Don't be afraid of Gospel Questions. Build a shelf.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

David Whitmer said the same God who told him the Book of Mormon was true later told him to leave the church. That helps put into perspective how reliable the Book of Mormon witnesses were.

The witnesses do not stand as a witness of Mormonism. They stand as a witness of the Book of Mormon. They all thought (at one time or another) that Joseph Smith was way off, but none of them denied that he was a prophet initially and that he translated the Book of Mormon by divine help.

And? They were crappy, unreliable witnesses.

- Doc

[Guest]

Fence Sitter,

Have you ever tried to memorize a long monologue (7 pages) and then dictate it slow enough for someone to write it down (longhand) without looking at what the scribe is writing? I'm not saying it is impossible, but that it is quite difficult. This would be especially true if Smith is memorizing these things daily. He would have to have a savant-like ability at memorization. I personally think the manuscript assumption is the stronger argument, but I understand how some might still hold to dictation.

You keep throwing that narrative out there, as if it's a fact. It's conjecture at best, and an outright, unabashed fabrication a worst. Why not just stick to Joseph Smith knocking it all out in 45 days, and all the spelling errors, grammar problems, and post-publication edits are due to a bad scribe?

edit: words! tablet. elliptical. Sucks.

- Doc

[_Themis]

David Whitmer said the same God who told him the Book of Mormon was true later told him to leave the church. That helps put into perspective how reliable the Book of Mormon witnesses were.

The witnesses do not stand as a witness of Mormonism. They stand as a witness of the Book of Mormon. They all thought (at one time or another) that Joseph Smith was way off, but none of them denied that he was a prophet initially and that he translated the Book of Mormon by divine help.

You miss the point. David attached the two together. He doesn't give us the option to believe the one and not the other.

[_Themis]

This is exactly why the three witnesses hold a stronger position than normal. It would seem improbable for them to leave while maintaining as factual their experience regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Not t others it wouldn't. If they are in on it why out themselves? It makes more sense if one gets caught and sees outing themselves as a positive benefit. I don't see this for any of the three. That is based on all three being in on it. I don't think Whitmer or Harris were. You seem to underestimate the power some individuals have being able to manipulate others. Especially with what people see as the spiritual.

That is why in order to dismiss their witness, you have to begin with a list of assumptions. A long list of assumptions is often an uncomfortable place to be.

You would be wrong. You are the only one guilty of making huge assumptions here. There are no assumptions needed to look at the facts or lack of to see all the possibilities of how things could go down. You just don't like the ones that are not faith promoting. Again, it's not the witnesses or Book of Mormon production that give us the main evidences regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[_Themis]

It looks like I'm not getting very far here. My initial position was that there are arguments both for and against Mormonism that are weak arguments.

No, your argument was that the non-believer position has problems they cannot explain that should make them uncomfortable. You have just failed to back that up.

I personally think that dismissing the three witnesses without much thought is an untenable position, but apparently many here have comfortably done just that. I guess we all have different thresholds depending on our experiences.

You are again just making things up to feel better about your desired position. I can look at all the possibilities. I don't see anyone here that is dismissing them without real thought. In the end we lack to much information to eliminate many of the possibilities. It's the Book of Mormon itself and the real world that helps us here.

[_canpakes]

Did they believe the translation account, or did they simply state that they believed it?

It seems unusual that if someone actually believed in a religion - something larger than life itself - that they would then choose to leave it while maintaining as factual or believable a translation of documents that forms that religion's point of origin.

It seems far more probable that a different dynamic is in play . . .

This is exactly why the three witnesses hold a stronger position than normal. It would seem improbable for them to leave while maintaining as factual their experience regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon.

That is why in order to dismiss their witness, you have to begin with a list of assumptions. A long list of assumptions is often an uncomfortable place to be.

A long list of assumptions might be. But I'm only making one assumption - that human nature (self preservation) explains the action of these ex-witnesses very well.

There's a long history of human nature to look at that backs up my position, but very little about the rock in hat story that has precedent, and the latter additionally needs so many more assumptions to even begin to sound tenable.

[_DarkHelmet]

That is why in order to dismiss their witness, you have to begin with a list of assumptions. A long list of assumptions is often an uncomfortable place to be.

You would be wrong. You are the only one guilty of making huge assumptions here. There are no assumptions needed to look at the facts or lack of to see all the possibilities of how things could go down. You just don't like the ones that are not faith promoting. Again, it's not the witnesses or Book of Mormon production that give us the main evidences regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Exactly. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. There is far better evidence against the Book of Mormon, but the apologists keep pointing to the witnesses. That's like a murder case where the prosecution has the defendant's finger prints on the murder weapon, and DNA found at the crime scene, but the defense has witnesses who claim they saw the defendant somewhere else when the crime occurred. But it turns out the witnesses are all friends of the defendant, and they didn't see him with their physical eyes. They saw him with their spiritual eyes. And it wasn't until the next day, when they were talking to the defendant, that they learned they saw him the day before with their spiritual eyes, after the defendant convinced them of this and handed them a piece of paper saying they saw him and told them to sign it. And the defense team wants us to believe this sketchy alibi is on par with the DNA evidence and fingerprints.

[_Jaybear]

Exactly. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. There is far better evidence against the Book of Mormon, but the apologists keep pointing to the witnesses. That's like a murder case where the prosecution has the defendant's finger prints on the murder weapon, and DNA found at the crime scene, but the defense has witnesses who claim they saw the defendant somewhere else when the crime occurred. But it turns out the witnesses are all friends of the defendant, and they didn't see him with their physical eyes. They saw him with their spiritual eyes. And it wasn't until the next day, when they were talking to the defendant, that they learned they saw him the day before with their spiritual eyes, after the defendant convinced them of this and handed them a piece of paper saying they saw him and told them to sign it. And the defense team wants us to believe this sketchy alibi is on par with the DNA evidence and fingerprints.

You forgot to mention that there was a timed stamped video of the defendant and his friends hanging out at the time of the murder, but unfortunately an angel took the only copy of the video to heaven.

It looks like I'm not getting very far here. My initial position was that there are arguments both for and against Mormonism that are weak arguments. I personally think that dismissing the three witnesses without much thought is an untenable position, but apparently many here have comfortably done just that. I guess we all have different thresholds depending on our experiences.

For some that is a fair comment. The claim that the witnesses are purporting to support is an extraordinary claim. There are simply too many problems inherent in the statement, including the fact that they personally (or a friend or family member) had a financial interest in people believing
that the Book of Mormon had a supernatural original, to find the statement the least bit persuasive.

But I will note, that most critics here were born in the faith. To suggest that they have rejected the claims of the witnesses without thought is patently absurd.