saw nothing. Moyle went away thinking it was more spiritual than he anticipated. So, look up Moyle's account.
@awfulwaffle1341
28 күн бұрын
I’d love to see you interview Stephen on the BOA. That’s a fascinating topic that you have yet to discuss on your channel in depth.
@mormonismwiththemurph
28 күн бұрын
Yeah I want to move onto that one soon
@nealljones
28 күн бұрын
Smoot has done many such BOA interviews. This is one: The Book of Abraham Translation with Stephen O. Smoot kzitem.info/news/bejne/pm930JiNpH-Wloo
@ozymandias6743
28 күн бұрын
@@nealljoneshmmmm... I did watch this interview. What I think it lacks - for someone who watched the 10 hours or so of Dr. Ritner - is any credible refutation of his hieroglyphic interpretation and expertise. I would like to see Smoot address the challenges to the BoA from Ritner head on.
@jeremims9044
27 күн бұрын
@mormonismwiththemurph you could also talk to Ed Goble as well. He has a book he's been working on for years about the BoA. It would be nice to at least see a different perspective on it.
@pmp6444
27 күн бұрын
@@ozymandias6743 there are none…won’t happen
@CNuzzle
28 күн бұрын
I’m not a Mormon although I respect the religion. I’m firmly convinced that Joseph smiths story isn’t true. That being said the apologists do a better job than you’d think possible.
@Aldrnari
27 күн бұрын
Well, they do a good job because the evidence is highly in favor of authenticity. It's becoming harder and harder to be a critic of the religion, based on our growing knowledge of the documentary evidence alone.
@jacobsamuelson3181
27 күн бұрын
Heres the deal. The Joseph Smith Story happened. We are a testament of that. How it happened is what gets peoples kravats in a bundle. If you can find a way that a 23 year old could invent the Book of Mormon in the time he did and in the manner. Without any resources. I'm all ears. So far there has been nothing but conspiracies outside the history on the negative side.
@CNuzzle
27 күн бұрын
@@Aldrnari ok. Respectfully, please explain the kinderhook plates or the book of Abraham and why I should believe those are authentic?
@ozymandias6743
27 күн бұрын
@@CNuzzle There is no rational justification for either of these special events in early church history. Joseph was clearly running a fraud and got jammed up a few times. First Vision story, Golden plates, book of Abraham, Kirtland safety society, bigamy, etc. If Joseph Smith were leading his people today, as opposed to 1830, there would be a Netflix documentary with witness interviews burying his story like nexium or Scientology. Since it was 1830 We get crap like. " Person A said that he saw person B say that person C did something amazing.... and person A never recanted his story so we know that it's true. Amen!"
@aliceduren6542
27 күн бұрын
@@CNuzzleSaints Unscripted has some videos on the Kinderhook plates and Book of Abraham if you’re interested. They’re short and get to the point. Mormonr (apologetics website) also has responses that lay out the issues.
@danvogel6802
28 күн бұрын
Whenever Neal and Stephen mock the critics, they do a very poor job. They do not understand the critics. They kept going into hypotheticals and portraying the critics as unreasonable. One straw man after another. I look forward to reading the article. It's probably better than what they did here. No one denies the witnesses believed what they saw. The point about the three witnesses is that it was a visionary experience rather than what Richard Anderson called a "natural supernatural vision." James Henry Moyle interview with David Whitmer is best. There are group hallucinations. As I keep saying, there is no way to tell a "real" vision from a hallucination. Being emphatic doesn't make it real. Neal kept talking about Mary Whitmer said, etc. Mary never said anything. It was her grandson who told the story. So it is an assumption that her experience with the messenger was purely natural.
@jeremims9044
27 күн бұрын
But Dan, how does one not only initiate a group hallucination, but then control it and repeat it?
@jeremims9044
27 күн бұрын
Also Dan, is Mary's experience a hallucination? And why is the description of the individual in her experience remarkably similar to DW, OC, and JS experience of meeting an individual on the road from Colesville?
@jacobmayberry1126
27 күн бұрын
@@jeremims9044 she was obviously on shrooms that Joseph snuck into her drink lol
@jeremims9044
27 күн бұрын
@jacobmayberry1126 right? I read that article about the entheogen (shrooms, etc) hypothesis. Unfortunately it suffers from the same weaknesses as the hypnosis and/or hallucination ones. It's a new age recycled version of those arguments. One still has to not only prepare/initiate on cue the experience, they have to then control the experience for multiple people and then replicate it in exact same manner for others. It's absurd.
@jeremims9044
26 күн бұрын
One more thing: I keep hearing this narrative (not just from you) of "they(apologists) don't understand the critics" Clear it up. What is the central argument? What is the central counter narrative of the critics with respective supporting evidence? I know you have written several books. Are apologists not able to access those or are they just not "getting it"? I'm not being disrespectful when I ask this.
@ozymandias6743
28 күн бұрын
Would love to hear Smoot give a detailed response to Robert Ritner's take on the Book of Abraham.
@mormonismwiththemurph
28 күн бұрын
Yeah he's agreed to do an interview with me on the Book of Abraham
@nealljones
28 күн бұрын
Many LDS egyptologists have. Ritner didn't have a position that is unique. He took positions many LDS critics do. Ritner is not a believer. A Christian Egyptologist would grant more to the BoA vs an agnostic.
@ozymandias6743
28 күн бұрын
@@nealljones What is an LDS Egyptologist? I just thought there were professionals who academically studied the history and language of the ancient Egyptians and they were called egyptologists.
@nealljones
28 күн бұрын
@@ozymandias6743 Haha. An LDS egyptologist is a Latter-day Saint egyptologist. A Catholic or Muslim Egyptologist is analogous. They all look at the same data. Their biases affect their conclusions. Data don't make conclusions. Biased people make conclusions. This applies to scientists, egyptologists, and any other type of scholar. Egyptologists come in all types, with all religious backgrounds. So do scholars who specialize in Islam, Iran, Russia, or any other part of the world. All have biases of various types -- be they Muslim, ex-Mormon, Catholic, agnostic like Ritner, etc -- that are expected. All scholars do from the best to the worst. Why should we put special weight on what Ritner (or pick your scholar) says? Is it vital that Ritner be a non-believer? Would it be even better if he had been an ex-Mormon? Or an actual Egyptian?
@ozymandias6743
28 күн бұрын
@@nealljones your "what aboutism" is frustrating and telling. I have no idea what Dr. Robert Ritner's religious beliefs were, but I do know that he is cited in peer-reviewed egyptological papers, hundreds and hundreds of times.
@ozymandias6743
28 күн бұрын
I cannot believe that you fine apologists brought up Charles Anthon & Dr Mitchell.
@jeremims9044
26 күн бұрын
Please explain
@ozymandias6743
26 күн бұрын
@@jeremims9044 Anthon directly contradicted on two different occasions the Crux of Joseph Smith's allegation that Martin Harris visited him with the "caraters" document and Anthon vouched to their legitimacy. Mitchell passed away shortly after the alleged episode and never spoke about it (that was recorded at least). The church should absolutely run and hide as it pertains to this story from Joseph Smith history.
@jeremims9044
25 күн бұрын
@@ozymandias6743 Anton on 2 occasions had contradictory stories. He couldn't keep them straight. Furthermore, Harris returned from this expedition fully convinced to throw his support behind J. Smith when he had left to NYC skeptical. Something happened in NYC to change his mind. Convincingly. "the church should just run and hide as it pertains to this story from JS history". Interesting take you have there. Why should they hide from it? It seems they should keep talking about it.
@randydouglass8872
28 күн бұрын
Studying the three witnesses to the book of Mormon and listening to their stories and what they wrote down and what they said on their deathbed. No they did not see the gold plates with their spiritual eyes. They were physically shown them. I would have to read again but I think they also lifted and hefted them and turned the pages. Not quite sure that last part since it was a while since I read about them.
@dr33776
28 күн бұрын
What about all the other times they said they saw them with the eye of faith, as a city through a mountain, or in vision? Can’t just cherry pick the ones you like.
@nealljones
28 күн бұрын
@@dr33776 As I recall, only critics made those claims about "eye of faith, as a city through a mountain..." These critical claims are often 3rd- and 4th-hand accounts. Someone heard what someone said Martin Harris said. That's not a reliable source. In other words, the BoM witnesses themselves didn't go on record using those descriptions. Instead, they said they saw as they see anything else. Heard as they heard anything else. Etc. By citing what you did, you're favoring critics' reports. Not adequately taking into account the 1st-hand reports by the witnesses themselves.
@dr33776
28 күн бұрын
@@nealljones good point, my rebuttal would be. How did all those 2nd or 3rd hand sources come up with those statements? Do you have any evidence they coordinated or had access to some common material so that they could, independently of each other, say what they heard? As in all things, you have to take ALL of the evidence and weight it. It’s not one or two statements that are the outliers, there are several and the people reporting on it were all over the country, across many decades, and were both non Mormons or ex Mormons. That doesn’t make their statements false by default.
@mormonismwiththemurph
28 күн бұрын
That is the 8. The 3 watched the angel turn the leaves but I'm sure Martin and Oliver held them as scribes
@nealljones
28 күн бұрын
@@dr33776 As a rule, 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th- and other accounts are not valued equal to 1st-hand reports. No matter what they say. They simply aren't reliable compared to what the 1st-hand accounts say. How did they come up with those statements? I don't know. Neither do you. The sources usually don't say. Some heard someone else say something about someone. Hummmmm. We have 3-4 critical sources (see CES Letter, GodMakers, and other materials that recycle these same names) that produce 2nd-4th hand accounts. Hostile sources. A minister. An ex member. Why would you take their accounts as seriously (as a personal witness account)? You could simply ask the witnesses what they experienced. You don't have to believe Harris, Whitmer, or Oliver. But you should hear them out. And contrast them with the 4th-hand accounts -- what someone said another said another said about the experience (city through a mountain, for example). Did Martin ever himself say he saw the plates "as a city through a mountain." I don't think so. But others said they heard others say he said that. Hummmm. Not reliable. To solely focus on the few hearsay and worse accounts vs the ~200 1st-hand accounts is a poor, flawed, imprecise approach. Yep. Some evidence (1st hand) is much better than other evidence (2nd hand and worse).
@DiffQ_Bro
25 күн бұрын
Is Steve in the DC area?
@mcable217
28 күн бұрын
There is an interesting heads I win, Tails you lose dynamic when apologists discuss the witness accounts and the first vision accounts. With the first vision accounts, it adds to the credibility that they differ (and sometimes contradict) in details depending on who Joseph was talking to. With the witness accounts, it adds to their credibility that they always offered the same succinct story and never added details.
@bobocomments
28 күн бұрын
The exact inverse could be said about what the critics say
@mcable217
28 күн бұрын
@@bobocomments I agree. I generally think arguments about what witnesses or liars would or wouldn’t do to be incredibly weak.
@jacobmayberry1126
27 күн бұрын
I think the response would be that Joseph was writing down his experience over a decade later while the witnesses wrote their experience down a few months later, maybe even sooner. Steven Harper's book on memory studies regarding the first vision was an interesting one. I would recommend it if you haven't read it. It incorporates the social sciences and neuroscience literature regarding memory and shows that Joseph's different accounts aren't all that weird when you take memory studies into account.
@ozymandias6743
26 күн бұрын
@@jacobmayberry1126 oh, did the witnesses write down their own accounts? Please provide a citation.
@jacobmayberry1126
26 күн бұрын
@@ozymandias6743 yup. They signed their name to the one that's in every single Book of Mormon. They all agreed to that account .
@danvogel6802
28 күн бұрын
David Whitmer did not contradict Burnet or Harris. Prepared eyes are the same as spiritual eyes. Just different terminology. Trance is the same as being in the spirit. Whether in the body or out of the body, etc. I know people who use mushrooms and believe they experience things that are real or more real than the natural world. I have argued that the way to determine if the witnesses' experiences were real is to decide if the BofM is real history. I have always said that the witnesses believed they saw a real vision, but it was a vision. The 8 Shaker witnesses also believed they had a real vision of the angel and holy roll, but that doesn't make it so. Sincerity doesn't tell you anything about the metaphysical reality of the experience. Murphy didn't say Whitmer had denied his testimony. He compared Whitmer's vision with other religious peoples' visions. Nothing special in Murphy's mind. All Whitmer said was that it wasn't a delusion, but so would the Quakers and Methodists. Compare this with James Henry Moyle's interview of Whitmer.
@jeremims9044
26 күн бұрын
How many Shakers are out there now? How many of the witnesses for the Shaker roll maintained and reiterated that testimony throughout their lives? How many saw a consistent vision? How many saw both spiritually and naturally? Why did the 3 witnesses continually get interviewed until they died and the Shaker witnesses did not? You leave out a lot of information and context in your assertions and comparisons. Perhaps you can expound on that a bit more?
@danvogel6802
28 күн бұрын
Smoot makes a distinction without a difference in talking about Clark's account of Harris using the phrase "eye of faith," which is no different than "spiritual eyes," or JS and Rigdon saying the "eyes of our understandings." A vision is a vision is a vision. Clark's account is therefore supported by others. His report that Harris said he saw the plates through the cloth is also supported by Burnett.
@nealljones
28 күн бұрын
Dan, they clarify that Martin did feel the plates through a cloth -- when Martin helped Joseph translate. He might have seen a corner of the plates through the cloth. But Martin saw the entirety of the plates out in the open in the field (where he, Joseph, Oliver, and Witmer went) -- separate from the translation process (when the plates were covered). Burnett and Clark intentionally or unintentionally conflated the 2 accounts. Suggesting that Martin only felt the plates through a cloth. Yet, Martin many times explained he saw the plates in the presence of an angel. I don't think Smoot is concerned that Martin might have used words like "eye of faith", "spiritual eyes", etc. It is clear that Martin said he saw a vision. But he saw what was really there. It was both a physical and spiritual experience. That is what Clark and Burnett deny: that is was more than spiritual. That is was real. The BoM witnesses repeated that, of course, they had a vision. But they saw and heard real things.
@jeremims9044
26 күн бұрын
@nealljones to add to what you said Clarke also heard this from someone who may or may not have heard that exact phrase from Harris. Harris himself was clear what he saw and heard. Clarke is also the same person that heard from "someone" that Harris talks to deer.
@nealljones
25 күн бұрын
@@jeremims9044 Not a good source. The vast majority of LDS folks who hear these criticisms of the BoM witnesses haven't a clue how weak these criticisms are.
@jeremims9044
24 күн бұрын
@@nealljonesagreed. I do think the critics have much better arguments in other areas. The witnesses are definitely a soft underbelly for them. It's gotten to the point where I think some are realizing that so they try and bypass the witnesses entirely and hit hard at JS himself to undermine him thinking if they can do that then the witnesses don't matter. Unfortunately that's bad historical analysis. You can't just ignore credible witnesses. They have to be accounted for if one is being genuine. Otherwise, why even have witnesses to begin with? There's a reason they were interviewed time and time and time again. Always looking for that weak spot, that contradiction, that denial. Dan knows it too (that the arguments are lacking). He won't admit it. He hits these witness podcasts super hard. And the arguments are more technical than anything else. And it's working for people that are already biased and/or looking for reasons to dismiss the witnesses against what would normally be standard practice to accept as credible if it didn't involve the supernatural
@danvogel6802
24 күн бұрын
@@jeremims9044 Historians treat each statement separately. If one is deemed to be rumor (perhaps true), it doesn't mean the other from the lawyer is false. It's called poisoning the well. Just because Harris believed his vision was real doesn't mean it was. No one has questioned Harris's sincerity. This is where Richard Anderson went wrong. He though it was only a matter of showing the witnesses were honest, smart, and reliable, but one doesn't have to be the opposite to hallucinate. Clark's phrase "eye of faith" is no different than "spiritual eyes" that others reported Harris saying. The point of all this is that the three witnesses saw a vision. It was normal vision or hearing. The angel and plates were not physically present, so that anyone in the woods that day could also see them.
@danvogel6802
28 күн бұрын
I get tired of hearing Mormon apologists use the Bible to accuse Christian critics of hypocrisy. Smoot, learn what ad hominem circumstantial means. It's irrelevant and fallacious.
@mappyman8271
28 күн бұрын
Someone is editing posts here.
@mormonismwiththemurph
28 күн бұрын
What you mean?
@jacobmayberry1126
28 күн бұрын
KZitem deletes comments sometimes. That's just what happens.
@randyjordan5521
21 күн бұрын
"Did the 3 witnesses actually see the angel and plates?" No, because the Book of Mormon is a fraud. If there were no "Nephites" or "Lamanites," there was no angel Moroni and no golden plates.
@rodneysylvester8249
28 күн бұрын
Dan Vogel's approach (and I agree with him) is that understanding the witness statements should be informed by the context of the evidence of the content of the BOM itself. Dan thinks that evidence against the BOM's content and historicity is so strong, that it kind of doesn't even matter who witnessed what, because the evidence says the book can't be true anyway. So he tries to interpret the witness statements from the perspective of them being duped by Joseph in some way. We do the same thing with police investigations. It doesn't matter how consistent someone's story is in the interrogation room if we have DNA and fingerprints confirming you have your guy.
@ozymandias6743
28 күн бұрын
@@rodneysylvester8249 absolutely true, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as their support... Without the extraordinary evidence, they're just fantasy.
@jacobmayberry1126
28 күн бұрын
so his way of dealing with the witnesses is to not deal with them at all. Got it.
@rodneysylvester8249
28 күн бұрын
@@jacobmayberry1126 The problem with ordering witness testimony as more weighty than testable evidence is that you then need to explain why you favor the witnesses of Mormonism, but give no credence to the witnesses of Mohammed's miracles, or any of the other religions miracle traditions. How do you explain the witnesses that saw Mohammed split the moon in two? Oh you just don't deal with it? Got it. The fact is that people everywhere believe all kinds of wild claims and witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, so as far as strength of evidence, it's pretty far down the list, especially when other testable evidence points overwhelmingly the opposite direction.
@rodneysylvester8249
28 күн бұрын
@@jacobmayberry1126 The problem with your statement is that you do this to every other religion. How do you deal with all of the miracles performed by Catholic saints during the great apostasy? Or the many truth claims of other world religions witnessed by millions. Probably, you just don't give it much weight because there are other bigger factors at play. The fact is that witness testimony is not a great evidence, especially when there is much better, more testable evidence that points the opposite direction.
@jacobmayberry1126
28 күн бұрын
@@rodneysylvester8249 my guy, ya'll love to bring up miracles from other religions but you don't like doing the work. If you can show me that those miracles check all of the same boxes that the witnesses do then I'll take your point seriously, but simply bringing them up doesn't mean anything to me. How do I deal with them? Well I compare their historicity to eachother. That's how I do it. I'm willing to bet you haven't studied the witnesses or the miracles from other religions well enough to make that determination.
@mikespage0123
28 күн бұрын
Short answer: No.
@bret3039
28 күн бұрын
“I saw with these eyes.” The answer is Yes.
@mikespage0123
28 күн бұрын
@@bret3039 Wrong. They didn’t exist brother.
@tomabros9008
28 күн бұрын
lol except no current living historian agrees with you Dan Vogal even agrees their were plates
@mikespage0123
28 күн бұрын
@@tomabros9008 no church historian you mean 🤣 everyone on the outside knows better
@tomabros9008
28 күн бұрын
@mikespage0123 except Dan vogal is a atheist ex member and Fawn Brodie is a ex member atheist and Dr Anne Taves is a non member religious scholar and Dr Cristina Rosetti who is a catholic scholar on lds history all agree lol 🤣
@CallredMD
28 күн бұрын
The point is moot. The consensus among living scholars/researchers, outside of the small LDS circle, is that the book is a work of fiction. Absence of archaeological/DNA evidence is overwhelming. Not to mention the existence of enumerable literary, cultural, and physical anachronisms. The church will continue to move the goalposts and insist that Joseph Smith was too stupid to write it on his own. The reality is Joseph Smith is the only one who could’ve written this book. Whether or not he created a set of plates or not does not change this reality.
@jacobmayberry1126
28 күн бұрын
yawn
@Misa_Susaki
28 күн бұрын
The point is Smoot, Steven Smoot.
@jeremims9044
27 күн бұрын
I'd like to hear your "DNA evidence" narrative. What is your knowledge on how DNA actually works?
@CallredMD
25 күн бұрын
My knowledge of DNA likely surpasses yours. I am a physician with an undergraduate degree in biology with an emphasis in molecular and cellular biology. While I recognize limitations in DNA analysis, as well as possible confounding factors, such as founders effect, population mixing and bottlenecks. The book of Mormon emphatically describes massive populations. It describes nations numbering in the millions of people. With a population that large I would expect identifiable genetic markers linking Hebraic ancestry. However, there are none. Now, if lack of DNA evidence was the only problem with the book of Mormon it could possibly be dismissed, however, that is not the case. The problems are many.
@jacobmayberry1126
25 күн бұрын
@@CallredMD Ugo Perego's education in genetics surpasses yours. This isn't a DNA problem, you're misunderstanding what the Book of Mormon is claiming about itself. While it does describe populations of millions of people the initial population was extremely small and was assimilated into an already existing population.
@Allthoseopposed
27 күн бұрын
It’s feels disingenuous to hold the witnesses earliest and most personal account as being the most authentic and true in the case of the three witnesses to confirm its validity but when it comes to Joseph Smiths, first Vision accounts, the earliest account also the only account written by Josephs hand is not in fact the version of the experience that is taught. It contradicts specifics in the later account along with the canonized version on 4 points. It’s frustrating how they pick and choose where they apply certain criteria or logic when and where it’s useful to support the narrative they want to prop up but will ignore, excuse or make up some ridiculous claim trusting that most members trust them and will likely not fact check the claims. I guess they are just doing their job which is to present a faith affirming narrative not present facts and allow members wrestle with it and come to their own conclusion. The church isn’t in the business of telling the truth. As Boyd K Packer said, “the truth is not always useful…” The church should at least let the members know that they are in the business of building and creating faith, not truth or fact telling.
@jeremims9044
26 күн бұрын
Well one of the big differences is the witness statement was done almost immediately after the occurrence. There was a set purpose in the statement. It was meant for the world to see. There was agreement amongst 3(or 4) individuals on what to say. JS account was 12 years after the fact. It was in his journal and personal. It was not meant to go out to the world as a proclamation. It was written with a specific tone. It didn't have an audience
@ericredd4544
28 күн бұрын
They did not see and angel or plates. These is absolutley no evidence that they saw an angel or that the plates or interpreteres were real physical objects. In terms of real objects all we have is the chocolate colored seer stone that JS supposedly used while translating. The seer stone was used by JS to pretend to see buried treasure that he claimed he could find but never did. Interestingly, Willard Chase tslls us that Samuel T. Lawrence went to the hill with JS and Samuel looke in his seer stone and saw specticals in the gound with the plates JS claimed he saw. (sounds like one upsmanship to me) Sadly this left JS in a situation where he had to then claim he was given the speticals and that intruded on his seer stone method of deceiving us as to how the book was "translated". It is sad that JS involved God in his deception. One would think that a church work 150 billion dollars would earn gods trust that if he returned the Gold plates to the eath they would never be sold and that the church could erect a museum safe enough to house them. But, the reality is that they are not real.
@jeremims9044
27 күн бұрын
If you're going to have such a confident narrative with such bold pronouncements at least get the name of the individual talking about spectacles on the hill correct. It wasn't Willard.
@ericredd4544
27 күн бұрын
@@jeremims9044 Thank you for the heads up. I will correct that. Samuel T. Lawrence saw the specticals in the ground. The telling of the story was Chase.
@jeremims9044
26 күн бұрын
I read this again Your statement: " they did not see an angel or plates. There is absolutely no evidence that they saw an angel or the plates or interpreters were real physical objects..." Honestly, how do you make this claim? You then quote Willard Chase quoting Lawrence and are what, making the point as to how JS didn't have interpreters? Maybe you can explain the point you're making there better. Idk. So from my understanding you are giving more credibility to Willard Chase quoting what someone else said about one of the objects over what 3 men state they saw with their own eyes (1st hand accounts) and stated much closer to the claim than Willard Chases recollection. Am I wrong in that assumption? If I'm right in the assumption on what you said, how do you justify this from a historical documentation standpoint? How do you discount a 1st hand account by 3 individuals close in time from the event and are definitive about that? Do you have any counter evidence to that? What would you need in order to actually acknowledge the account as historically accurate? Would you need to have been there? What more can ask for? I mean, if you're so willing to give Willard Chase his due, why do you not give credit to an account that has much more historical importance? This goes beyond bias and into the realm of flat out denial of historical credibility. Would love to hear your explanation.
@ericredd4544
26 күн бұрын
@@jeremims9044 The plates do not exist and it is being debated whether the individuals who claimed to see them did so with physical eyes or spiritual eyes? JS a treasure digger, whose treasure always slipped away and could never be dug up. So, his claim that he had them but could not show anyone is as if he does not have them. JS's grift was that he knew of plates that were hidden in the hill. He then took Samuel T. Lawrence, a fellow seer stone user, to the hill (which is very questionable in itself) and Samuel T. Lawrence looked in his stone and agreed with JS claim that there were plated in the ground, he then added that he could see "specticals" in the ground as well. So, JS had to agree with him in order to save face. Thus, the specticals became a part of JS con. You can believe the men who claim to have seen the plates but it is not firmly establish whether with physical or spiritual eyes. JS was able to deceive may people as a treasue digger so he had the power of persuasion. It is clear that the 3 witnesses were not together seeing the vision as a trio. I find it hard to believe that heaven stopped in order to do a makeup session for Martin Harris. So, here we are with questionable origins of the BOM. To make matters worse there is no archeology that relates to the BOM and there is no evidence of a highly literate population on the American continent. There is no DNA that connects the Native Americans to Jews. The is no Reformed Egyptian Language. There are no plates, no specticals, no sword of Laban. Any one of these would give credability to JS's claim, sadly all we have is a chocolate colored seer stone at church headquarters. Irronically it is the least miraculous and simply a rock and it is all that we have relating to the translation of the BOM. It would have been better for this sad fact to have never been disclosed. Yet we have prophets and apostles telling us that he did use it and that seer stones actually work. How ridiculous to even entertain the idea. To find out after 50 years in the church the JS was a treasure digger and that he used a seer stone for treasure digging and for the translation of the BOM was very upsetting. Then to find out that the Book of Abraham was not a translation of papyri written on by the hand of Abraham was a second witness that JS was fabricating scripture and making claims that only hold up when certain information is hidden or unavailable. (like the plates)
@jeremims9044
26 күн бұрын
@ericredd4544 Thank you for the explanation and for what it's worth, I'm sorry to hear your shelf broke. From what I've heard it's very difficult. Your initial statement in your reply once again states that the plates do not exist (essentially indicating there is no need to debate spiritual/physical eyes because the witnesses were either liars or duped). First, it is acknowledged by most modern serious critics that plates did indeed exist. There is enough evidence to establish that. Whether they are *the* plates is the question at hand. So where are those plates that have been admitted to exist but are not currently examinable? This is not an argument from absence either because as I stated, it has been acknowledged they existed. According to the record, they were taken. If indeed an angel took them, then that's the end of that. You either believe angels/God exist(s) or not, and of not we are coming at this from irreconcilable angles. This is obviously a matter of faith. If God/angels exist then there is no reason they can't take the plates. So going back to your statement,critics generally state there were plates, and if you agree with them, then you have to account for the witness statements, so spiritual vs physical again becomes relevant. You then bring up a treasure digger point,a point about treasure slipping away, and then that JS wouldn't show anyone the plates. I guess I'm not quite sure what point you're making. JS *did* show the plates to 11 others and there are enough informal witnesses to bring that number up quite a bit more. Once again, critics acknowledge plates. You then talk about JS and Lawrence. You use "grift" and "con". First, grifts and cons are intentional. Were JS and SL conning each other in this exchange? SL (and many others) believed that JS actually had real, valuable objects (plates) or they wouldn't attempt to find/ take them. If they felt they were being conned, they wouldn't even try. Surely they all believed that they saw what they saw. There is enough evidence from the early 19th century to indicate that treasure seers and treasure digging was believed be a legitimate practice. How is this conning? Josiah Stowell and others legit thought JS had a gift, and he had a reputation for such. They had had experience with him and signed up for another dig, defended him in court, joined the church. If they felt he was conning him, they would not have done so. You then make a point about the witnesses not firmly seeing the plates with spiritual vs physical eyes. If you have read the statements by them and watched this video, they state both. It was both by the power of God and they actual tangibly saw the angel and plates. Any confusing statements are 3rd hand, occasion 2nd hand. The witnesses themselves never confuse the issue 1st hand. It goes back to which historical documents you prioritize. Your statement on the trio not witnessing it together doesn't make much sense. I mean, you don't have to believe what heaven will or will not do (having 2 experiences vs 1) but it actually makes it more difficult to explain away the 2 experiences vs just 1. People like Vogel have to come up with how JS not only had 1 group hallucination, but then he had to replicate it in the exact same manner. It becomes far more improbable of that occurring with 2. Also, it's not without precedent that a similar experience would happen more than once. See angel Moroni appearances. Your statement on JS already deceiving people I think I addressed above. I guess the culture of that time was all about God fearing Christians deceiving others in some religious treasure quest over the course of decades? Even newspapers at that time acknowledged treasure quests and many even encouraged it. Everybody was in on the con but the poor dupes who got taken? You're coming at it from a modern lens. I'm not sure what questionable origins of the BOM you mean. As far as archeology, what are you looking for? Where are you looking for it? What do you expect to find? Why? And DNA.. do you know how DNA works? I don't want to get into more details if you already understand it. Literacy: were they highly literate? Does causing to be written King Benjamin's speech mean that everyone actually read it? Or did someone then read that to the people? Reformed Egyptian: that was the written language on plates. Does that mean it was the oral language? Would it have widespread use? Why? Have you seen Jerry Grovers translation of the caractors document? Have you heard him talk about it? Seer stone: we have others that confirm that they could see things in his seer stone, yet did not believe JS claims. Why is the seer stone ridiculous? You believed in God, JC, resurrection, angels for 50 years. Why is the seer stone a shelf breaker? Rods and other implements were used in Judaism. The apostles used a game of chance to pick the next apostle. The belief in seer stones and many other icons were a normal part of life in JS day. Why does that discredit him? I guarantee there will be things you do today that will be scoffed at in 200 years from now. Is culture static? Is a worldview unchangeable and constant throughout the ages? A recent example is gay marriage. Just 20 years ago the idea was disgusting and preposterous, and now it is widely accepted. How silly of those people 20 years ago (tongue in cheek). Imagine how much the world has changed in 200 years. I'm sorry that all upset you. It doesn't make it false. It doesn't mean God doesn't work with what he has available to him at the time. The key to acceptance is flexibility and thinking outside the box. This applies to all disciplines whether history, science or religion. People tend to break when they struggle adapting.
@Heartsinmelody
28 күн бұрын
A lot of the ‘know why’s’ are highly inaccurate, biased, and not helpful to understanding the scriptures. It’s clear they often don’t know why.
@bewitched3912
26 күн бұрын
It means the Emperor has no clothes and he's running around with his floppy noodle hanging out running after under-aged teenagers while threatening his wife with eternal damnation 😅
@jeremims9044
25 күн бұрын
I think you got lost on your way to the polygamy discussion
Пікірлер: 212