Page 2 of 2

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 3:04 pm
by thestock
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:48 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:37 pm
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:35 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:28 pm

David Whitmer is the source. IIRC he said it in 1887. What difference does it make if he ever returned or not?
Source would be his journal or someone else's etc. Links would be helpful. Corroboration would be even more helpful.

When he allegedly said the above would matter greatly. Though he never denied his witness of the plates, his reliability as a sole source comes into question since he never reconciled with the church. Ulterior motives etc.
If you are interested, you are welcome to look up those sources. I also find it interesting that a man can be credible to the most significant event in modern history but not credible to anything else. If anything, him leaving the church should be either a huge red flag to his own claims or a huge red flag to the Church's truth claims. Picking and choosing when he is credible is problematic to me.
lol OK. Thanks for at least stepping out into the light a bit more on your own motivations.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer

There's a source with sources within the source for the following:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon," wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"[24]

Hrm that's also 1887. Odd.
So you discount him for this but he is one of 3 witnesses and that is ok? Wow I don’t understand that at all. That’s like saying OJ is innocent of murder but clearly guilty of every other crime he committed.

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 3:08 pm
by setyourselffree
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:04 pm
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:48 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:37 pm
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:35 pm

Source would be his journal or someone else's etc. Links would be helpful. Corroboration would be even more helpful.

When he allegedly said the above would matter greatly. Though he never denied his witness of the plates, his reliability as a sole source comes into question since he never reconciled with the church. Ulterior motives etc.
If you are interested, you are welcome to look up those sources. I also find it interesting that a man can be credible to the most significant event in modern history but not credible to anything else. If anything, him leaving the church should be either a huge red flag to his own claims or a huge red flag to the Church's truth claims. Picking and choosing when he is credible is problematic to me.
lol OK. Thanks for at least stepping out into the light a bit more on your own motivations.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer

There's a source with sources within the source for the following:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon," wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"[24]

Hrm that's also 1887. Odd.
So you discount him for this but he is one of 3 witnesses and that is ok? Wow I don’t understand that at all. That’s like saying OJ is innocent of murder but clearly guilty of every other crime he committed.
Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as an Apostle. Judas betrayed Jesus knowing who he was and witnessing the miracles. Would you trust that guy after what he did to Jesus?

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 3:12 pm
by thestock
setyourselffree wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:08 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:04 pm
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:48 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:37 pm

If you are interested, you are welcome to look up those sources. I also find it interesting that a man can be credible to the most significant event in modern history but not credible to anything else. If anything, him leaving the church should be either a huge red flag to his own claims or a huge red flag to the Church's truth claims. Picking and choosing when he is credible is problematic to me.
lol OK. Thanks for at least stepping out into the light a bit more on your own motivations.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer

There's a source with sources within the source for the following:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon," wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"[24]

Hrm that's also 1887. Odd.
So you discount him for this but he is one of 3 witnesses and that is ok? Wow I don’t understand that at all. That’s like saying OJ is innocent of murder but clearly guilty of every other crime he committed.
Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as an Apostle. Judas betrayed Jesus knowing who he was and witnessing the miracles. Would you trust that guy after what he did to Jesus?
If all twelve betrayed Jesus, would you blindly trust Jesus?

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 3:27 pm
by setyourselffree
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:12 pm
setyourselffree wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:08 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:04 pm
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:48 pm

lol OK. Thanks for at least stepping out into the light a bit more on your own motivations.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer

There's a source with sources within the source for the following:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon," wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"[24]

Hrm that's also 1887. Odd.
So you discount him for this but he is one of 3 witnesses and that is ok? Wow I don’t understand that at all. That’s like saying OJ is innocent of murder but clearly guilty of every other crime he committed.
Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as an Apostle. Judas betrayed Jesus knowing who he was and witnessing the miracles. Would you trust that guy after what he did to Jesus?
If all twelve betrayed Jesus, would you blindly trust Jesus?
Well that didn't happen sooooooo.

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 3:28 pm
by Alaris
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:04 pm
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:48 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:37 pm
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:35 pm

Source would be his journal or someone else's etc. Links would be helpful. Corroboration would be even more helpful.

When he allegedly said the above would matter greatly. Though he never denied his witness of the plates, his reliability as a sole source comes into question since he never reconciled with the church. Ulterior motives etc.
If you are interested, you are welcome to look up those sources. I also find it interesting that a man can be credible to the most significant event in modern history but not credible to anything else. If anything, him leaving the church should be either a huge red flag to his own claims or a huge red flag to the Church's truth claims. Picking and choosing when he is credible is problematic to me.
lol OK. Thanks for at least stepping out into the light a bit more on your own motivations.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer

There's a source with sources within the source for the following:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon," wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"[24]

Hrm that's also 1887. Odd.
So you discount him for this but he is one of 3 witnesses and that is ok? Wow I don’t understand that at all. That’s like saying OJ is innocent of murder but clearly guilty of every other crime he committed.
That is OK I discount him or that is OK he is one of the 3 witnesses? Yes, it is OK I discount him - did you read through the entire short post above where I demonstrated David Whitmer was attacking the church in 1887? That's all folks really need to know to put your OP in context. You should really update the OP (and title) to included:

"Excommunicated David Whitmer said in 1887 that Joseph Smith said:" <- better title lead in

And yes you should put a source in there in the OP (and the year,) otherwise folks may jump to the conclusion you left it out on purpose to lead them to believe David Whitmer said this while he was a member of the church. That would be dishonest though, which I'm sure you're not - just a friendly suggestion so folks don't get the wrong idea about you.

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 3:37 pm
by thestock
setyourselffree wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:27 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:12 pm
setyourselffree wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:08 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:04 pm

So you discount him for this but he is one of 3 witnesses and that is ok? Wow I don’t understand that at all. That’s like saying OJ is innocent of murder but clearly guilty of every other crime he committed.
Jesus chose Judas Iscariot as an Apostle. Judas betrayed Jesus knowing who he was and witnessing the miracles. Would you trust that guy after what he did to Jesus?
If all twelve betrayed Jesus, would you blindly trust Jesus?
Well that didn't happen sooooooo.
It happened to Joseph Smith. Go check out the reasons why. But it was more that he betrayed them.

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 3:40 pm
by thestock
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:28 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:04 pm
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:48 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 2:37 pm

If you are interested, you are welcome to look up those sources. I also find it interesting that a man can be credible to the most significant event in modern history but not credible to anything else. If anything, him leaving the church should be either a huge red flag to his own claims or a huge red flag to the Church's truth claims. Picking and choosing when he is credible is problematic to me.
lol OK. Thanks for at least stepping out into the light a bit more on your own motivations.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer

There's a source with sources within the source for the following:

"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon," wrote Whitmer, "if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so it should be done unto them.'"[24]

Hrm that's also 1887. Odd.
So you discount him for this but he is one of 3 witnesses and that is ok? Wow I don’t understand that at all. That’s like saying OJ is innocent of murder but clearly guilty of every other crime he committed.
That is OK I discount him or that is OK he is one of the 3 witnesses? Yes, it is OK I discount him - did you read through the entire short post above where I demonstrated David Whitmer was attacking the church in 1887? That's all folks really need to know to put your OP in context. You should really update the OP (and title) to included:

"Excommunicated David Whitmer said in 1887 that Joseph Smith said:" <- better title lead in

And yes you should put a source in there in the OP (and the year,) otherwise folks may jump to the conclusion you left it out on purpose to lead them to believe David Whitmer said this while he was a member of the church. That would be dishonest though, which I'm sure you're not - just a friendly suggestion so folks don't get the wrong idea about you.
Labeling him as an apostate doesn’t do anything to change these facts. He was a witness to the plates. He left the church. So what? You think his stone story is bogus because he’s an an apostate? Is Lucy Mack Smith testimonials of the Stone bogus? Emma? Martin? And if you want sources, go look for them yourself. I don’t need to see a source to have a conversation with someone.

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 3:45 pm
by Alaris
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:40 pm Labeling him as an apostate doesn’t do anything to change these facts. He was a witness to the plates. He left the church. So what? You think his stone story is bogus because he’s an an apostate? Is Lucy Mack Smith testimonials of the Stone bogus? Emma? Martin? And if you want sources, go look for them yourself. I don’t need to see a source to have a conversation with someone.
Um, yes it does. Wait, are you just doing "nuh uh" to me right now? In that case, "yes huh!" He dissented from the church, so of course anyone who reads anything he says after that should weigh that fact into consideration.

Do I think his story is bogus because he dissented from the church? Well, if you consider he said other derogatory things about the church, why yes, yes I do think his story is bogus. At the very least this is an unreliable source, and any halfway decent lawyer could discredit this testimony in a court of law due to all these facts.

Distance between alleged quote and testimony
Ulterior motives of witness (haha witness)
Other comments made by witness at the same time that illustrates witness is unreliable as an objective source

Are you really trying to say we shouldn't consider this guy apostatized from the church and was deriding the church?

Re: Joseph Smith Quote on receiving Revelation

Posted: May 14th, 2019, 7:30 pm
by I AM
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 12:37 pm
setyourselffree wrote: May 14th, 2019, 12:31 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 12:30 pm
setyourselffree wrote: May 14th, 2019, 12:27 pm

What is your understanding of the Urim and Thummim? And where do you believe it came from?

This is from Wikipedia not Joseph Smith

In the Hebrew Bible, the Urim and the Thummim (Hebrew: הָאוּרִים וְהַתֻּמִּים, Standard ha-Urim veha-Tummim Tiberian hāʾÛrîm wəhatTummîm; meaning uncertain, possibly "Lights and Perfections") are elements of the hoshen, the breastplate worn by the High Priest attached to the ephod. They are connected with divination in general, and cleromancy in particular. Most scholars suspect that the phrase refers to a set of two objects used by the high priest to answer a question or reveal the will of God.[1][2]

The Urim and the Thummim first appear in Exodus 28:30, where they are named for inclusion on the breastplate to be worn by Aaron in the holy place. Other books, especially 1 Samuel, describe their use in divination.
The history surrounding their use is shrouded in mystery. We cannot gather from the Bible alone that they were used to translate ancient records. That teaching comes from the BOM....which comes from Joseph Smith.
Read Exodus.
What Are the 'Urim and Thummim' (Exodus 28:30)?
The Urim and Thummim are rather mysterious objects. The Bible does not specifically describe them. Even their names—possibly, Urim, "light" and Thummim, "perfection"—give scholars scarcely a clue to their form and function. Exodus 28:30 says that the Urim and Thummim were placed in a breastplate that Aaron, the high priest, wore. One of the functions of this breastplate was to reveal God's judgment, an account of which Moses records in Numbers 27:21. In this case, the Urim revealed what God wanted Israel to do. Saul and David probably consulted the Urim and Thummim through the high priest (I Samuel 14:36-37; 23:2-4; etc.). Biblical use of the Urim and Thummim is not specifically mentioned after the reign of David.

Josephus, a well-known Jewish historian from the first century AD, wrote about the Urim and Thummim in his Antiquities of the Jews. The Thummim, he writes, were twelve stones which were set in three rows of four stones in the breastplate (3.7.5). He describes the Urim as being two sardonyx stones that were placed on the shoulders of the high priest (3.8.9). When God wished to guide the Israelites, He often did so by means of these stones. Josephus states, ". . . God declared beforehand, by those twelve stones which the high priest bare on his breast, and which were inserted into his breastplate, when they should be victorious in battle; for so great a splendor shone forth from them before the army began to march, that all the people were sensible of God's being present for their assistance" (¶216-217).

The first paragraph sounds more like a certain accessory we adorn in the temple before we enter the Celestial Room. I dont see translation anywhere.
------------------------------------------------------------

The Urim and Thummim (seer-stone)

https://ldsmag.com/the-church-shows-jos ... eer-stone/

The Church Shows Joseph Smith’s Seer Stone for the First Time: Five Things to Know about the Seer Stone
By Scot Facer Proctor · August 4, 2015


Yesterday The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released photographs of a seer stone that was apparently one that the Prophet Joseph Smith used to aid him in translating the Book of Mormon. The stone has been in the Church Archives for many generations, but no known photographs have ever been taken of it or shown to the public.

Joseph Smith Seer Stone
Seer stone used by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Photo by Weldon C. Andersen and Richard E. Turley Jr. (Click on image to enlarge)

The chocolate-colored oval-shaped stone was passed down from Oliver Cowdery’s widow, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, to Phineas Young who gave it to his brother Brigham Young. President Young’s wife, Zina D. H. Young, found this same stone in the estate of her late husband and gave it to the Church. It has remained in the archives ever since that time.

Here are five things to know about this seer stone.

One: It appears that Joseph Smith found this seer stone while digging a well for a nearby neighbor in Macedon Township, New York.

Elder B.H. Roberts recorded: “The Seer Stone referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hryum, for a Mr. Clark Chase, near Palmyra, New York. It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it…Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates.”

Two: Joseph Smith used this seer stone by putting it in the bottom of a hat and putting his face into the hat to block out ambient light.

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the plates, gives many accounts of the use of the seer stone during the translation process. George Q. Cannon interviewed David Whitmer on February 27, 1884 and recorded, “In speaking of the translating he said that Joseph had the stone in a hat from which all light was excluded. In the stone the characters appeared and under that the translation in English and they remained until the scribe had copied it correctly. If he had made a mistake the words still remained and were not replaced by any other.”[ii]

In another account published in the Omaha Herald, October 10, 1886, the reporter indicated that “the stone…glared forth its letters of fire. The Urim and Thummim [still referring to the stone], in this strange process of translation, would reflect a number of words in pure English, which would remain on its face until the party acting as scribe had got it correctly written, and the occasional disposition of the characters to remain long after they had been so written was always an infallible evidence that there was something wrong in the translation of the record, and a close comparison would invariably reveal this fact. When the necessary corrections had been made the words would instantly disappear from the Urim and Thummim [again referring to the stone] and new ones take their place.”[iii]

Three: The descriptions given of the seer stone by David Whitmer are consistent with the photograph released yesterday.

David Whitmer gave a number of physical descriptions of the seer stone including: “a small oval kidney-shaped stone,”[iv] “one dark colored, opaque stone.”[v] In one account David said Joseph “had two small stones of a chocolate color, nearly egg shaped and perfectly smooth, but not transparent…”[vi]

Joseph Smith Seer Stone
This Seer stone passed from Joseph to Oliver Cowdery and finally to the Church. Photo by Weldon C. Andersen and Richard E. Turley Jr. (Click on image to enlarge)

In some interviews, David Whitmer claims that after Martin Harris lost the 116 pages of manuscript, Joseph did not receive the original Urim and Thummim but “was given by the angel a Urim of Thummim of another pattern, it being shaped in oval or kidney form.”[vii] The Richmond Democrat reported in January 1888, that after the manuscript debacle, Joseph Smith “was presented with a strange oval-shaped, chocolate colored stone, about the size of an egg but more flat, which it was promised should answer the same purpose.”[viii] Elder Bruce R. McConkie made it clear that “The prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been called by some a Urim and Thummim.”[ix]

Four: Joseph Smith was using a seer stone to translate when Martin Harris was scribe.

According to Edward Stevenson’s interview with Martin Harris, it appears that Joseph had the seer stone before the loss of the 116 manuscript pages (which is not consistent with David Whitmer’s account). Here we see a most interesting account of Martin Harris and the Prophet Joseph’s interaction. Martin reported:

“The Prophet Joseph Smith…possessed a seer stone by which he was enabled to translate, as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone…The seer stone differed in appearance entirely from the Urim and Thummim that was obtained with the plates (which was two clear stones set in two rims, very much resembling spectacles)…After continued translation, we would become weary, and would go down to the river and exercise by throwing stones out on the river, etc. While so doing on one occasion, I found a stone very much resembling the one used for translating, and on resuming our labor of translation, I put in place the stone that I had found…The Prophet remained silent, unusually and intently gazing in darkness…Much surprised, Joseph exclaimed, ‘Martin! What is the matter? All is as dark as Egypt!’ My countenance betrayed me, and the Prophet asked me why I had done so. I said, to stop the mouths of fools, who had told me that the Prophet had learned those sentences and was merely repeating them…”[x]

Five: Joseph Smith could see things in the present using the seer stone.

In an account given by David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, Joseph used the seer stone to see the journey of David Whitmer from Seneca Falls (or Fayette) to Harmony Pennsylvania (over 100 miles) where he came to pick up Joseph and Oliver by wagon. David reported: “I was a little over two and a half days going, and traveled over 40 miles the first day, and met them on the third day at the head of Cayuga Lake, Seneca Co. Oliver told me, they knew just when I started, where I put up at night and even the name on the sign board of the hotel where I stayed each night, for he had asked Joseph to look in the Seer stone, that he did so and told him all these particulars of my journey. Oliver asked me when I first met them, when I left home, where I stayed on the road, and the names of the persons at Hotels. I could not tell the names; but as we returned I pointed out the several houses where I had stopped, when he took out his book and found them to correspond even to the names on the sign boards, all of which he had written before we met. As had been told him by the Prophet, and which agreed in every particular.”[xi]

Martin Harris recorded a most interesting account of the use of the Seer stone: “I was at the house of his father in Manchester, two miles south of Palmyra village, and was picking my teeth with a pin while sitting on the bars. The pin caught in my teeth, and dropped from my fingers into shavings and straw. I jumped from the bars and looked for it…I then took Joseph on surprise, and said to him—I said, ‘Take your stone.’ I had never seen it, and did not know that he had it with him. He had it in his pocket. He took it and placed it in his hat—the old white hat—and placed his face in his hat. I watched him closely to see that he did not look [to] one side; he reached out his hand beyond me on the right, and moved a little stick, and there I saw the pin, which he picked up and gave to me.[xii]

Re: Joseph Smith: "some revelations are of the devil"

Posted: May 15th, 2019, 6:21 am
by thestock
Alaris wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:45 pm
thestock wrote: May 14th, 2019, 3:40 pm Labeling him as an apostate doesn’t do anything to change these facts. He was a witness to the plates. He left the church. So what? You think his stone story is bogus because he’s an an apostate? Is Lucy Mack Smith testimonials of the Stone bogus? Emma? Martin? And if you want sources, go look for them yourself. I don’t need to see a source to have a conversation with someone.
Um, yes it does. Wait, are you just doing "nuh uh" to me right now? In that case, "yes huh!" He dissented from the church, so of course anyone who reads anything he says after that should weigh that fact into consideration.

Do I think his story is bogus because he dissented from the church? Well, if you consider he said other derogatory things about the church, why yes, yes I do think his story is bogus. At the very least this is an unreliable source, and any halfway decent lawyer could discredit this testimony in a court of law due to all these facts.

Distance between alleged quote and testimony
Ulterior motives of witness (haha witness)
Other comments made by witness at the same time that illustrates witness is unreliable as an objective source

Are you really trying to say we shouldn't consider this guy apostatized from the church and was deriding the church?
What I am saying is you can't conveniently use him as a witness to the plates (isnt that, like, the most important thing you'd want to establish to know if Joseph Smith was legit or not!?) and then discount him as a witness to everything else. Sure, you can say "he's an Apostate" but that's just liberalist nonsense. Since you brought up a court of law....the court would care not what his religious affiliations are.....if the court finds the witness not credible, then they discount the WHOLE TESTIMONY. Do you not understand this fact?

So given what you said about this man....do you sleep well at night believing what you just said AND letting him serve as one of the three witnesses to your entire world view? That is so contradictory that I feel like continuing this conversation with you is somewhat a fool's errand. Let me put it this way. You say "he had an ax to grind with the Church, so we should discount his entire testimony after he left the Church." Well, he never retracted his statement about being a witness to the plates, by your logic this should also be discounted.....so perhaps this totally not credible man thought that preserving ANY credibility was more important for his future religious endeavors than attacking the Church. Either way you cut it, it smells really bad.....and the using him as a witness of convenience for your faith before hanging him out to dry on everything else is simply laughable and the highest degree of hypocrisy.