LDS Freedom Forum

larsenb wrote: ↑September 14th, 2019, 1:48 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 2:01 pm . . . . . . Lucy Mack Smith said:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their <​mode of​> warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.

This was before he ever found the plates. He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ry-1845/94

^in case you want a reference

But in saying: "He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.", you're making some pretty big assumptions.

My assumption about this Lucy Mack Smith quote has always been that he had been given those views of the former inhabitants by God in some way, after he had been told about the plates and maybe after he was first shown them and then prevented from obtaining them at that time.

So, who's right?

Now if it can be shown that JS had been giving those kinds of recitals before he learned of the plates, and certainly before his first vision, your assumption would have more validity.

And much later, giving some indication that he knows about Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews", doesn't say much at all. Can you tell us what the context of his Ethan Smith citation was? It would be very surprising if he didn't know about E. Smith's work after a number of years. Why? Because it was probably thrown in his face along with accusations of plagiarism multiple times in the years after he 'translated' the Book of Mormon.

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 8:57 am

larsenb wrote: ↑September 14th, 2019, 1:48 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 2:01 pm . . . . . . Lucy Mack Smith said:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their <​mode of​> warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.

This was before he ever found the plates. He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ry-1845/94

^in case you want a reference

But in saying: "He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.", you're making some pretty big assumptions.

My assumption about this Lucy Mack Smith quote has always been that he had been given those views of the former inhabitants by God in some way, after he had been told about the plates and maybe after he was first shown them and then prevented from obtaining them at that time.

So, who's right?

Now if it can be shown that JS had been giving those kinds of recitals before he learned of the plates, and certainly before his first vision, your assumption would have more validity.

And much later, giving some indication that he knows about Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews", doesn't say much at all. Can you tell us what the context of his Ethan Smith citation was? It would be very surprising if he didn't know about E. Smith's work after a number of years. Why? Because it was probably thrown in his face along with accusations of plagiarism multiple times in the years after he 'translated' the Book of Mormon.

i hope this doesnt come off as condescending. When we talk about assumptions, it is really hard for me to take "God must have done it" as a credible assumption not by itself but when other, more easily explained human assumptions are available. The fact is the idea that the natives were descendants of the Hebrews was a huge contemporary idea at the time Joseph Smith was growing up. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" gives a plausible and credible and HUMAN explanation that does not require divine intervention. I may just lack faith, but I find it much easier to explain that Joseph had heard these ideas and sermons around such ideas and was inspired by them and tried to improve upon Ethan Smith's original concept than it is to say God just gave these ideas and writings to him. It doesnt make sense. Why did God wait until another man had done the Lion's share of the work to then decide to intervene and inspire his All-Star generational prophet to take an idea that already exists and write a book based on a book that already exists? It just doesnt add up....and thats even IF you readily accept divine intervention as an answer for things. I am more than happy to readily believe that God gave it to Joseph.....but then the inconsistencies of his story begin to crop up and the whole magic rock and scrying and fraud stuff creeps in too and its really a hard pill for me to swallow. Why so many inconsistencies in his story? Its almost as if he had to go back and make the story fit what the whole thing had morphed into by 1842 when he went back and re-told the story.....

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 9:42 am

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 8:57 am

larsenb wrote: ↑September 14th, 2019, 1:48 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 2:01 pm . . . . . . Lucy Mack Smith said:



This was before he ever found the plates. He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ry-1845/94

^in case you want a reference

But in saying: "He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.", you're making some pretty big assumptions.

My assumption about this Lucy Mack Smith quote has always been that he had been given those views of the former inhabitants by God in some way, after he had been told about the plates and maybe after he was first shown them and then prevented from obtaining them at that time.

So, who's right?

Now if it can be shown that JS had been giving those kinds of recitals before he learned of the plates, and certainly before his first vision, your assumption would have more validity.

And much later, giving some indication that he knows about Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews", doesn't say much at all. Can you tell us what the context of his Ethan Smith citation was? It would be very surprising if he didn't know about E. Smith's work after a number of years. Why? Because it was probably thrown in his face along with accusations of plagiarism multiple times in the years after he 'translated' the Book of Mormon.

i hope this doesnt come off as condescending. When we talk about assumptions, it is really hard for me to take "God must have done it" as a credible assumption not by itself but when other, more easily explained human assumptions are available. The fact is the idea that the natives were descendants of the Hebrews was a huge contemporary idea at the time Joseph Smith was growing up. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" gives a plausible and credible and HUMAN explanation that does not require divine intervention. I may just lack faith, but I find it much easier to explain that Joseph had heard these ideas and sermons around such ideas and was inspired by them and tried to improve upon Ethan Smith's original concept than it is to say God just gave these ideas and writings to him. It doesnt make sense. Why did God wait until another man had done the Lion's share of the work to then decide to intervene and inspire his All-Star generational prophet to take an idea that already exists and write a book based on a book that already exists? It just doesnt add up....and thats even IF you readily accept divine intervention as an answer for things. I am more than happy to readily believe that God gave it to Joseph.....but then the inconsistencies of his story begin to crop up and the whole magic rock and scrying and fraud stuff creeps in too and its really a hard pill for me to swallow. Why so many inconsistencies in his story? Its almost as if he had to go back and make the story fit what the whole thing had morphed into by 1842 when he went back and re-told the story.....

I understand that 200bc the scribes were to ignorant to know the difference between 3 different Isaiahs in your opinion.

Hitler (one of the 3 horns) has his own story also.

How do you explain John tanner story? Only 7 doctors condemned him to losing the leg or dying, I’m just curious. Are you just regurgitating the negative stuff or actually critically thinking?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanner_(Mormon)

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 10:37 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 9:42 am

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 8:57 am

larsenb wrote: ↑September 14th, 2019, 1:48 pm

But in saying: "He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.", you're making some pretty big assumptions.

My assumption about this Lucy Mack Smith quote has always been that he had been given those views of the former inhabitants by God in some way, after he had been told about the plates and maybe after he was first shown them and then prevented from obtaining them at that time.

So, who's right?

Now if it can be shown that JS had been giving those kinds of recitals before he learned of the plates, and certainly before his first vision, your assumption would have more validity.

And much later, giving some indication that he knows about Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews", doesn't say much at all. Can you tell us what the context of his Ethan Smith citation was? It would be very surprising if he didn't know about E. Smith's work after a number of years. Why? Because it was probably thrown in his face along with accusations of plagiarism multiple times in the years after he 'translated' the Book of Mormon.

i hope this doesnt come off as condescending. When we talk about assumptions, it is really hard for me to take "God must have done it" as a credible assumption not by itself but when other, more easily explained human assumptions are available. The fact is the idea that the natives were descendants of the Hebrews was a huge contemporary idea at the time Joseph Smith was growing up. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" gives a plausible and credible and HUMAN explanation that does not require divine intervention. I may just lack faith, but I find it much easier to explain that Joseph had heard these ideas and sermons around such ideas and was inspired by them and tried to improve upon Ethan Smith's original concept than it is to say God just gave these ideas and writings to him. It doesnt make sense. Why did God wait until another man had done the Lion's share of the work to then decide to intervene and inspire his All-Star generational prophet to take an idea that already exists and write a book based on a book that already exists? It just doesnt add up....and thats even IF you readily accept divine intervention as an answer for things. I am more than happy to readily believe that God gave it to Joseph.....but then the inconsistencies of his story begin to crop up and the whole magic rock and scrying and fraud stuff creeps in too and its really a hard pill for me to swallow. Why so many inconsistencies in his story? Its almost as if he had to go back and make the story fit what the whole thing had morphed into by 1842 when he went back and re-told the story.....

I understand that 200bc the scribes were to ignorant to know the difference between 3 different Isaiahs in your opinion.

Hitler (one of the 3 horns) has his own story also.

How do you explain John tanner story? Only 7 doctors condemned him to losing the leg or dying, I’m just curious. Are you just regurgitating the negative stuff or actually critically thinking?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanner_(Mormon)

I see you are intent on stalking my conversation with larsenb until I respond to you. I dont understand the assumptions you make about my opinion and I dont know anything about John Tanner. Have a nice day.

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 11:16 am

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 10:37 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 9:42 am

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 8:57 am

i hope this doesnt come off as condescending. When we talk about assumptions, it is really hard for me to take "God must have done it" as a credible assumption not by itself but when other, more easily explained human assumptions are available. The fact is the idea that the natives were descendants of the Hebrews was a huge contemporary idea at the time Joseph Smith was growing up. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" gives a plausible and credible and HUMAN explanation that does not require divine intervention. I may just lack faith, but I find it much easier to explain that Joseph had heard these ideas and sermons around such ideas and was inspired by them and tried to improve upon Ethan Smith's original concept than it is to say God just gave these ideas and writings to him. It doesnt make sense. Why did God wait until another man had done the Lion's share of the work to then decide to intervene and inspire his All-Star generational prophet to take an idea that already exists and write a book based on a book that already exists? It just doesnt add up....and thats even IF you readily accept divine intervention as an answer for things. I am more than happy to readily believe that God gave it to Joseph.....but then the inconsistencies of his story begin to crop up and the whole magic rock and scrying and fraud stuff creeps in too and its really a hard pill for me to swallow. Why so many inconsistencies in his story? Its almost as if he had to go back and make the story fit what the whole thing had morphed into by 1842 when he went back and re-told the story.....

I understand that 200bc the scribes were to ignorant to know the difference between 3 different Isaiahs in your opinion.

Hitler (one of the 3 horns) has his own story also.

How do you explain John tanner story? Only 7 doctors condemned him to losing the leg or dying, I’m just curious. Are you just regurgitating the negative stuff or actually critically thinking?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanner_(Mormon)

I see you are intent on stalking my conversation with larsenb until I respond to you. I dont understand the assumptions you make about my opinion and I dont know anything about John Tanner. Have a nice day.

I didn’t know this was a private conversation. Sorry for my ignorance, next time I’ll sit in the corner master!!!! Your reply answered my question about critically thinking.

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 8:57 am

larsenb wrote: ↑September 14th, 2019, 1:48 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 2:01 pm . . . . . . Lucy Mack Smith said:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their <​mode of​> warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.

This was before he ever found the plates. He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ry-1845/94

^in case you want a reference

But in saying: "He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.", you're making some pretty big assumptions.

My assumption about this Lucy Mack Smith quote has always been that he had been given those views of the former inhabitants by God in some way, after he had been told about the plates and maybe after he was first shown them and then prevented from obtaining them at that time.

So, who's right?

Now if it can be shown that JS had been giving those kinds of recitals before he learned of the plates, and certainly before his first vision, your assumption would have more validity.

And much later, giving some indication that he knows about Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews", doesn't say much at all. Can you tell us what the context of his Ethan Smith citation was? It would be very surprising if he didn't know about E. Smith's work after a number of years. Why? Because it was probably thrown in his face along with accusations of plagiarism multiple times in the years after he 'translated' the Book of Mormon.

i hope this doesnt come off as condescending. When we talk about assumptions, it is really hard for me to take "God must have done it" as a credible assumption not by itself but when other, more easily explained human assumptions are available. The fact is the idea that the natives were descendants of the Hebrews was a huge contemporary idea at the time Joseph Smith was growing up. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" gives a plausible and credible and HUMAN explanation that does not require divine intervention. I may just lack faith, but I find it much easier to explain that Joseph had heard these ideas and sermons around such ideas and was inspired by them and tried to improve upon Ethan Smith's original concept than it is to say God just gave these ideas and writings to him. It doesnt make sense. Why did God wait until another man had done the Lion's share of the work to then decide to intervene and inspire his All-Star generational prophet to take an idea that already exists and write a book based on a book that already exists? It just doesnt add up....and thats even IF you readily accept divine intervention as an answer for things. I am more than happy to readily believe that God gave it to Joseph.....but then the inconsistencies of his story begin to crop up and the whole magic rock and scrying and fraud stuff creeps in too and its really a hard pill for me to swallow. Why so many inconsistencies in his story? Its almost as if he had to go back and make the story fit what the whole thing had morphed into by 1842 when he went back and re-told the story.....

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:33 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 8:57 am

larsenb wrote: ↑September 14th, 2019, 1:48 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 12th, 2019, 2:01 pm . . . . . . Lucy Mack Smith said:



This was before he ever found the plates. He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ry-1845/94

^in case you want a reference

But in saying: "He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.", you're making some pretty big assumptions.

My assumption about this Lucy Mack Smith quote has always been that he had been given those views of the former inhabitants by God in some way, after he had been told about the plates and maybe after he was first shown them and then prevented from obtaining them at that time.

So, who's right?

Now if it can be shown that JS had been giving those kinds of recitals before he learned of the plates, and certainly before his first vision, your assumption would have more validity.

And much later, giving some indication that he knows about Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews", doesn't say much at all. Can you tell us what the context of his Ethan Smith citation was? It would be very surprising if he didn't know about E. Smith's work after a number of years. Why? Because it was probably thrown in his face along with accusations of plagiarism multiple times in the years after he 'translated' the Book of Mormon.

i hope this doesnt come off as condescending. When we talk about assumptions, it is really hard for me to take "God must have done it" as a credible assumption not by itself but when other, more easily explained human assumptions are available. The fact is the idea that the natives were descendants of the Hebrews was a huge contemporary idea at the time Joseph Smith was growing up. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" gives a plausible and credible and HUMAN explanation that does not require divine intervention. I may just lack faith, but I find it much easier to explain that Joseph had heard these ideas and sermons around such ideas and was inspired by them and tried to improve upon Ethan Smith's original concept than it is to say God just gave these ideas and writings to him. It doesnt make sense. Why did God wait until another man had done the Lion's share of the work to then decide to intervene and inspire his All-Star generational prophet to take an idea that already exists and write a book based on a book that already exists? It just doesnt add up....and thats even IF you readily accept divine intervention as an answer for things. I am more than happy to readily believe that God gave it to Joseph.....but then the inconsistencies of his story begin to crop up and the whole magic rock and scrying and fraud stuff creeps in too and its really a hard pill for me to swallow. Why so many inconsistencies in his story? Its almost as if he had to go back and make the story fit what the whole thing had morphed into by 1842 when he went back and re-told the story.....

You've obviously passed beyond the boundary between believing Joseph's story and into the territory of disbelief and doubt. Having done so, you will naturally glom onto anything you think discredits the story. Just a natural progression. I, of course, wonder if you will come back the other way, anytime soon. I hope you do.

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 11:46 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 11:16 am

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 10:37 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 9:42 am

I understand that 200bc the scribes were to ignorant to know the difference between 3 different Isaiahs in your opinion.

Hitler (one of the 3 horns) has his own story also.

How do you explain John tanner story? Only 7 doctors condemned him to losing the leg or dying, I’m just curious. Are you just regurgitating the negative stuff or actually critically thinking?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanner_(Mormon)

I see you are intent on stalking my conversation with larsenb until I respond to you. I dont understand the assumptions you make about my opinion and I dont know anything about John Tanner. Have a nice day.

I didn’t know this was a private conversation. Sorry for my ignorance, next time I’ll sit in the corner master!!!! Your reply answered my question about critically thinking.

Oh no worries. Just next time you feel inclined to interject your thoughts and questions into other people's conversations, it would be nice if they were well thought-out and coherent is all. Take care.

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:53 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 11:46 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 11:16 am

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 10:37 am

I see you are intent on stalking my conversation with larsenb until I respond to you. I dont understand the assumptions you make about my opinion and I dont know anything about John Tanner. Have a nice day.

I didn’t know this was a private conversation. Sorry for my ignorance, next time I’ll sit in the corner master!!!! Your reply answered my question about critically thinking.

Oh no worries. Just next time you feel inclined to interject your thoughts and questions into other people's conversations, it would be nice if they were well thought-out and coherent is all. Take care.

They are well thought out and coherent. I’m sorry you can’t understand them.

The scribes who transferred the Dead Sea scrolls in roughly 200bc onto the new leather wrote the book of Isaiah as 1 book. You are saying they were too ignorant to know it was really 3 different prophets.

Do you know who translated the Dead Sea scrolls? The Jewish people were not pleased to see Isaiah is the same in the Dead Sea scrolls as the Torah.

Hitler has his own story much like yourself.

You would have to research John Tanner, one of the miracles of our dispensation.

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:43 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:33 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 8:57 am

larsenb wrote: ↑September 14th, 2019, 1:48 pm

But in saying: "He had been working the story in his mind for YEARS. He was inspired by the big issues of the day. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews". He even references Ethan Smith years later but I digress.", you're making some pretty big assumptions.

My assumption about this Lucy Mack Smith quote has always been that he had been given those views of the former inhabitants by God in some way, after he had been told about the plates and maybe after he was first shown them and then prevented from obtaining them at that time.

So, who's right?

Now if it can be shown that JS had been giving those kinds of recitals before he learned of the plates, and certainly before his first vision, your assumption would have more validity.

And much later, giving some indication that he knows about Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews", doesn't say much at all. Can you tell us what the context of his Ethan Smith citation was? It would be very surprising if he didn't know about E. Smith's work after a number of years. Why? Because it was probably thrown in his face along with accusations of plagiarism multiple times in the years after he 'translated' the Book of Mormon.

i hope this doesnt come off as condescending. When we talk about assumptions, it is really hard for me to take "God must have done it" as a credible assumption not by itself but when other, more easily explained human assumptions are available. The fact is the idea that the natives were descendants of the Hebrews was a huge contemporary idea at the time Joseph Smith was growing up. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" gives a plausible and credible and HUMAN explanation that does not require divine intervention. I may just lack faith, but I find it much easier to explain that Joseph had heard these ideas and sermons around such ideas and was inspired by them and tried to improve upon Ethan Smith's original concept than it is to say God just gave these ideas and writings to him. It doesnt make sense. Why did God wait until another man had done the Lion's share of the work to then decide to intervene and inspire his All-Star generational prophet to take an idea that already exists and write a book based on a book that already exists? It just doesnt add up....and thats even IF you readily accept divine intervention as an answer for things. I am more than happy to readily believe that God gave it to Joseph.....but then the inconsistencies of his story begin to crop up and the whole magic rock and scrying and fraud stuff creeps in too and its really a hard pill for me to swallow. Why so many inconsistencies in his story? Its almost as if he had to go back and make the story fit what the whole thing had morphed into by 1842 when he went back and re-told the story.....

You've obviously passed beyond the boundary between believing Joseph's story and into the territory of disbelief and doubt. Having done so, you will naturally glom onto anything you think discredits the story. Just a natural progression. I, of course, wonder if you will come back the other way, anytime soon. I hope you do.

Respectfully yes, I no longer believe the plates existed. I dont, however, "naturally glom onto anything that discredits the story."

I simply look at all the available information and make conclusions. I dont begrudge anyone from doing the same.

Cheers.

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:57 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:43 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:33 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 8:57 am

i hope this doesnt come off as condescending. When we talk about assumptions, it is really hard for me to take "God must have done it" as a credible assumption not by itself but when other, more easily explained human assumptions are available. The fact is the idea that the natives were descendants of the Hebrews was a huge contemporary idea at the time Joseph Smith was growing up. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" gives a plausible and credible and HUMAN explanation that does not require divine intervention. I may just lack faith, but I find it much easier to explain that Joseph had heard these ideas and sermons around such ideas and was inspired by them and tried to improve upon Ethan Smith's original concept than it is to say God just gave these ideas and writings to him. It doesnt make sense. Why did God wait until another man had done the Lion's share of the work to then decide to intervene and inspire his All-Star generational prophet to take an idea that already exists and write a book based on a book that already exists? It just doesnt add up....and thats even IF you readily accept divine intervention as an answer for things. I am more than happy to readily believe that God gave it to Joseph.....but then the inconsistencies of his story begin to crop up and the whole magic rock and scrying and fraud stuff creeps in too and its really a hard pill for me to swallow. Why so many inconsistencies in his story? Its almost as if he had to go back and make the story fit what the whole thing had morphed into by 1842 when he went back and re-told the story.....

You've obviously passed beyond the boundary between believing Joseph's story and into the territory of disbelief and doubt. Having done so, you will naturally glom onto anything you think discredits the story. Just a natural progression. I, of course, wonder if you will come back the other way, anytime soon. I hope you do.

Respectfully yes, I no longer believe the plates existed. I dont, however, "naturally glom onto anything that discredits the story."

I simply look at all the available information and make conclusions. I dont begrudge anyone from doing the same.

Cheers.

I look at all the available information and come to the conclusion the plates existed and still exist. So how do you explain that?

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:58 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:57 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:43 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:33 pm

You've obviously passed beyond the boundary between believing Joseph's story and into the territory of disbelief and doubt. Having done so, you will naturally glom onto anything you think discredits the story. Just a natural progression. I, of course, wonder if you will come back the other way, anytime soon. I hope you do.

Respectfully yes, I no longer believe the plates existed. I dont, however, "naturally glom onto anything that discredits the story."

I simply look at all the available information and make conclusions. I dont begrudge anyone from doing the same.

Cheers.

I look at all the available information and come to the conclusion the plates existed and still exist. So how do you explain that?

Easy. You have your own brain and your own free agency to do such. Again, I dont begrudge it. Do you begrudge me doing the same with my agency?

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:58 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:57 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:43 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:33 pm

You've obviously passed beyond the boundary between believing Joseph's story and into the territory of disbelief and doubt. Having done so, you will naturally glom onto anything you think discredits the story. Just a natural progression. I, of course, wonder if you will come back the other way, anytime soon. I hope you do.

Respectfully yes, I no longer believe the plates existed. I dont, however, "naturally glom onto anything that discredits the story."

I simply look at all the available information and make conclusions. I dont begrudge anyone from doing the same.

Cheers.

I look at all the available information and come to the conclusion the plates existed and still exist. So how do you explain that?

Easy. You have your own brain and your own free agency to do such. Again, I dont begrudge it. Do you begrudge me doing the same with my agency?

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 2:26 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:58 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:57 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:43 pm

Respectfully yes, I no longer believe the plates existed. I dont, however, "naturally glom onto anything that discredits the story."

I simply look at all the available information and make conclusions. I dont begrudge anyone from doing the same.

Cheers.

I look at all the available information and come to the conclusion the plates existed and still exist. So how do you explain that?

Easy. You have your own brain and your own free agency to do such. Again, I dont begrudge it. Do you begrudge me doing the same with my agency?

Why on earth should I??

I'm very much persuaded that the deciding factor in how one assesses these questions has to do with which side of the belief/doubt divide one comes down on. Ed Goble in a recent post on his 'My first Book of Abraham Podcast' thread gave a very good analysis of how aspects of this process works.

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 2:34 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 2:26 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:58 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:57 pm
I look at all the available information and come to the conclusion the plates existed and still exist. So how do you explain that?

Easy. You have your own brain and your own free agency to do such. Again, I dont begrudge it. Do you begrudge me doing the same with my agency?

Why on earth should I??

I'm very much persuaded that the deciding factor in how one assesses these questions has to do with which side of the belief/doubt divide one comes down on. Ed Goble in a recent post on his 'My first Book of Abraham Podcast' thread gave a very good analysis of how aspects of this process works.

I think thats an oversimplification. A devout Muslim believes as they do, and has that right, based on their life experiences and on whatever the Quran brings into their life. I don't think we wake up one day deciding to believe or not believe. For me, the process of "not believing" was a slow and painful one. It was like a wedge that got entered into my mind and took years as it kept getting driven further and further. This didnt happen to me because I am "deceived by Satan" or because I hate the Church or anything else. Quite the opposite. I love the gospel and the Church, my whole family, and I mean WHOLE FAMILY, all the way back to pioneer times, come from this Church.

I didnt wake up one day and say "yeah I dont feel like believing this anymore. Time to isolate myself from all my friends and family."

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 3:23 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 2:34 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 2:26 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 1:58 pm

Easy. You have your own brain and your own free agency to do such. Again, I dont begrudge it. Do you begrudge me doing the same with my agency?

Why on earth should I??

I'm very much persuaded that the deciding factor in how one assesses these questions has to do with which side of the belief/doubt divide one comes down on. Ed Goble in a recent post on his 'My first Book of Abraham Podcast' thread gave a very good analysis of how aspects of this process works.

I think thats an oversimplification. A devout Muslim believes as they do, and has that right, based on their life experiences and on whatever the Quran brings into their life. I don't think we wake up one day deciding to believe or not believe. For me, the process of "not believing" was a slow and painful one. It was like a wedge that got entered into my mind and took years as it kept getting driven further and further. This didnt happen to me because I am "deceived by Satan" or because I hate the Church or anything else. Quite the opposite. I love the gospel and the Church, my whole family, and I mean WHOLE FAMILY, all the way back to pioneer times, come from this Church.

I didnt wake up one day and say "yeah I dont feel like believing this anymore. Time to isolate myself from all my friends and family."

Probably everybody has push-pull, for and against, belief and doubt, from time-to-time. It doesn't have to be a sudden thing. What ever your process and how ever long it took, you've come down fairly decisively on the disbelief side. This will certainly influence how you view what you regard as current or subsequent evidence against the BoM, etc. I.e., you've left the land of objectivity regarding the 'belief' side. Thinking or saying otherwise, I think, you are fooling yourself. Just my strong opinion based on a lot of experience, including personal experience. No use arguing about it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. You obviously discount the personal testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, as well as the testimonies from others of the actual, physical reality of the BoM and other artifacts , thinking they are self-deluded in some way. I don't. Why is that. Simply because of belief and testimony. You discount them because of your disbelief.

Or . . . . you might think Smith actually created the gold plates out of tin or something and fashioned the Urim and Thummin . . I don't recall if any of the witnesses saw the sword of Laban and the breastplates. But then you're going to have to discount the testimony of the 3 witnesses who were shown these things by an angel, and that of the wife of Peter (was it?) Whitmer, who was shown the plates by Moroni.

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 7:03 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 3:23 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 2:34 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 2:26 pm
Why on earth should I??

I'm very much persuaded that the deciding factor in how one assesses these questions has to do with which side of the belief/doubt divide one comes down on. Ed Goble in a recent post on his 'My first Book of Abraham Podcast' thread gave a very good analysis of how aspects of this process works.

I think thats an oversimplification. A devout Muslim believes as they do, and has that right, based on their life experiences and on whatever the Quran brings into their life. I don't think we wake up one day deciding to believe or not believe. For me, the process of "not believing" was a slow and painful one. It was like a wedge that got entered into my mind and took years as it kept getting driven further and further. This didnt happen to me because I am "deceived by Satan" or because I hate the Church or anything else. Quite the opposite. I love the gospel and the Church, my whole family, and I mean WHOLE FAMILY, all the way back to pioneer times, come from this Church.

I didnt wake up one day and say "yeah I dont feel like believing this anymore. Time to isolate myself from all my friends and family."

Probably everybody has push-pull, for and against, belief and doubt, from time-to-time. It doesn't have to be a sudden thing. What ever your process and how ever long it took, you've come down fairly decisively on the disbelief side. This will certainly influence how you view what you regard as current or subsequent evidence against the BoM, etc. I.e., you've left the land of objectivity regarding the 'belief' side. Thinking or saying otherwise, I think, you are fooling yourself. Just my strong opinion based on a lot of experience, including personal experience. No use arguing about it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. You obviously discount the personal testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, as well as the testimonies from others of the actual, physical reality of the BoM and other artifacts , thinking they are self-deluded in some way. I don't. Why is that. Simply because of belief and testimony. You discount them because of your disbelief.

Or . . . . you might think Smith actually created the gold plates out of tin or something and fashioned the Urim and Thummin . . I don't recall if any of the witnesses saw the sword of Laban and the breastplates. But then you're going to have to discount the testimony of the 3 witnesses who were shown these things by an angel, and that of the wife of Peter (was it?) Whitmer, who was shown the plates by Moroni.

Yes thank you for bringing up the witnesses. And agreed....pointless debating the belief side of things....but at a minimum; I appreciate your respectful demeanor towards me and the kindness on the points made. As for the witnesses....I did cling to them as a source of my testimony for a long time. Upon closer scrutiny of them, I have concluded that in order take them at their word and ignore all the other contrary evidence of detective work that makes this cold case conclude a sad conclusion is that I would need to start believing in witnesses of James Strang and others and also ignore that:

- The witnesses were all close personal friends or relatives of Joseph Smith
- The witnesses all "believed everything" really.....including magic and folklore.....easy marks for a skilled orator
- The witnesses all left Joseph Smith and the Church by 1847. Wouldnt witnesses to gold plates and angels and real spiritual miracles hold on for at least 14 years?
- Many of the witnesses testified later that they never actually saw the plates. They only saw them through "spiritual eyes" or "through the eye of faith" or "as a city through a mountain." (Seriously. What I don't understand, and will probably never ever understand, is what, um, does that mean? Did you see them, or no?)

Anyhoo.....thank you for honest and open discussion. I appreciate your perspective more than you know.

larsenb wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 1:25 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 7:03 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 3:23 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 2:34 pm

I think thats an oversimplification. A devout Muslim believes as they do, and has that right, based on their life experiences and on whatever the Quran brings into their life. I don't think we wake up one day deciding to believe or not believe. For me, the process of "not believing" was a slow and painful one. It was like a wedge that got entered into my mind and took years as it kept getting driven further and further. This didnt happen to me because I am "deceived by Satan" or because I hate the Church or anything else. Quite the opposite. I love the gospel and the Church, my whole family, and I mean WHOLE FAMILY, all the way back to pioneer times, come from this Church.

I didnt wake up one day and say "yeah I dont feel like believing this anymore. Time to isolate myself from all my friends and family."

Probably everybody has push-pull, for and against, belief and doubt, from time-to-time. It doesn't have to be a sudden thing. What ever your process and how ever long it took, you've come down fairly decisively on the disbelief side. This will certainly influence how you view what you regard as current or subsequent evidence against the BoM, etc. I.e., you've left the land of objectivity regarding the 'belief' side. Thinking or saying otherwise, I think, you are fooling yourself. Just my strong opinion based on a lot of experience, including personal experience. No use arguing about it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. You obviously discount the personal testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, as well as the testimonies from others of the actual, physical reality of the BoM and other artifacts , thinking they are self-deluded in some way. I don't. Why is that. Simply because of belief and testimony. You discount them because of your disbelief.

Or . . . . you might think Smith actually created the gold plates out of tin or something and fashioned the Urim and Thummin . . I don't recall if any of the witnesses saw the sword of Laban and the breastplates. But then you're going to have to discount the testimony of the 3 witnesses who were shown these things by an angel, and that of the wife of Peter (was it?) Whitmer, who was shown the plates by Moroni.

Yes thank you for bringing up the witnesses. And agreed....pointless debating the belief side of things....but at a minimum; I appreciate your respectful demeanor towards me and the kindness on the points made. As for the witnesses....I did cling to them as a source of my testimony for a long time. Upon closer scrutiny of them, I have concluded that in order take them at their word and ignore all the other contrary evidence of detective work that makes this cold case conclude a sad conclusion is that I would need to start believing in witnesses of James Strang and others and also ignore that:

- The witnesses were all close personal friends or relatives of Joseph Smith
- The witnesses all "believed everything" really.....including magic and folklore.....easy marks for a skilled orator
- The witnesses all left Joseph Smith and the Church by 1847. Wouldnt witnesses to gold plates and angels and real spiritual miracles hold on for at least 14 years?
- Many of the witnesses testified later that they never actually saw the plates. They only saw them through "spiritual eyes" or "through the eye of faith" or "as a city through a mountain." (Seriously. What I don't understand, and will probably never ever understand, is what, um, does that mean? Did you see them, or no?)

Anyhoo.....thank you for honest and open discussion. I appreciate your perspective more than you know.

Again, far too many assumptions here and/or lack of citations. Just one example: the idea that "They only saw them through "spiritual eyes" or "through the eye of faith" or "as a city through a mountain". This flies in the face of quotes from this group to the effect that what they saw was as real and tangible, if not more so, than such-and such: referring to some physical object in the testifier's purview; etc., etc.

thestock wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 1:30 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 1:25 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 7:03 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 3:23 pm

Probably everybody has push-pull, for and against, belief and doubt, from time-to-time. It doesn't have to be a sudden thing. What ever your process and how ever long it took, you've come down fairly decisively on the disbelief side. This will certainly influence how you view what you regard as current or subsequent evidence against the BoM, etc. I.e., you've left the land of objectivity regarding the 'belief' side. Thinking or saying otherwise, I think, you are fooling yourself. Just my strong opinion based on a lot of experience, including personal experience. No use arguing about it.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. You obviously discount the personal testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, as well as the testimonies from others of the actual, physical reality of the BoM and other artifacts , thinking they are self-deluded in some way. I don't. Why is that. Simply because of belief and testimony. You discount them because of your disbelief.

Or . . . . you might think Smith actually created the gold plates out of tin or something and fashioned the Urim and Thummin . . I don't recall if any of the witnesses saw the sword of Laban and the breastplates. But then you're going to have to discount the testimony of the 3 witnesses who were shown these things by an angel, and that of the wife of Peter (was it?) Whitmer, who was shown the plates by Moroni.

Yes thank you for bringing up the witnesses. And agreed....pointless debating the belief side of things....but at a minimum; I appreciate your respectful demeanor towards me and the kindness on the points made. As for the witnesses....I did cling to them as a source of my testimony for a long time. Upon closer scrutiny of them, I have concluded that in order take them at their word and ignore all the other contrary evidence of detective work that makes this cold case conclude a sad conclusion is that I would need to start believing in witnesses of James Strang and others and also ignore that:

- The witnesses were all close personal friends or relatives of Joseph Smith
- The witnesses all "believed everything" really.....including magic and folklore.....easy marks for a skilled orator
- The witnesses all left Joseph Smith and the Church by 1847. Wouldnt witnesses to gold plates and angels and real spiritual miracles hold on for at least 14 years?
- Many of the witnesses testified later that they never actually saw the plates. They only saw them through "spiritual eyes" or "through the eye of faith" or "as a city through a mountain." (Seriously. What I don't understand, and will probably never ever understand, is what, um, does that mean? Did you see them, or no?)

Anyhoo.....thank you for honest and open discussion. I appreciate your perspective more than you know.

Again, far too many assumptions here and/or lack of citations. Just one example: the idea that "They only saw them through "spiritual eyes" or "through the eye of faith" or "as a city through a mountain". This flies in the face of quotes from this group to the effect that what they saw was as real and tangible, if not more so, than such-and such: referring to some physical object in the testifier's purview; etc., etc.

Yes it does....and therein lies the problem.

larsenb wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 1:45 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 1:30 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 1:25 pm

thestock wrote: ↑September 16th, 2019, 7:03 pm

Yes thank you for bringing up the witnesses. And agreed....pointless debating the belief side of things....but at a minimum; I appreciate your respectful demeanor towards me and the kindness on the points made. As for the witnesses....I did cling to them as a source of my testimony for a long time. Upon closer scrutiny of them, I have concluded that in order take them at their word and ignore all the other contrary evidence of detective work that makes this cold case conclude a sad conclusion is that I would need to start believing in witnesses of James Strang and others and also ignore that:

- The witnesses were all close personal friends or relatives of Joseph Smith
- The witnesses all "believed everything" really.....including magic and folklore.....easy marks for a skilled orator
- The witnesses all left Joseph Smith and the Church by 1847. Wouldnt witnesses to gold plates and angels and real spiritual miracles hold on for at least 14 years?
- Many of the witnesses testified later that they never actually saw the plates. They only saw them through "spiritual eyes" or "through the eye of faith" or "as a city through a mountain." (Seriously. What I don't understand, and will probably never ever understand, is what, um, does that mean? Did you see them, or no?)

Anyhoo.....thank you for honest and open discussion. I appreciate your perspective more than you know.

Again, far too many assumptions here and/or lack of citations. Just one example: the idea that "They only saw them through "spiritual eyes" or "through the eye of faith" or "as a city through a mountain". This flies in the face of quotes from this group to the effect that what they saw was as real and tangible, if not more so, than such-and such: referring to some physical object in the testifier's purview; etc., etc.

Yes it does....and therein lies the problem.

You miss the point. To convince anyone of your position, of your assertions, you need to come up with valid citations/references or good evidence and analysis.

caburnha wrote: ↑September 11th, 2019, 5:28 pm

markharr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2019, 1:53 pm

caburnha wrote: ↑September 11th, 2019, 1:22 pmReading the book he recommended (but then was never allowed to go into the printed form of the talk) changed my life. None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen.

Published almost 50 years ago and still as relevant as it was back then.

Yep, and if it was updated to include current events it would probably be 4 times longer haha...

Brother B. wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 3:41 pm

caburnha wrote: ↑September 11th, 2019, 5:28 pm

markharr wrote: ↑September 11th, 2019, 1:53 pm

caburnha wrote: ↑September 11th, 2019, 1:22 pmReading the book he recommended (but then was never allowed to go into the printed form of the talk) changed my life. None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen.

Published almost 50 years ago and still as relevant as it was back then.

Yep, and if it was updated to include current events it would probably be 4 times longer haha...

Jack Monnett's Awakening to Our Awful Situation could be considered somewhat of an update to that.

larsenb wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 4:23 pm There are people that see discussion forums/boards as a place to vent their opinions, again, and again and again. Then there are those who see these platforms as places where discussion, dialogue and dissemination of verifiable information, analysis and evidence, as well as logically supported ideas, can take place. I'm in the later group, and am most likely to forego searching out information allegedly contained in YouTube videos and various other URL links.

You bring up an allegation or make certain assumptions. You are responsible for supporting the allegations or assumptions with good validation. Otherwise, you are just looking for an echo chamber. May be harsh, but is also true. I see it as a kind of need to be allowed to whine about this, that and maybe everything. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the condition you find yourself in, but not much else.

thestock wrote: ↑September 19th, 2019, 8:33 am

larsenb wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 4:23 pm There are people that see discussion forums/boards as a place to vent their opinions, again, and again and again. Then there are those who see these platforms as places where discussion, dialogue and dissemination of verifiable information, analysis and evidence, as well as logically supported ideas, can take place. I'm in the later group, and am most likely to forego searching out information allegedly contained in YouTube videos and various other URL links.

You bring up an allegation or make certain assumptions. You are responsible for supporting the allegations or assumptions with good validation. Otherwise, you are just looking for an echo chamber. May be harsh, but is also true. I see it as a kind of need to be allowed to whine about this, that and maybe everything. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the condition you find yourself in, but not much else.

I have provided countless links and references in countless threads. It is exhausting. The information is THERE if you will simply LOOK. Stop being lazy and trying to get other people to do the work for you. If you want to ignore what I am saying because it challenges your long held beliefs, then that is fine. But dont blame me for that.........that's on you.