This is the best channel discussing Mormonism. I’ve come to different conclusions and no longer believe, but I can always count on this channel to be balanced, discuss hard topics, and still use evidence to give people a reason to have faith.
I wonder why the anti rhetoric leaves out room for faith. It’s almost like a new Faith position has emerged. It takes quite a lot of faith in the anti position to believe that Joseph Smith pulled all this off without divine help.
Yeah, this is the one apologetic channel I regularly follow because of how Murph is so good at presenting his sources and understanding the other side. I've got very different conclusions from him, but I really appreciate his approach to things as well.
It's about time someone publicly tackles LDSdiscussions. I have done so on a personal level, but it hasn't been on a public platform. Thank you. Side note and pet peeve: the name "LDS discussions" is, in my opinion, manipulative and disingenuous. It appears to be meant to draw in the LDS crowd, thinking they will get some faith promotion, only to be hit with contextually questionable interpretations and half truths
Haven’t watched this yet just a couple minutes in but I can tell you Mr Dehlin is about as interested in informed consent as my cat is interested in Shakespeare.
It's really ironic how critics accuse the Church of hiding negative information and then proceed to hide every possible faith-affirming fact in their telling of the "real" church history.
That's not an "accusation." It is a demonstrable fact that the LDS church has proactively hidden tons of negative historical information over the years. To name just two of many: the facts of Joseph Smith's seer-stone-in-the-hat business to pretend to "see" buried treasure from at least 1822 ro 1826; and the dirty details of Smith's plural marriage practice. The church has only begun to admit to details of those items over the last decade or so because of the proliferation of the information which church members can find on the internet. Church leaders chose to publish a series of essays on their website re: those issues and others as an attempt to "inoculate" rank and file church members---meaning, presenting the information in such a manner as to try to prevent members from leaving the church when they learn the true facts.
I recommend you study the September 6. All the historians that have left once they got knee deep into the Joseph Smith papers and there's more coming but it's obvious the lack of knowledge you actually have about your own religion. Shame. If you say you believe something and have a testimony of it and know nothing about it that's on you
@Jsppydays what makes you think I don't know about the September 6, or the Joseph Smith papers? Have you considered the possibility that I have viewed the same information as you but come away with a different conclusion?
To be fair, there were a couple of faith affirming quotes they shared. However, they absolutely did hide the strong majority of information that affirms the believing perspective. A lot of critics know that when you lay out all the information about there regarding the witnesses the believing positìon is comfortably the stronger one
I love the last hour of the episode. It really is like the Three Witnesses are crying out from the dust, imploring us to believe their testimonies of the natural and spiritual reality of their experience.
It would be nice if the witnesses could cry out from the dust and explain to us why things like horses, elephants, chariots, and forged metal tools and weaponry are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, when none of those things existed in Pre-Columbian America.
@@jeremims9044 LOL. My remark is not a "straw man" at all. It goes to the heart of the issue. If the Book of Mormon is a fraudulent work, containing numerous historical and archaeological anachronisms such as those I mentioned above, then obviously there was no angel Moroni and no golden plates. So the logical deduction from that is that the "golden plates witnesses" were either liars or were duped. Considering that Joseph Smith had previously spent 5-6 years working a folk-magic treasure-hunting con game, for which he had gotten arrested and tried in court, that tells us that he possessed the persuasive talents to be able to fool people into believing that they had seen things which they had not actually seen.
@@jeremims9044 I understand your dilemma, jeremims. You have to go through life pretending that the most plausible explanation for the existence of the "Book of Mormon" is an origin story that includes magic translation crystals, a magic rock in a hat, a glow-in-the-dark resurrected man angel who magically makes ancient artifacts disappear (by hauling them up to heaven) and "witnesses" of the angel and the gold plates who couldn't be bothered (or allowed) to write down their own testimonies independently and in detail and instead were manipulated into endorsing, after the fact, a statement prepared for them to ensure that they would only say what Joseph Smith wanted them to say, which testimony only contained the most basic elements of a story that Joseph had already been telling them for months. "There's an angel. The angel gots in his hands them gold plates, see. You see? It's by the power of God that you see, not of man" I don't envy your task at all, so I understand the over-confident bluster when you try to push illogical arguments.
Martin’s separate experience is more damning for the mass hallucination theory crowd. Joseph would have had to gain two separate hallucinations that happened to produce the same hallucination of the plates and Moroni.
What "mass hallucinations"? You're over-complicating things by several orders of magnitude...all to promote faith no doubt. Look at the "Testimony". Take out the pseudo-religious preachy stuff of no substance and literally the only thing that the three "Witnesses" claim to have seen (lacking any kind of detail) is the following: (1) They saw an angel; (2) They saw plates and engravings on the plates; and (3) What they saw was shown to them by the power of God, and not of man. That's it. ALL of it.... ALL of it consists of elements of the story that Joe had been literally pumping into their heads for months. Joe wanted them to say that they saw the glow-in-the-dark-resurrected-man angel named Moroni. Joe wanted them to say that they saw the plates and engravings. Joe wanted them to say it so badly that he and Ollie prepared the actual words that he wanted the witnesses to say in a joint statement to be accepted by them and endorsed by them AFTER it was prepared for them. Where are you getting this "mass hallucination" stuff from? The "Testimony" of the eight Witlesses is just as dubious and was prepared for them in the same way. Everyone, whether a Whitmer (including HP and OC), a Smith (including OC) or a Harris was heavily invested in Joe's book project and were hoping that the book would be a big seller. The dots are all there to be connected. But I guess if you're wearing foggy faith goggles the dots just can't be seen.
@@randyjordan5521ah. Randy randy randy. You again. My friend. And you decide to go to the Hurlbut affidavits? Pity. You mean affidavits from the same individual that was basically threatening Joseph and lost a court case against him because of it? The same Hurbut who gathered affidavits from all of the Spaulding witnesses? Are you going to come out and say you have solid evidence for the Spaulding theory now?
I have an increasing aversion to John Dehlin. He seems to have an increasing desire to mock the LDS Church while pretending with less less success to stay on the fairness side of the line. Anyone, including Dehlin, could easily be actually fair in their criticisms of the LDS Church if they only wanted to.
Hey Murph! I enjoy your podcast. Question: I realize you cherry picked a particular episode to critique, but in watching this entire series with “Mike”, which I find very compelling, do you at all find it challenging to maintain your faith?
John Delin having a problem with Martin not seeing a ressurrected being with the other 2 present because, according to Delin, a physical being would be able to be seen no matter what, makes me seriously question Delin's ability to look at things from multiple angles, or he's not being genuine. Just off the top of my head (and I haven't listened to Murphs answer) I can think of at least 2 possibilities: 1) the angel simply has not shown up yet *because* Martin is present(this answer is so simple that it really blows my mind Delin didn't think of it) and 2) in order to see heavenly beings one must have their vision "transfigured". This could be an interdimensional thing or otherwise.
I think you're missing the point. Of course, according to the official narrative (much of which didn't make it into the official testimony statements that were prepared for the witnesses so that they would say what JS wanted them to say), the "reason" why the angel delayed putting on his light-and-magic show was because Martin was not worthy due to not having enough faith. Skeptics (i.e. people living in the real world) understand the faithful "explanation". But it still makes no sense. The point of being a "witness" would be to confirm that the gold plates and the angel are real, with a real physical existence. You don't need faith to see a hubcap or a garbage pail lid. It would have been even more impressive if Harris was a skeptic who was starting to doubt...and then Moroni (the glow-in-the-dark resurrected man-angel) showed up anyway. Isn't that the way these miracle things often happen in religious texts? Instead, we get the story of Martin having to be coached for a long time until he finally claims that he can "see" it. Of course nobody ever asked him exactly WHAT he thought he saw in any detail. And the "Testimony" that his name appears under is not even his own words.
"This could be an interdimensional thing or otherwise" Yes! Let's start making up sci-fi fan-fiction to help explain an obvious fairy-tale story that makes no sense when compared to observable reality. One's "vision" must be "transfigured". Ummm...okay. If that's what you want to believe. I guess Joe, David and Ollie were all born with "transfigured vision" (TM). Martin needed extra coaching to get it.
You're clearly missing the point. Nobody has a problem understanding what the official explanation in the official narrative is. That's like Mormonism 101, the remedial class. We all know that the "explanation" is that Martin didn't have enough faith, so the resurrected man-angel, who glows in the dark brighter than the noonday sun, could not appear with the gold plates until Martin got out of there. We all understand the "explanation". The point is that it doesn't make any sense and is far-fetched (as well as being inconsistent with other miracle stories about brightly glowing angels appearing to non-believers). Even according to the official narrative, Martin had to be coached by JS for a long time until he finally claimed that he could see and behold....see and behold what? Oh yeah, the things that JS was telling him he was supposed to see and behold.
Mormons think all beings are physical and made of matter. Even intelligences. And we know that demons can manifest as well visually. Maybe Martin Harris was just protected from evil
Thanks for covering this in depth. I haven't yet watched the entire video, but I will eventually :) I love your approach to the church's critics, in being fair and in trying to be understanding towards them. I had an experience yesterday that kind of hit home to me of the importance of this approach: We needed some work done on our house, so called one contractor to come out and give us a quote. I normally have at least 3 contractors come out, after checking their reviews and references, before making a decision. However, this first contractor gave a very good sales pitch and I liked him personally and so I went ahead and signed a contract with him. After he left, I began to second guess my decision, not being sure if the price agreed on was really a good price or not. So I called 2 other contractors to get more quotes, knowing that I had a 3 day window to cancel out on the one I had signed with. One of the other 2 was able to match the price of the first one, and it looked like better quality due to really stellar reviews, etc., so I decided to go with them and cancel out on the first one. It was really hard for me to call the 1st one and cancel out, and I found that afterwards I was tempted to find some faults with the first one in order to help me to better justify my new decision. I had to catch myself to stop from doing that, realizing that I tend to try to look for and assume the best in others. I now feel that both would have been good choices, but that I had simply chosen the one that I felt a little better about. However, I could see that it is human nature to want to find fault with an earlier decision or decisions that we make in our life journey in order to help us to justify our actions in rejecting that earlier decision and feeling better about the new decision or decisions. I had known about this tendency before, but it hit home to me more this time since I just experienced it personally. Though this is a far cry from a life changing decision such as switching one's religious beliefs and culture that one grew up in or was immersed in, it still gave me a small taste of what it might be like for those who do make such a life changing choice, and what human nature says about the natural tendency for us to find fault with those things that we reject, which had earlier been something that we had embraced. We all want to be at peace with ourselves and in the correctness of our choices, especially those of great import. I think that's one of the reasons why God doesn't give us absolute proof of anything of a religious nature. It is up to us to make our own choices that we can feel comfortable with, without being compelled to believe one way or the other. Religious and spiritual concepts can only be grasped with the heart as well as the mind, not simply with the mind.
@@mormonismwiththemurph Joel 3:14-19. The Prophet Joel says the Lord speaks from out of Zion in the last days, not from just inside the smalll window frame of the Bible. For in the last days the Lord is not going to be speaking from out of the Bible, instead hes going to be found doing all his speaking from out of Zion.
I think the larger meta look at this, is really about whether or not someone else's testimony (or lack thereof), is enough to change someone's faith. I suppose from a naive point of view, children learn the faith of their parents based on the parents' testimony - and it's perfectly reasonable for children to lose their faith if their parents do, if that indeed was the only basis of the childrens' faith. Which begs the question - forget the fact claims, what are the essential *faith* claims? When you go to sacrament meeting, and join in worship, is it contingent on whether or not three witnesses from almost 200 years ago accurately described reality? Or is it based on the moral precepts of salvation, repentance, redemption, sacrifice, and forgiveness? I find, as an atheist, a lot of value in the LDS church and the BoM. Whether or not the witnesses were reliable, unreliable, or simply deceptive, doesn't really change that calculus for me. Of course, I think without literal faith, an institution like the church would be hard pressed to endure, so I understand the necessity for those who have that literal faith - but it seems to me, outside looking in, that no matter what evidence or counter evidence can be shown to a person, faith or lack of faith is a persuasion game on both sides. Some people may be persuaded by lawyerly rhetoric, others by lived emotional experience - but a better question is "what are we trying to persuade people to?" On that question, even though I lack a personal literal faith, I find more alignment with the literally faithful. They may never be able to persuade me to a literal faith, but they've definitely got my metaphorical faith. And if I was persuading against the BoM witnesses, it would be to build someone's metaphorical faith, rather than destroying their literal faith.
I like your comment, Are you saying that metaphorical faith is to expect good things to happen because good things were asked of the faithful? Explain what you mean by metaphorical faith vs literal faith. To you is literal faith a belief that God is the source of creation, wisdom, and true principles? Is metaphorical faith a mix of random events leading to creation, collective cultural wisdom from human and biological experience, and an individual’s observation that following theoretically true principles yields good results? You have sparked my curiosity here, please give your insights into your labels.
@@Kaydubbbb Good question. When Jesus taught in parables, those narratives taught us metaphorical truths - like how small mustard seeds can grow into large trees. If you believe that Jesus is literal, but the parable of the mustard seed is *not* a literal story about a literal mustard seed (who knows, maybe Jesus never saw a mustard tree in his whole life), yet that parable still conveys a universal truth which teaches us a moral lesson we can apply to our lives, then you have experienced metaphorical faith. Literal faith is "God exists, is real, and created the universe in 6 days and rested on the seventh, and by that knowledge, we know that a pattern of 6 on and 1 off is important if we are to emulate God in our own lives". Metaphorical faith is "The story of God creating the universe in 6 days and resting on the 7th teaches us that a pattern of 6 on and 1 off is important to add the most good to this universe, regardless of its literal origins". In both cases, the "truth" is that there is great wisdom and power gained if we pace ourselves, and giving up 1/7th of our time for "rest", even if it is not scientifically proven with double-blind placebo controlled studies, we can have faith that it brings good to this universe. Both are leaps of faith - neither is purely rational, logical, and calculated. On another note, literal faith is also "random events led to creation". I heard something recently that resonated - the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. I know enough math to have learned Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and believe that there is impenetrable mystery in the universe - things, that no matter how many universes and eternities you had to calculate them, would be beyond sure explanation. So, even though I have literal doubts, about even the most well canonized scientific principles (say, math itself), my metaphorical faith leads me to a path of action where I act, "as if" something were true, and I believe it makes the universe a better place, regardless of its explanation. And let me be clear - I could be wrong, and the literal believers could be right. I'm not claiming infallibility, nor am I insisting that someone else is wrong. I find the arguments over fact claims to be a distraction to the most important question - how does your faith lead you to live your life? Or, I guess I could make one caveat - there are certainly religions I think are not only wrong, but terribly wrong (islam, for example), but I believe the western judeo-christian tradition is one that is at least in the running of being literally true :). I'm sure others might say the same thing about Thor, or Zoroaster, or Pele :) Thank you again for your question, I hope I was clear enough in my answer!
Sir, you attending a sacrament with rituals established by false prophets is contingent on their validity. You take sacrament for a polytheistic version of God. A Christ who somehow made the earth but isn’t God nor was exalted. A father in heaven who needs to have spirit sex to make people. And a god who has a God above. That’s a big deal and needs a GOOD reason. Otherwise you should just be a Christian and worship the infinite and eternal God
@@Psuedo-Christian-Cult Are there any moral conclusions you feel you have different from Mormons? Put aside dogma for a second, or questions about what is true about the afterlife or the supernatural - do you believe that Mormons would be any different than you in say, day-to-day interactions with other people? Would they be more cruel than you in any way? Less generous? More selfish and greedy? I'm much more interested in how you behave towards your fellow man today, than I am in an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Now, I get it, to you this question may be the difference between rejoining God in heaven, and burning in eternal pits of hell - but before we address the afterlife, do you believe there are any moral issues in the mortal world you disagree with Mormons on?
Can we all just admit that there is an abundance of eye witness testimony of things that we think are false and just call it a day? I’ll admit that the Mormon discussions panel was lacking in the logic department. They want the case to be open and shut, but they miss the fact that eye witnesses testimony is just not that strong of evidence in the first place.
bro right out of the bat the mental gymnastics that take to believe that Joseph was planning to find 3 people to testify of the book and lace it across the book of Mormon to scam people is unreal... Is this the best they got? LOL
Apologies the editing didn't come out as intended, I don't know why the screen went black for a few seconds or pictures sometimes didn't match the right times when reading quotes. It was all lined up on the editor but I should have double checked the video after exporting. Anyway I think it still came out decent enough- I'm just a perfectionist.
Question for them. If Joseph Smith Jr. induced a hallucination, why didn't the two see anything until after Martin Harris left? And why couldn't Martin Harris see anything until after leaving the others, praying and repenting? And of course they leave out the rest of Martin Harris' testimony, the Caraters Document, which has been proven to contain Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian and Yucatecan Mayan using ancient Hebrew grammar.
I'll have to watch that, I don't feel like there's much one can impeach with regards to Cowdery. His excommunication but then later return I think adds to his testimony, it doesn't take away from it.
The arguments about what the Church published and didn’t publish about historical accounts that are well documented and some that are more heresy but may be true seems rather trite and secondary if not tertiary. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph was a true prophet following the will of God as best as he could as a mortal. If Joseph was a prophet this is Gods restored church with leaders doing their best. Should they broadcast every detail that may look bad out of context if they know the Church is true and provides the best path for happiness and the only path for salvation? Would you expect all Protestant churches to say “full disclosure, Luther, the father of Protestantism published a thesis longer than the book of proverbs about how to wipe out the Jews and it was used by the Nazis as evidence God was on their side” no I don’t think so, it would undermine the great work Protestants do. It would be out of context. Should Catholics say “full disclosure, many of our popes went off the rails and had serious moral issues like money for indulgences or mistresses, or mass killings for religious differences. No, of course not. It’s history but it’s not edifying, especially out of context. The you lied to me” claim seems to mean my faith is based on everything that has no good answer right now and is grounds for me leaving. Which means eventually you are leaving. Instead focus on the primary evidences you can experience and hold in your hand like the Book of Mormon. 351 pages of profound religious teachings from an uneducated man on the western frontier on 65 working days in one draft. A book you can read and then sincerely pray about. Then with hope and faith and some humility that we can’t judge everything from our perspective, investigate the good and the bad and don’t abandoned the faith you have as you investigate what you don’t know. But at some point you should build a solid testimony that can’t be dismantled with the latest accusations especially the old recycled accusations. What of those who left the church over cement or barely or gold plates or horses or advanced cultures or dozen of other things there is now strong evidence for? Satan is called the “accuser of the brethren “ for a Reason. Jesus said all men will persecute and exclude you for a reason. All prophets have been mocked, ignored or martyred for a reason. In a way, the many never ending accusations is proof of divinity. Actual satanic cults and witchcraft and cultural idols who promote godless evil get less negative attention from the world then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Saints. Something’s I just don’t have answers for yet but most I do. Meanwhile this church and gospel fill me with joy. The Book of Mormon inspires me to love everyone and follow the Savior and believe the Bible. Why would I leave joy and light for anger and doubt? Thank God for Joseph Smith! He died a martyr restoring the gospel to a dying world that needs access to the restored gospel and priesthood power. It seemed outrageous at the time for a young farm boy with no means or prominence to proclaim that his name would be known for good or evil throughout the world but that prophecy has come true.
I think the most charitable and benefit-of-the-doubt thing that can be said in favor of the "Witnesses" is that they had faith......in Joseph Smith. That's why when Joseph Smith told them they were supposed to "see" certain things "by the power of God" ... they wanted, really wanted to see what Joseph Smith wanted them to see. Martin was always slow with the mental gear-shifting, so he required more coaching, but eventually decided that the coaching was enough and "tis enough! I can see it now!" or words to similar effect. Maybe he just got hungry and tired and wanted to go home, after hours and hours of trying to work up enough faith to see something that should have been as easy to see as a rock or a hubcap...if it had been real (of course it wasn't real). They had faith that when Joseph Smith finished up the work on the book, it would be published and become a great seller...maybe even make them a lot of money. That's why ALL of the witnesses were heavily invested in the book project. Their faith in Joseph Smith was why they agreed to let Joe and Ollie prepare a joint statement for all of them...not in their own words at all...and then affix their names under it. (Of course the prime beneficiary of the "Testimony" was...drum roll...Joseph Smith.) Subsequently, the book didn't sell well and the project morphed into a church-and-prophet business. Joe refused to share power with the original investors and they caught him in many lies. ALL (that's a capital "A", capital "L" and capital "L") of the "witnesses" left Joe's church very early on (except for Joe's own father and brothers). And all who left pretty much said that they left because Joe couldn't be trusted. Of course they had no motivation throughout the rest of their lives to publicly confess that they had (1) been liars for Joe and (2) had been fooled by Joe. Common sense tells us that you don't have to believe in a glow-in-the-dark-resurrected-man angel who takes ancient artifacts up to heaven for safekeeping to understand why the witnesses would not want to out themselves as liars and fools at some point later in their lives.
Like what Stephen said, the witnesses would have benefited greatly by admitting they never actually saw the plates. Martin Harris said he would have been a rich man if he'd done so Imagine if one of the apostles got excommunicated and then became a major wistleblower and said they knew the LDS church was false and corrupt. He could very well become the biggest hero in the ex-mo community ever. He might even get bigger than John Dehlin. If the witnesses ever denied their testimony they would have been hailed by heroes and truth tellers from critics and ex-mos until the end of time. They could have become even more famous and made more money And if all they had faith in was Joseph Smith, why did they keep believing in The Book of Mormon long after they had a major falling out with Joseph Smith? David Whitmer was highly critical of Joseph Smith for the entire rest of his life. However, he was so adament about his testimony of his witness to The Book of Mormon that he had his testimony written on his grave (so that even in death he'd comtinue to tesrify of The Book of Mormon) That's an extremely weird chain of events for someone who's entire faith in The Book of Mormon is rooted in his faith of Joseph Smith
@@TravPlayI have been running all the electric appliances in my home as well as my Tesla on piezoelectricity for years. I even sell back my extra electricity to the power company. The universal theory is true. 🔥
@@sleepingrhino You're funny, but also unlearned. Just Google piezoelectricity and learn. A household grill lighter uses the kinetic energy within a silica crystal to create a spark. That's not what your Tesla uses.
look for or against, this space needs more debates. I hate "RESPONSE TO THIS" or "RESPONSE TO THAT" lets have a good ole fashion back and forth, its healthy and its what both sides are secretly craving.
I think debates or discussions are useful, in this case there were many points I wanted to respond too which I think I could only have adequately done in a response video
I don't think David or Martin ever claimed to have any other supernatural or spiritual experiences except this one time. Neither David or Martin did any treasure digging. Oliver had some sort of experience before he met Joseph which brought him to Joseph's door. This defining rod for water dowsing is not what the prophecy was about, it was a rod to help translate. No one ever says the saw Oliver using the rod, no one ever asks him to find water for them, after all there is plenty of water around. The mention of Oliver's rod is found in a prophecy in the 1833 Book of Commandments. Joseph and Oliver are told they will be given more to translate in the future. Then of course they obtained the scrolls for the Book of Abraham in 1835. Oliver was there and helped with the transition of the scrolls, it would not surprise me if Oliver actually did it using his rod, whatever that means.
Citing the possible use of the divining rod by Oliver as a possibility in connection with the "translation" of the "scrolls for the Book of Abraham"? In support of the original official narrative relating to the translation of the gold plates? I would have thought that referring to a divinely inspired translation of the Chandler papyrus scrolls is now as outdated as claiming that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians". I guess there are schisms within schisms among those who believe that Joseph Smith was a real prophet who really translated ancient texts.
The original wording of that "revelation" reads as follows: "...remember this is thy gift now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout Behold it hath told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands." "Sprout" was another word for "divining rod" of the day. Sidney Rigdon edited the passage to read: "...remember this is your gift now this is not all for you have another gift which is the gift of working with the rod Behold it has told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this rod to work in your hands." In the 1833Book of Commandments (the predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants), the wording was revised again: "Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God." In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, it was revised to read: "D&C 8:6-8-Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God." Clearly, that passage was revised over time in order to delete the inference to folk-magic practices and change it into a more acceptable Biblical reference to the "rod of Aaron." Those multiple revisions would not not have been necessary if not to suppress the folk-magic aspects. You also wrote: "The mention of Oliver's rod is found in a prophecy in the 1833 Book of Commandments. Joseph and Oliver are told they will be given more to translate in the future. Then of course they obtained the scrolls for the Book of Abraham in 1835. Oliver was there and helped with the transition of the scrolls" The Book of Abraham a clumsy, demonstrable fraud, so clearly Oliver Cowdery's rod did not aid in its production. Also, Cowdery had left the church in Missouri in 1838. Joseph Smith did not produce the short document which he called The Book of Abraham until 1842, in Nauvoo. So Cowdery had nothing to do with that production. All of the "interpretations" of the characters on the "fascimiles" and the claims about what the papyrus contained were done by Smith, with no help from Cowdery or anyone else.
@@randyjordan5521 When God calls a prophet Satan will call ten false ones. If God gives his prophet a seer stone Satan will give a crystal ball to his prophets. Moses had a rod, Pharaoh's soothsayer had their's too. Now bear with me here; I found a book at the OliverCowdrey website about Joseph's and Oliver's supposé treasure hunting called, The Rodsmen. Here is an example of how it is written; "It is not known exactly when Alvah.... became a rodsman, but he may have had family connections in Vermont .....in fact, Alvah Beaman may well have accompanied Smith to the Great Bend of the Susquehanna and there applied his rodsman skills as a supplement to Smith's seer-stone diving of treasure sites...additional fact that Oliver himself possessed "the gift" of the witch hazel divining rod, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Oliver and Alvah would have had much in common, long before they both became Mormons..." "It is not known exactly...may well have...entirely reasonable to assume" is not history and in fact is really lying. The false assumption is everyone is guilty because they lived within 5 to 10 miles of each other and might have known someone who maybe was a rodsmen. Even within families some will believe and others not, plus even the most brilliant of men can believe that a dowsing rod works. My Great Grandfather Issac Sopp lived out on the Mojave Desert. During WW2 the government came in and took his land to build Edwards Air Force Base. They had a problem, they couldn't find water. So they came to Issac to ask for his help, Grandpa pulled out his rod and lo there was water. Now you said Joseph changed the revelation to try and step away from folk-magic practices, why? Why would he and Oliver stop believing they could find water with a rod? Lots of people believed so why did they feel the need to hide it? I have yet to read anywhere where Oliver was seen using his rod in any capacity. Show me anyone asking him to find gold or water or anything. It seems like with the Urim and Thummin he hid it away. It does say in the revelation that he used it to receive personal revelation and it would be used in the future to translate. There is no written explanation on how the Book of Abraham was translated, but Oliver was involved. You are wrong about the date. Joseph acquired the scrolls in July of 1835 it was translated at least up to chapter 3 some time between Aug and September, in time for the 1835 edition of the D&C. Abraham 3:13 And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun In Sec 96 of the 1835 D&C, there is an added heading to an 1833 revelation, the heading uses symbolic names; "A Revelation to Enoch [JS], showing the order of the city or stake of Zion, Shinehah [Kirtland], given for a sample to the saints in Kirtland, June, 1833." The name Shinehah or the sun is fitting for Kirtland. The sun represents the Celestial Kingdom and it is in Kirtland where the keys to the gathering of Israel were given. You can find a paper at Pearlofgreatprice.org which explains how the word Shinehah is Egyptian and found in the Pyramid Texts. The Book of Abraham is a beautiful book, it explains our pre-existence, what is going on in Zech 3, where evil comes from and who the elect are.
I have been impressed with your knowledge about the witnesses and the applicable documents. I wish that they had had you on this panel, as I think you would have contributed a meaningful perspective to the discussion. The way you've been able to anticipate documentary evidence or questions with your guests on this subject had been nothing short of impressive evidence of the time and effort you've spent on understanding this topic. 12:00 You've experienced a faith crisis. I can't imagine you don't see why this is seen as weak evidence of "miraculous prophecy" to someone evaluating Mormonism with the same level of skepticism they would impose on any other such claim. I remember being excited about these passages as a believer too, but, as someone who has seen the other side of the coin, I can't imagine you don't see the problems here. 18:15 Certainly none of them were hostile to the work, and all of them stood to gain something from it. Considering the magical worldview that these men held in addition to that, yeah, it's not hard to see how they could be induced into a state of religious trance/fervor/reverie that they would consider a vision of an angel. There are all sorts of people who just seem to have knack for understanding how to... guide the emotions and mental states of other people. Such would not require superlative or supernatural gifts for Joseph Smith. 19:20 Did they attempt to shake the angel's hand? I wish that I was asking that with mirth, but I'm not. Joseph Smith provided the test for physical interactions with angelic beings, and if that test was not performed, there is no way that the witnesses could be sure that they saw an angel from God or from another source. And I don't think we can excuse their ignorance of that test here, especially considering the import of their role as witnesses. 23:35 Nah, this doesn't have to indicate conspiracy. It just indicates that they were in a position where they would more probably be predisposed to affirming or supporting Joseph's claims/work. This is a sign that they are intrinsically more friendly to the supernatural claim. And there are no hostile witnesses. 33:30 That one anomaly in your story would actually be a HUGE deal. It would raise so many questions for me about the other 19 testimonies you had given. Why the variation? Were you speaking to a different audience? Were you going through something at the time of the variant statement that affected your lucidity? So, so many questions would come from that. As you're a living person, I would want to do some cross-examination, really tease out the potential causes of the anomaly. If you were a not living person, and all we had were those 20 statements, that 1 anomalous statement would absolutely be a huge deal for my study of your story, especially if it gave significant recontextualization of your other statements. And that's the issue that the LDS Discussions panel will present here. 35:00 You're strawmanning Nemo here. He's not saying that they aren't going into as much detail in those 95% of cases, he's saying that they're giving another detail, a different detail, in those 5% that is useful for understanding the whole. And they aren't saying that the witnesses don't believe that the angel appeared to them. They are saying that the manner in which the angel appeared them, which the witnesses would have believed was totally real, matters in how we evaluate the reliability of their statement(s) for establishing the historicity of the matter at hand. I don't think anyone on that panel is doubting that Martin Harris or John Whitmer or others experienced something that they understood to be the manifestation of an angel with golden plates. The issue is whether that interpretation of their experience is reliable. 39:40 Wouldn't that lack of a heavenly light component be consistent with biblical manifestations of angels or divine beings, though? The young man at the tomb in Mark? Jesus on the road to Emmaus? The angels who visit Lot? 44:50 Martin appears to have been pretty competent as a businessman. He also appears to have been incredibly credulous. Dude probably would LOVE the History Channel today, especially Ancient Aliens. Both those things can be true. If I had a good friend who was hard-working, honest, compassionate, and competent in their progression who claimed to be abducted by aliens, I would be pretty skeptical about their claim of having been abducted by aliens. 48:00 Sunk cost fallacy is a powerful drug. Once he sank funds into the production of the Book of Mormon, Martin became financially biased to the text/movement. This is part of what makes tithing such a powerful tool for religions to keep people in the tradition. Same notes really for Cowdery and D. Whitmer. 1:04:00 You've said a couple of times now that "eye of faith" is a scriptural term. While it does appear in the Book of Mormon, I don't see any biblical references to that phrase. "Spiritual eyes" seems to only appear in PoGP's Moses. And "seeing in vision" may be too generic, but I find no scriptural uses of that phrase (even with different tense conjugations applied). In other words, all these phrases appear to be extra-biblical, with the accuracy of the description "scriptural" being anachronistic to the experience of the witnesses. Okay, this comment is long enough. I'll watch the rest. May comment again if something especially interesting comes up. I'll just say that Hume's razor applies to the three and the eight witnesses.
I find the "spiritual eyes = not real" argument dumb. If every one of your senses is experiencing hallucinations, how the hell would someone be able to distinguish whether or not it actually happened outside of their own mind? If they applied this standard consistently it would make more sense, but even in the video when they quote Harris(?) saying that *all* of these experiences must be viewed with spiritual eyes, they laugh and say "Except for Paul, Alma the Younger, etc" 🤦♂️. That's Harris' point! Those experiences *were* seen with spiritual eyes, and that doesn't mean that those heavenly beings didn't actually appear to them. To me, it seems clear that "spiritual eyes" refers to either some form of transfiguration at one end of the spectrum or simply "the eye of faith" on the other, which makes sense considering that that one witness left because he didn't feel worthy or whatever it was
"Hallucinations" is not the correct description of the most natural, common-sense explanation. If someone tells you to picture in your mind a huge pink elephant, a white unicorn with a rainbow horn and a little girl riding a bright red tricycle in circles around them...can you do it? Can you develop a visual scene in your mind...in your imagination? Most people can. Is it a hallucination? Obviously not. Anyone who reads a book, like a Harry Potter book, is constantly picturing things in their mind, as they read descriptions in the book. It would be deceptive to label such things as "hallucinations". Now, think about the official "Testimony" of the Three Witnesses. It's very short. It's not even their own words (for Martin and David). Joseph and Oliver prepared it for them and made it say what Joseph Smith wanted it to say. When you cut out all the flowery, preachy fluff that contains no substance regarding the actual claimed experience, you're left with three simple things, completely lacking detail: (1) they "saw" an angel; (2) they "saw" plates with engravings on them; (3) they could only see these things with the power of God (supernatural power), not of man (ordinary human capability). That's it. That's all. And it's not even their own words. It's what Joseph Smith wanted them to say they saw. And every element of what they "saw" is just one of the most basic, basic, basic elements of the story that JS had already been pumping into their heads for months. No hallucinations necessary. No genuine spiritually real experience necessary. The notion that it could only be (a) weird and inexplicable hallucinations or (b) a real experience involving a real angel and a real stack of gold plates containing real engravings...is nonsense. From the historical record, we can't even know if they even really went through the motions of pretending to see those things. Faithful Mormons are simply choosing to believe the words that Joseph Smith approved for them to say, when Joseph Smith was the main beneficiary of the "Testimony". Then, weirdly, faithful Mormons choose to believe that the fact that the witnesses did not confess to being liars for Joe and/or fools for Joe at some point in their later lives must be accepted as 100% confirmation that the witness statement is true. Except for Joe's own father and brothers, ALL of the "witlesses" left the church, making it clear that they did so because they believed that Joe couldn't be trusted. Well, they would know.
@@TEAM__POSEID0N Them having imagined it is an even dumber explanation than them having hallucinations. I can't believe you think imagining huge pink elephants is in any way comparable to the descriptions they gave of seeing an angel and the gold plates. This theory of yours completely ignores the data. They claimed on multiple occasions that they saw the plates as clear as they could see them holding their hand in front of their face. Sorry, but "imagination" doesn't fit that description. And what, you think Joseph and Oliver prepared the their testimony and the others simply... didn't notice that it was twisted? You think they went their whole lives and just never used their own words to describe it? Did you even *watch* the video? And once again, them leaving the Church does *nothing* to harm their testimonies. If anything, it makes them *stronger* . They left the Church, and *still* never denied their testimonies about seeing the gold plates. So what if they changed their mind about Joseph being a prophet, why didn't they do so with the gold plates?
You're not supposed to talk about such things. For true believers, Martin Harris's statements and comments only count when he's confirming that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the gold plates were real and the glow-in-the-dark resurrected-man-angel who hauled things back and forth between heaven and earth and took away the gold plates was real. Everything else is "anti-Mormon lies, lies and more lies".
Whether the witnesses saw plates is not nearly as important as what we're asked to believe. That thousands of years ago Jewish tribes crossed the ocean and wrote two "histories" (because they knew 116 pages would be lost). That Smith chatted with Bible characters, many considered legendary - Adam, Abraham, Moses, . That an angel showed him gold plates that only he could view in a language linguists say has never existed and "translated"with a rock in a top hat. That verses from Luke appeared in the Book of Mormon despite being written 600 years later and parts of the KJV wrongly translated appeared in the Book of Mormon. That Smith was a prophet yet "mistranslated" an Egyptian scroll he claimed was written by Abraham.
Most people inside the faith bubble have been taught to believe that having faith in this fairy tale is automatically credited to them as a virtue. Refusing to apply common sense and refusing to acknowledge that they would not apply the same suspension of disbelief to any similarly far-fetched claims from any competing faith tradition or cult...is in their minds something that earns them gold stars and brownie points in heaven. Even just looking at only the "Testimony" of the "Three Witnesses" reveals how little there is there for any serious and sensible person to regard as evidence of anything. The witnesses couldn't even be bothered to provide separate, independently written detailed accounts of their experience. All we get is a short statement, lacking details, prepared for them by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (and even apparently having their names initially affixed under it for them by JS and OC). And of course JS is the person who benefits most from the "Testimony". The only real details (after subtracting the preachy, flowery "be it known unto all nations, kindreds..." type of religio-linguistic fluff): (1) they saw an angel; (2) they saw plates and engravings on plates; (3) they saw these things by the power of God, not of man. That's it. No details. No separate questions. All supernatural. All just elements derived from the story that JS had already been telling them for months. Nobody who is not a Whitmer (by blood or marriage), a Smith or a Harris (all of whom are already deeply invested in the book project and hoping it will turn out to be a big seller) will ever be allowed to "see the angel"...or "see the plates and engravings"...because the magic angel magically hauled everything up to heaven.
The story of the lost 166 pages is a huge "tell" that the BOM is a fake. To explain: If God had all of those ancient prophets record their dealings on those golden plates for centuries, and that information was so vital to the salvation mankind here in these latter days, when why didn't God just prevent the 116 pages from being stolen in the first place? Couldn't God have just struck the would-be thieves dead, or sent the angel to give them a personal conversion experience, like Paul on the road to Damascus? Why did God have to instruct Joseph to start all over and translate from a different set of plates? Taking that line of thinking even further, why did God even need Joseph to translate the plates to begin with? Couldn't Moroni have presented Joseph with a manuscript of the ancient record on modern paper, already translated into English? And couldn't Moroni have given Joseph a few gold nuggets which could pay for the printing? Or maybe enough gold nuggets that Joseph could buy his own print shop and hire his own printers? And if it was so important for the world to have the BOM, couldn't God just have thousands of angels floating all over the globe, dropping a finished, translated BOM into every household, in every reader's own language?
@@TEAM__POSEID0N " Nobody who is not a Whitmer (by blood or marriage), a Smith or a Harris (all of whom are already deeply invested in the book project and hoping it will turn out to be a big seller) will ever be allowed to "see the angel"." As Mark Twain sarcastically quipped, “I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.”
@@randyjordan5521 Yes. I notice that several of the true believers get all worked up and excited about the Mary Whitmer experience. Me: "Oh, great...another Whitmer witness." I'm still looking for the relevant "prophecy" in scripture. I think it's supposed to go something like this: "In the mouth of 7, 10, 20 or 200 Whitmers shall the truth of Joseph Smith's gold-plates-and-glowing-angel story be established."
Funny thing about Mary's experience is that Moroni just appeared uninvited, not glowing and looking like a bum, while Mary was shoveling cow dung or something. But for special witness Martin, Moroni wasn't willing to put on a show for him for hours until Martin shaped up and got himself worked up into a full and frothy lather of faith, pursuant to intense coaching from Joe, who was telling Martin exactly what Martin was supposed to see.
You are becoming an expert at mental gymnastics. I tried warning you that this was a Fool's errand trying to defend a faith that has systematically lied to you about everything. But you do you
I don't agree Richard. In this video I'm responding against critiques of the witnesses which I don't think hold up and showing the majority of their primary and secondary statements which they don't acknowledge. If a positive case can be made for LDS truth claims that should be presented, as well as the critical case against and apologetic responses to it. People should have as much of the data available before making a final conclusion. It just takes time to explore each topic! But when it comes to the witnesses and others usually, there's often Two sides or information/evidence critics don't address. Or other interpretations. If you conclude from the last 45 mins of the video you still reject their testimonies then that's people's decisions, but we should be aware of their collective statements. If there are responses to criticisms they should be presented and provided and I though their arguments weren't good in this video. People can decide if they hold up or not. In this topic compared to others I don't find the criticisms against the witnesses statements of the plates strong or that they were being fully transparent.
To me, the witnesses are one of the most interesting and simultaneously boring topics of Church history. From a purely secular perspective, despite all the facts, I don’t think anything can be concluded at all.
Actually, the fact that the Book of Mormon is a fraud negates the witnesses' alleged testimonies. If there were no ancient Nephites or Lamanites, there was no angel Moroni and no golden plates.
2:54:00 I feel like you're really stretching what is "prophesied" about the witnesses in the Book of Mormon. At no point does the text suggest that the three would not deny their testimony. In fact, the fate of the three after they bear witness of seeing is the plates is completely absent from the Book of Mormon. As for "prophesying" of the three witnesses, it seems wholly unremarkable to me that this notion starts to appear at the tail end of the translation process when Joseph would have had time to consider this act and who the three would be. That he chose people who had acted as scribes or who had otherwise invested time, money, and other resources into the project as witnesses is also rather unremarkable. It is worth stating that there are no public denials of their testimonies. I seem to recall the LDS Discussions panel acknowledged as much. However, understanding that the witnesses came from a worldview where magic was considered literally real is important. It is also important to note that there other claims of miraculous events that are even better attested than the BoM witnesses. And that's where Hume's razor comes into play and is so important. Even if there is a tiny, miniscule chance that these three men were mistaken about having seen an actual literal physical angel, that tiny, miniscule chance is still orders of magnitude more probable than that they actually did see an actual literal physical angel.
I'm not stretching the prophecies, I don't say they will never deny is prophesied. I just find it quite astounding and unlikely/improbable that Joseph prophesied this and pulled off a mass hallucination upon the 3 witnesses, all seeing the angel and plates and later none ever denying it. That's quite a thing to pull off. If I were a fraud I wouldn't do that.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I misunderstood your statement then. Apologies for that. I would just refer to the rest of the statement then that isn't referent to any potential discrepancy with the text. Getting three people who were in a position to be predisposed to the experience, likely given reason to be excited about the experience and then providing them a statement to define that experience. I'm not suggesting conspiracy, just that human suggestibility is much more an issue here than your argument is giving weight to. These sorts of displays are pretty common to religious figureheads. Muhammad has splitting the moon. There are all sorts of catholic saints that have their miracle claims and testifiers. Even L. Ron Hubbard has the e-meter, which is supposed to directly measure a person's thetan level. Then there's really wild stuff, like the miracle of the sun. In the Mormon movement, James Strang has his witnesses (and took the same sorts of risks that Joseph did). And this is why I think Huming this is so important. Witnesses can have experiences that are real for them, but which do not adequately evidence the thing they claim it does.
You seem very knowledgeable about the documents. I've just personally never understood, even when I was a believer, why anyone considered the witness testimony to be good evidence. Miracle claims are common among all sorts of faiths with contrary claims to Mormonism. It seems your entire point is that the witnesses truly believed they had their experience happened (whether in the body or out of the body). Side note, but you should notice that your validation of the witnesses experience was largely based entirely on Mormon beliefs in angels--including your use of Book of Mormon scriptures. By doing so, you're using entirely circular logic. Those things are the things you're attempting to prove true with the evidence you think the witnesses are. You're assuming it's true to prove it true in a very obvious sense. Do you see that? Back to my point on the witnesses sincerely believing. Why should I care about this as being evidence if I cannot dismiss similar claims from other faiths? The fact that other people in these mens' community thought they were trustworthy doesn't much when we know definitively they believed in these folk beliefs that you do not accept. More special pleading. The entire point of understanding the context of who these men were (and it's undeniable they each had participated in the folk magic world, so I don't care how much people who were also very likely participating in the same activities you and I both consider ridiculous thought they were). You're right that their involvement in the folk magic doesn't automatically disprove their testimony, but it certainly changes the context. I suppose I could put it this way. You keep making the point that these "visionary" or "second sight" accounts from the witnesses don't matter because they're consistent with the event literally happening. You need to see the reverse side. Because we know these men were believers in folk magic, I can accept fully that 95% of their statements described this as a literal event. I can accept they sincerely believe that the event literally occurred. But their belief in these beliefs that I do not share with them makes me a lot less certain that I am willing to believe them in a literal way. Because I know they don't share a literal experience in the way we do centuries later. And I don't even have to believe this was some hallucinatory experience. I've seen first hand from my time in religion how collaborative spirituality can be. Would you be willing to discuss epistemology with me on these questions? Not the documents but the actual reasoning behind valuing and weighing the evidence? I'm a practicing attorney and I think you and I having a discussion about what the evidence actually means would be fun.
Hi, it is true miracle or visionary claims aren’t exclusive to the witnesses. I’m not entirely dismissive of other people’s visionary claims, e.g Mohammed, Near Death Experiences etc. I tend to like to listen to accounts myself, weigh up if I think they are sincere or not and believable to me. So I begin with a bias that I’m open to supernatural, miracles appearing. The point of my video isn’t to prove the witnesses really saw the angel and the plates, I stated at the beginning I can’t know that. I also acknowledge it is rational, understandable and reasonable to reject their testimonies/experience. I responded because I felt that their arguments trying to undermine the witnesses credibility or testimony not strong, wanting to represent their testimony accurately and collectively. Even if it was a mass hallucination, that could be the case. My point is I feel that focusing on the minority of 2nd or 3rd hand accounts, this explains what the witnesses meant of their experience isn’t fair. What I find more compelling about the witnesses, why I'm not so quick to reject or deny is the fact all 3 experienced it, which it's statistically unlikely or difficult to replicate something like this happening, the fact it's promised/prophesied in the BOM and that none ever deny- even after leaving and if it was just a hallucination or just imagined in their mind or enduced through Joseph, I think they would have questioned it more to me. Also the fact that the majority of their statements are very consistent gives me reason to take them more seriously. I acknowledge they had a magical worldview, a better argument is to say they had a visionary mindset and were believers in the supernatural so were more susceptible to having a hallucination/vision experience. I’m not trying to prove true the witnesses experience, I’m trying to show what they consistently said about it that it wasn’t second sight, a trance, hallucination or hypnosis to them, they describe it in a very literal and matter of fact way. When I first lost my faith and left the church I judged the witnesses testimony based on only knowing the few quotes talked about, not being aware or considering all of the others. When I first was exposed to many of the others as an exmormon I had to acknowledge being ‘intellectually honest’ the vast majority of their statements, they are adamant and know they saw the angel and plates, the 8 saw and handled, and that critics were only focusing on a minority of statements. Informed consent is important, I think people should be informed on what the witnesses had to say collectively to make an informed decision whether to believe or not believe their testimonies. That is totally fine if people want to reject their testimony because of a magical worldview. My point about spiritual eyes, vision or second sight accounts. First the witnesses never describe it as second sight. If critics or unbelievers want to interpret their experience based upon a small number of quotes using language of spiritual eyes or vision and then say ah they didn’t really see, it wasn’t literal. You can interpret it that way, but looking at their statements collectively it is clear that isn’t how they interpreted it, they saw with their eyes and heard with their hears and it was real to them. Second the words spiritual eyes or vision doesn't mean they believe it just happened in their mind, that's not how they describe it. You can’t know the way they describe their experience as literal is different from ours, that’s your view or opinion but you can’t know that in any factual way. Sure I’d be up for a discussion about epistemology. So would you want to discuss epistemology when it comes to the witnesses statements, or belief in God and Mormonism in general?
@@mormonismwiththemurph I’m open for a discussion about either. I’m very curious about your comments in response to me pointing out the circle in your logic. You assumed the truth of Mormon scriptures describing visionary experiences in consideration of a piece of supposed evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon. You literally quoted from the Book of Mormon (multiple passages, I think) to prove true the Book of Mormon. Do you acknowledge that? To your response, if your entire point is that these people legitimately believed that they had an experience-I just struggle to see the point. If you cannot prove the experience true, and people from different faith traditions can have completely contradictory miraculous claims-how is this evidence to you at all? Have you ever researched the Miracle of Fatima? Far more than three people (having two separate experiences, which you keep omitting though you acknowledged this in the video) experienced something. I can even accept those people may not have been intending to deceive but, like the witnesses, truly experienced something. But we know from the documentary evidence that the sun did not stand still barely 100 years ago-despite the fact that many more than three claimed it. I agree with you entirely on informed consent (which John and Co. openly disclosed near the opening of their video they were talking about the minority of accounts so they seem to as well). You jump too quickly between two ends of what is not a true dichotomy. One need not only accept their testimony as literal fact or outright reject it because of the witnesses’ magical worldview-that was not my claim. The point is the context. I listened to your entire presentation and can accept completely that the witnesses were sincere and generally trustworthy (those seemed to be your two large points). Neither of those things changes that context. Your statement that I cannot know the way they describe the literality of their experience is different from ours isn’t just an assumption. You’re right I do not know it definitively-but that’s a shift of the burden of proof. Believers are the ones claiming this is evidence, so they would bear the burden that the context is the same/similar and it simply was not. It’s a probabilistic case given we know what else these men believed in that does not line up with reality.
@@reddish22 ' You assumed the truth of Mormon scriptures describing visionary experiences in consideration of a piece of supposed evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon. You literally quoted from the Book of Mormon (multiple passages, I think) to prove true the Book of Mormon. Do you acknowledge that?' I'm not sure what passages you mean? Is it the ones mentioned about the prophecies of the 3 witnesses? If so I only highlighted that if Joseph is the author and predicted all 3 men would have a vision/hallucination, that is quite a bold and confident thing to promise, put in scriptures and then pull off. I personally find it improbable, but not impossible. It was to represent their statements and character more thoroughly, to clarify the spiritual vs natural eyes and if the witnesses testified to the seeing the angel and plates in reality. I see it as evidence or an argument in favour to the reality of the plates and authenticity of the BOM- their lives and testimony seem sincere and emphatic, I personally find them compelling. But if you don't that's fine. I know they acknowledged they'd be focusing primarily on the 5%, but I am the sort of person who wants to read as much of the data as possible to come to my own interpretation. If you're only provided a few statements that support a conclusion the presenter wants you to come to, I find that not being transparent. Which is why in my response I wanted to not edit out those quotes and many of their arguments, so people can hear their arguments too. It is important to be aware of the context and culture for sure. I acknowledge that visions seem to occur more during the 19th century than happens today, so that is a reason to have some skepticism. In a court case you'd know as a lawyer- witness testimony can be viewed as direct evidence- I don't believe they can be impeached for bias, conspiracy or inconsistent statement, however I know because they're claiming something supernatural one might be more cautious and sceptical. I don't see the testimony of the witnesses us undeniable evidence or proof, but I definitely take it seriously as I read their statements. Why don't we chat online and we can discuss points to cover in a discussion :) let me check if you're on my fb
@@mormonismwiththemurph " What I find more compelling about the witnesses, why I'm not so quick to reject or deny is the fact all 3 experienced it, which it's statistically unlikely or difficult to replicate something like this happening, the fact it's promised/prophesied in the BOM" LOL. You do realize that if the BOM is fiction written by Joseph Smith, then it was he who made that "prophecy," and thus your point is circular reasoning, right?
I find it hilarious the LDS tries to defend a book that they don't actually believe in. If the BOM was somehow true( which it is not), then the rest of mormonism is not. The reason for this is that the newer LDS "revelations" flat out contradict the BOM.
nice. You gave a lot of clear evidence in your comment. Not sure which "revelations" you are referring to. Care to list some? Or did your paid pastor not give you any to share at your last "how to tract to Mormons" workshop lol
@@GwPoKo yes I have examples. maybe you should keep your mocking mouth shut before it gets you into trouble. how well do you know the articles of faith? 2nd Nephi 2:21 is a complete contradiction to one of them. i can go on, but the point should be clear. I know what I am talking about, especially better than you.
It is not. Did you listen to the whole video? Murph is defending the Latter-day Saint faith's truth claims by pointing out the weaknesses in (and his disagreements with) the video by the 'LDS DIscussions' podcast. Perhaps you just watched a clip of the critical video from LDS Discussions?
This is the best channel discussing Mormonism. I’ve come to different conclusions and no longer believe, but I can always count on this channel to be balanced, discuss hard topics, and still use evidence to give people a reason to have faith.
I wonder why the anti rhetoric leaves out room for faith. It’s almost like a new Faith position has emerged. It takes quite a lot of faith in the anti position to believe that Joseph Smith pulled all this off without divine help.
@purkinje7894 I love your comment!
Any religions are useless without faith.
I really appreciate that!
Yeah, this is the one apologetic channel I regularly follow because of how Murph is so good at presenting his sources and understanding the other side. I've got very different conclusions from him, but I really appreciate his approach to things as well.
It's about time someone publicly tackles LDSdiscussions. I have done so on a personal level, but it hasn't been on a public platform. Thank you.
Side note and pet peeve: the name "LDS discussions" is, in my opinion, manipulative and disingenuous. It appears to be meant to draw in the LDS crowd, thinking they will get some faith promotion, only to be hit with contextually questionable interpretations and half truths
Thanks!
Thank you so much!
Haven’t watched this yet just a couple minutes in but I can tell you Mr Dehlin is about as interested in informed consent as my cat is interested in Shakespeare.
BRO 💀💀
It's really ironic how critics accuse the Church of hiding negative information and then proceed to hide every possible faith-affirming fact in their telling of the "real" church history.
That's not an "accusation." It is a demonstrable fact that the LDS church has proactively hidden tons of negative historical information over the years. To name just two of many: the facts of Joseph Smith's seer-stone-in-the-hat business to pretend to "see" buried treasure from at least 1822 ro 1826; and the dirty details of Smith's plural marriage practice. The church has only begun to admit to details of those items over the last decade or so because of the proliferation of the information which church members can find on the internet. Church leaders chose to publish a series of essays on their website re: those issues and others as an attempt to "inoculate" rank and file church members---meaning, presenting the information in such a manner as to try to prevent members from leaving the church when they learn the true facts.
I recommend you study the September 6. All the historians that have left once they got knee deep into the Joseph Smith papers and there's more coming but it's obvious the lack of knowledge you actually have about your own religion. Shame. If you say you believe something and have a testimony of it and know nothing about it that's on you
@Jsppydays what makes you think I don't know about the September 6, or the Joseph Smith papers? Have you considered the possibility that I have viewed the same information as you but come away with a different conclusion?
@@Jsppydays sorry bub. I know about those.
To be fair, there were a couple of faith affirming quotes they shared.
However, they absolutely did hide the strong majority of information that affirms the believing perspective.
A lot of critics know that when you lay out all the information about there regarding the witnesses the believing positìon is comfortably the stronger one
I love the last hour of the episode. It really is like the Three Witnesses are crying out from the dust, imploring us to believe their testimonies of the natural and spiritual reality of their experience.
I thought it important to represent their statements
It would be nice if the witnesses could cry out from the dust and explain to us why things like horses, elephants, chariots, and forged metal tools and weaponry are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, when none of those things existed in Pre-Columbian America.
@@randyjordan5521straw man. Thank you again Randy. Once again, you deviate from the actual issue at hand
@@jeremims9044 LOL. My remark is not a "straw man" at all. It goes to the heart of the issue. If the Book of Mormon is a fraudulent work, containing numerous historical and archaeological anachronisms such as those I mentioned above, then obviously there was no angel Moroni and no golden plates. So the logical deduction from that is that the "golden plates witnesses" were either liars or were duped.
Considering that Joseph Smith had previously spent 5-6 years working a folk-magic treasure-hunting con game, for which he had gotten arrested and tried in court, that tells us that he possessed the persuasive talents to be able to fool people into believing that they had seen things which they had not actually seen.
@@jeremims9044 I understand your dilemma, jeremims. You have to go through life pretending that the most plausible explanation for the existence of the "Book of Mormon" is an origin story that includes magic translation crystals, a magic rock in a hat, a glow-in-the-dark resurrected man angel who magically makes ancient artifacts disappear (by hauling them up to heaven) and "witnesses" of the angel and the gold plates who couldn't be bothered (or allowed) to write down their own testimonies independently and in detail and instead were manipulated into endorsing, after the fact, a statement prepared for them to ensure that they would only say what Joseph Smith wanted them to say, which testimony only contained the most basic elements of a story that Joseph had already been telling them for months. "There's an angel. The angel gots in his hands them gold plates, see. You see? It's by the power of God that you see, not of man" I don't envy your task at all, so I understand the over-confident bluster when you try to push illogical arguments.
Martin’s separate experience is more damning for the mass hallucination theory crowd. Joseph would have had to gain two separate hallucinations that happened to produce the same hallucination of the plates and Moroni.
What "mass hallucinations"? You're over-complicating things by several orders of magnitude...all to promote faith no doubt. Look at the "Testimony". Take out the pseudo-religious preachy stuff of no substance and literally the only thing that the three "Witnesses" claim to have seen (lacking any kind of detail) is the following: (1) They saw an angel; (2) They saw plates and engravings on the plates; and (3) What they saw was shown to them by the power of God, and not of man. That's it. ALL of it.... ALL of it consists of elements of the story that Joe had been literally pumping into their heads for months. Joe wanted them to say that they saw the glow-in-the-dark-resurrected-man angel named Moroni. Joe wanted them to say that they saw the plates and engravings. Joe wanted them to say it so badly that he and Ollie prepared the actual words that he wanted the witnesses to say in a joint statement to be accepted by them and endorsed by them AFTER it was prepared for them. Where are you getting this "mass hallucination" stuff from? The "Testimony" of the eight Witlesses is just as dubious and was prepared for them in the same way. Everyone, whether a Whitmer (including HP and OC), a Smith (including OC) or a Harris was heavily invested in Joe's book project and were hoping that the book would be a big seller. The dots are all there to be connected. But I guess if you're wearing foggy faith goggles the dots just can't be seen.
I suggest that you read the legal affidavits of Martin's wife Lucy and her sister Abigail in order to determine his credibility.
@@randyjordan5521 you still have two more witnesses to deal with. They have outstanding credibility verified through multiple sources.
@@TEAM__POSEID0Nlol this diatribe of yours certainly sounds like over complication by several orders of magnitude
@@randyjordan5521ah. Randy randy randy. You again. My friend. And you decide to go to the Hurlbut affidavits? Pity. You mean affidavits from the same individual that was basically threatening Joseph and lost a court case against him because of it? The same Hurbut who gathered affidavits from all of the Spaulding witnesses? Are you going to come out and say you have solid evidence for the Spaulding theory now?
Thanks so much!!!!!!!
You're welcome!
@@mormonismwiththemurph I always enjoy your content.
@@clearstonewindows thanks!
I have an increasing aversion to John Dehlin. He seems to have an increasing desire to mock the LDS Church while pretending with less less success to stay on the fairness side of the line.
Anyone, including Dehlin, could easily be actually fair in their criticisms of the LDS Church if they only wanted to.
I didn't find this fair or accurate hence my need to respond
Hey Murph! I enjoy your podcast. Question: I realize you cherry picked a particular episode to critique, but in watching this entire series with “Mike”, which I find very compelling, do you at all find it challenging to maintain your faith?
John Delin having a problem with Martin not seeing a ressurrected being with the other 2 present because, according to Delin, a physical being would be able to be seen no matter what, makes me seriously question Delin's ability to look at things from multiple angles, or he's not being genuine. Just off the top of my head (and I haven't listened to Murphs answer) I can think of at least 2 possibilities: 1) the angel simply has not shown up yet *because* Martin is present(this answer is so simple that it really blows my mind Delin didn't think of it) and 2) in order to see heavenly beings one must have their vision "transfigured". This could be an interdimensional thing or otherwise.
I think you're missing the point. Of course, according to the official narrative (much of which didn't make it into the official testimony statements that were prepared for the witnesses so that they would say what JS wanted them to say), the "reason" why the angel delayed putting on his light-and-magic show was because Martin was not worthy due to not having enough faith. Skeptics (i.e. people living in the real world) understand the faithful "explanation". But it still makes no sense.
The point of being a "witness" would be to confirm that the gold plates and the angel are real, with a real physical existence. You don't need faith to see a hubcap or a garbage pail lid. It would have been even more impressive if Harris was a skeptic who was starting to doubt...and then Moroni (the glow-in-the-dark resurrected man-angel) showed up anyway. Isn't that the way these miracle things often happen in religious texts? Instead, we get the story of Martin having to be coached for a long time until he finally claims that he can "see" it. Of course nobody ever asked him exactly WHAT he thought he saw in any detail. And the "Testimony" that his name appears under is not even his own words.
"This could be an interdimensional thing or otherwise" Yes! Let's start making up sci-fi fan-fiction to help explain an obvious fairy-tale story that makes no sense when compared to observable reality. One's "vision" must be "transfigured". Ummm...okay. If that's what you want to believe. I guess Joe, David and Ollie were all born with "transfigured vision" (TM). Martin needed extra coaching to get it.
You're clearly missing the point. Nobody has a problem understanding what the official explanation in the official narrative is. That's like Mormonism 101, the remedial class. We all know that the "explanation" is that Martin didn't have enough faith, so the resurrected man-angel, who glows in the dark brighter than the noonday sun, could not appear with the gold plates until Martin got out of there. We all understand the "explanation". The point is that it doesn't make any sense and is far-fetched (as well as being inconsistent with other miracle stories about brightly glowing angels appearing to non-believers). Even according to the official narrative, Martin had to be coached by JS for a long time until he finally claimed that he could see and behold....see and behold what? Oh yeah, the things that JS was telling him he was supposed to see and behold.
Mormons think all beings are physical and made of matter. Even intelligences. And we know that demons can manifest as well visually. Maybe Martin Harris was just protected from evil
Thanks for covering this in depth. I haven't yet watched the entire video, but I will eventually :)
I love your approach to the church's critics, in being fair and in trying to be understanding towards them.
I had an experience yesterday that kind of hit home to me of the importance of this approach:
We needed some work done on our house, so called one contractor to come out and give us a quote. I normally have at least 3 contractors come out, after checking their reviews and references, before making a decision. However, this first contractor gave a very good sales pitch and I liked him personally and so I went ahead and signed a contract with him. After he left, I began to second guess my decision, not being sure if the price agreed on was really a good price or not. So I called 2 other contractors to get more quotes, knowing that I had a 3 day window to cancel out on the one I had signed with. One of the other 2 was able to match the price of the first one, and it looked like better quality due to really stellar reviews, etc., so I decided to go with them and cancel out on the first one. It was really hard for me to call the 1st one and cancel out, and I found that afterwards I was tempted to find some faults with the first one in order to help me to better justify my new decision. I had to catch myself to stop from doing that, realizing that I tend to try to look for and assume the best in others. I now feel that both would have been good choices, but that I had simply chosen the one that I felt a little better about. However, I could see that it is human nature to want to find fault with an earlier decision or decisions that we make in our life journey in order to help us to justify our actions in rejecting that earlier decision and feeling better about the new decision or decisions.
I had known about this tendency before, but it hit home to me more this time since I just experienced it personally. Though this is a far cry from a life changing decision such as switching one's religious beliefs and culture that one grew up in or was immersed in, it still gave me a small taste of what it might be like for those who do make such a life changing choice, and what human nature says about the natural tendency for us to find fault with those things that we reject, which had earlier been something that we had embraced. We all want to be at peace with ourselves and in the correctness of our choices, especially those of great import.
I think that's one of the reasons why God doesn't give us absolute proof of anything of a religious nature. It is up to us to make our own choices that we can feel comfortable with, without being compelled to believe one way or the other. Religious and spiritual concepts can only be grasped with the heart as well as the mind, not simply with the mind.
Thanks for sharing, that resonates!
Sounds juicy, haha, excited to see it tomorrow!
Hope you enjoy it!
@@mormonismwiththemurph Joel 3:14-19. The Prophet Joel says the Lord speaks from out of Zion in the last days, not from just inside the smalll window frame of the Bible. For in the last days the Lord is not going to be speaking from out of the Bible, instead hes going to be found doing all his speaking from out of Zion.
@@germansliceYes, so people get prepared and ready to participate!
Great job man!
Thanks!
I think the larger meta look at this, is really about whether or not someone else's testimony (or lack thereof), is enough to change someone's faith. I suppose from a naive point of view, children learn the faith of their parents based on the parents' testimony - and it's perfectly reasonable for children to lose their faith if their parents do, if that indeed was the only basis of the childrens' faith.
Which begs the question - forget the fact claims, what are the essential *faith* claims? When you go to sacrament meeting, and join in worship, is it contingent on whether or not three witnesses from almost 200 years ago accurately described reality? Or is it based on the moral precepts of salvation, repentance, redemption, sacrifice, and forgiveness?
I find, as an atheist, a lot of value in the LDS church and the BoM. Whether or not the witnesses were reliable, unreliable, or simply deceptive, doesn't really change that calculus for me. Of course, I think without literal faith, an institution like the church would be hard pressed to endure, so I understand the necessity for those who have that literal faith - but it seems to me, outside looking in, that no matter what evidence or counter evidence can be shown to a person, faith or lack of faith is a persuasion game on both sides. Some people may be persuaded by lawyerly rhetoric, others by lived emotional experience - but a better question is "what are we trying to persuade people to?"
On that question, even though I lack a personal literal faith, I find more alignment with the literally faithful. They may never be able to persuade me to a literal faith, but they've definitely got my metaphorical faith. And if I was persuading against the BoM witnesses, it would be to build someone's metaphorical faith, rather than destroying their literal faith.
I appreciate that perspective :)
I like your comment, Are you saying that metaphorical faith is to expect good things to happen because good things were asked of the faithful? Explain what you mean by metaphorical faith vs literal faith. To you is literal faith a belief that God is the source of creation, wisdom, and true principles? Is metaphorical faith a mix of random events leading to creation, collective cultural wisdom from human and biological experience, and an individual’s observation that following theoretically true principles yields good results? You have sparked my curiosity here, please give your insights into your labels.
@@Kaydubbbb Good question. When Jesus taught in parables, those narratives taught us metaphorical truths - like how small mustard seeds can grow into large trees. If you believe that Jesus is literal, but the parable of the mustard seed is *not* a literal story about a literal mustard seed (who knows, maybe Jesus never saw a mustard tree in his whole life), yet that parable still conveys a universal truth which teaches us a moral lesson we can apply to our lives, then you have experienced metaphorical faith.
Literal faith is "God exists, is real, and created the universe in 6 days and rested on the seventh, and by that knowledge, we know that a pattern of 6 on and 1 off is important if we are to emulate God in our own lives". Metaphorical faith is "The story of God creating the universe in 6 days and resting on the 7th teaches us that a pattern of 6 on and 1 off is important to add the most good to this universe, regardless of its literal origins". In both cases, the "truth" is that there is great wisdom and power gained if we pace ourselves, and giving up 1/7th of our time for "rest", even if it is not scientifically proven with double-blind placebo controlled studies, we can have faith that it brings good to this universe.
Both are leaps of faith - neither is purely rational, logical, and calculated.
On another note, literal faith is also "random events led to creation". I heard something recently that resonated - the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. I know enough math to have learned Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and believe that there is impenetrable mystery in the universe - things, that no matter how many universes and eternities you had to calculate them, would be beyond sure explanation.
So, even though I have literal doubts, about even the most well canonized scientific principles (say, math itself), my metaphorical faith leads me to a path of action where I act, "as if" something were true, and I believe it makes the universe a better place, regardless of its explanation.
And let me be clear - I could be wrong, and the literal believers could be right. I'm not claiming infallibility, nor am I insisting that someone else is wrong. I find the arguments over fact claims to be a distraction to the most important question - how does your faith lead you to live your life?
Or, I guess I could make one caveat - there are certainly religions I think are not only wrong, but terribly wrong (islam, for example), but I believe the western judeo-christian tradition is one that is at least in the running of being literally true :). I'm sure others might say the same thing about Thor, or Zoroaster, or Pele :)
Thank you again for your question, I hope I was clear enough in my answer!
Sir, you attending a sacrament with rituals established by false prophets is contingent on their validity. You take sacrament for a polytheistic version of God. A Christ who somehow made the earth but isn’t God nor was exalted. A father in heaven who needs to have spirit sex to make people. And a god who has a God above. That’s a big deal and needs a GOOD reason. Otherwise you should just be a Christian and worship the infinite and eternal God
@@Psuedo-Christian-Cult Are there any moral conclusions you feel you have different from Mormons? Put aside dogma for a second, or questions about what is true about the afterlife or the supernatural - do you believe that Mormons would be any different than you in say, day-to-day interactions with other people? Would they be more cruel than you in any way? Less generous? More selfish and greedy?
I'm much more interested in how you behave towards your fellow man today, than I am in an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Now, I get it, to you this question may be the difference between rejoining God in heaven, and burning in eternal pits of hell - but before we address the afterlife, do you believe there are any moral issues in the mortal world you disagree with Mormons on?
Can we all just admit that there is an abundance of eye witness testimony of things that we think are false and just call it a day?
I’ll admit that the Mormon discussions panel was lacking in the logic department. They want the case to be open and shut, but they miss the fact that eye witnesses testimony is just not that strong of evidence in the first place.
bro right out of the bat the mental gymnastics that take to believe that Joseph was planning to find 3 people to testify of the book and lace it across the book of Mormon to scam people is unreal... Is this the best they got? LOL
Apologies the editing didn't come out as intended, I don't know why the screen went black for a few seconds or pictures sometimes didn't match the right times when reading quotes. It was all lined up on the editor but I should have double checked the video after exporting. Anyway I think it still came out decent enough- I'm just a perfectionist.
Question for them. If Joseph Smith Jr. induced a hallucination, why didn't the two see anything until after Martin Harris left? And why couldn't Martin Harris see anything until after leaving the others, praying and repenting? And of course they leave out the rest of Martin Harris' testimony, the Caraters Document, which has been proven to contain Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian and Yucatecan Mayan using ancient Hebrew grammar.
Bridger and I did a response to Julia a while back on her video on Oliver Cowdery. I wasn't impressed with her objections to his testimony.
I'll have to watch that, I don't feel like there's much one can impeach with regards to Cowdery. His excommunication but then later return I think adds to his testimony, it doesn't take away from it.
@@mormonismwiththemurph The fact that the Book of Mormon is a demonstrable fraud negates all of the witnesses's alleged testimonies.
The arguments about what the Church published and didn’t publish about historical accounts that are well documented and some that are more heresy but may be true seems rather trite and secondary if not tertiary. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph was a true prophet following the will of God as best as he could as a mortal. If Joseph was a prophet this is Gods restored church with leaders doing their best. Should they broadcast every detail that may look bad out of context if they know the Church is true and provides the best path for happiness and the only path for salvation? Would you expect all Protestant churches to say “full disclosure, Luther, the father of Protestantism published a thesis longer than the book of proverbs about how to wipe out the Jews and it was used by the Nazis as evidence God was on their side” no I don’t think so, it would undermine the great work Protestants do. It would be out of context. Should Catholics say “full disclosure, many of our popes went off the rails and had serious moral issues like money for indulgences or mistresses, or mass killings for religious differences. No, of course not. It’s history but it’s not edifying, especially out of context. The you lied to me” claim seems to mean my faith is based on everything that has no good answer right now and is grounds for me leaving. Which means eventually you are leaving. Instead focus on the primary evidences you can experience and hold in your hand like the Book of Mormon. 351 pages of profound religious teachings from an uneducated man on the western frontier on 65 working days in one draft. A book you can read and then sincerely pray about. Then with hope and faith and some humility that we can’t judge everything from our perspective, investigate the good and the bad and don’t abandoned the faith you have as you investigate what you don’t know. But at some point you should build a solid testimony that can’t be dismantled with the latest accusations especially the old recycled accusations. What of those who left the church over cement or barely or gold plates or horses or advanced cultures or dozen of other things there is now strong evidence for? Satan is called the “accuser of the brethren “ for a Reason. Jesus said all men will persecute and exclude you for a reason. All prophets have been mocked, ignored or martyred for a reason. In a way, the many never ending accusations is proof of divinity. Actual satanic cults and witchcraft and cultural idols who promote godless evil get less negative attention from the world then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Saints. Something’s I just don’t have answers for yet but most I do. Meanwhile this church and gospel fill me with joy. The Book of Mormon inspires me to love everyone and follow the Savior and believe the Bible. Why would I leave joy and light for anger and doubt? Thank God for Joseph Smith! He died a martyr restoring the gospel to a dying world that needs access to the restored gospel and priesthood power. It seemed outrageous at the time for a young farm boy with no means or prominence to proclaim that his name would be known for good or evil throughout the world but that prophecy has come true.
I think the most charitable and benefit-of-the-doubt thing that can be said in favor of the "Witnesses" is that they had faith......in Joseph Smith. That's why when Joseph Smith told them they were supposed to "see" certain things "by the power of God" ... they wanted, really wanted to see what Joseph Smith wanted them to see. Martin was always slow with the mental gear-shifting, so he required more coaching, but eventually decided that the coaching was enough and "tis enough! I can see it now!" or words to similar effect. Maybe he just got hungry and tired and wanted to go home, after hours and hours of trying to work up enough faith to see something that should have been as easy to see as a rock or a hubcap...if it had been real (of course it wasn't real). They had faith that when Joseph Smith finished up the work on the book, it would be published and become a great seller...maybe even make them a lot of money. That's why ALL of the witnesses were heavily invested in the book project. Their faith in Joseph Smith was why they agreed to let Joe and Ollie prepare a joint statement for all of them...not in their own words at all...and then affix their names under it. (Of course the prime beneficiary of the "Testimony" was...drum roll...Joseph Smith.) Subsequently, the book didn't sell well and the project morphed into a church-and-prophet business. Joe refused to share power with the original investors and they caught him in many lies. ALL (that's a capital "A", capital "L" and capital "L") of the "witnesses" left Joe's church very early on (except for Joe's own father and brothers). And all who left pretty much said that they left because Joe couldn't be trusted. Of course they had no motivation throughout the rest of their lives to publicly confess that they had (1) been liars for Joe and (2) had been fooled by Joe. Common sense tells us that you don't have to believe in a glow-in-the-dark-resurrected-man angel who takes ancient artifacts up to heaven for safekeeping to understand why the witnesses would not want to out themselves as liars and fools at some point later in their lives.
Like what Stephen said, the witnesses would have benefited greatly by admitting they never actually saw the plates. Martin Harris said he would have been a rich man if he'd done so
Imagine if one of the apostles got excommunicated and then became a major wistleblower and said they knew the LDS church was false and corrupt. He could very well become the biggest hero in the ex-mo community ever. He might even get bigger than John Dehlin.
If the witnesses ever denied their testimony they would have been hailed by heroes and truth tellers from critics and ex-mos until the end of time. They could have become even more famous and made more money
And if all they had faith in was Joseph Smith, why did they keep believing in The Book of Mormon long after they had a major falling out with Joseph Smith? David Whitmer was highly critical of Joseph Smith for the entire rest of his life. However, he was so adament about his testimony of his witness to The Book of Mormon that he had his testimony written on his grave (so that even in death he'd comtinue to tesrify of The Book of Mormon)
That's an extremely weird chain of events for someone who's entire faith in The Book of Mormon is rooted in his faith of Joseph Smith
A man came to my house a few years back and found the water main with a divining rod. Dug one hole right to it! They work by some physical laws
Yes. It's an effect of piezoelectricity between our skeletons and the soil. The Universal Model explains this in more detail.
Oddly enough, underground water is almost always found underground. He was likely pulling your chain. Did he charge you extra?
@@sleepingrhino he was not joking around. It’s a real thing
@@TravPlayI have been running all the electric appliances in my home as well as my Tesla on piezoelectricity for years. I even sell back my extra electricity to the power company. The universal theory is true. 🔥
@@sleepingrhino You're funny, but also unlearned. Just Google piezoelectricity and learn. A household grill lighter uses the kinetic energy within a silica crystal to create a spark. That's not what your Tesla uses.
look for or against, this space needs more debates. I hate "RESPONSE TO THIS" or "RESPONSE TO THAT" lets have a good ole fashion back and forth, its healthy and its what both sides are secretly craving.
I think debates or discussions are useful, in this case there were many points I wanted to respond too which I think I could only have adequately done in a response video
So Joseph smith writing about the 3 witnesses before the event makes it more credible? How
Just seems quite risky and lucky that he'd priphesy and pull off. Don't you think?
I don't think David or Martin ever claimed to have any other supernatural or spiritual experiences except this one time. Neither David or Martin did any treasure digging.
Oliver had some sort of experience before he met Joseph which brought him to Joseph's door.
This defining rod for water dowsing is not what the prophecy was about, it was a rod to help translate. No one ever says the saw Oliver using the rod, no one ever asks him to find water for them, after all there is plenty of water around.
The mention of Oliver's rod is found in a prophecy in the 1833 Book of Commandments. Joseph and Oliver are told they will be given more to translate in the future. Then of course they obtained the scrolls for the Book of Abraham in 1835. Oliver was there and helped with the transition of the scrolls, it would not surprise me if Oliver actually did it using his rod, whatever that means.
That's a good point I don't know if they wer3 involv3d in treasur3 digging actually
Citing the possible use of the divining rod by Oliver as a possibility in connection with the "translation" of the "scrolls for the Book of Abraham"? In support of the original official narrative relating to the translation of the gold plates? I would have thought that referring to a divinely inspired translation of the Chandler papyrus scrolls is now as outdated as claiming that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians". I guess there are schisms within schisms among those who believe that Joseph Smith was a real prophet who really translated ancient texts.
The original wording of that "revelation" reads as follows:
"...remember this is thy gift now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout Behold it hath told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands."
"Sprout" was another word for "divining rod" of the day. Sidney Rigdon edited the passage to read:
"...remember this is your gift now this is not all for you have another gift which is the gift of working with the rod Behold it has told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this rod to work in your hands."
In the 1833Book of Commandments (the predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants), the wording was revised again:
"Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God."
In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, it was revised to read:
"D&C 8:6-8-Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God."
Clearly, that passage was revised over time in order to delete the inference to folk-magic practices and change it into a more acceptable Biblical reference to the "rod of Aaron." Those multiple revisions would not not have been necessary if not to suppress the folk-magic aspects.
You also wrote:
"The mention of Oliver's rod is found in a prophecy in the 1833 Book of Commandments. Joseph and Oliver are told they will be given more to translate in the future. Then of course they obtained the scrolls for the Book of Abraham in 1835. Oliver was there and helped with the transition of the scrolls"
The Book of Abraham a clumsy, demonstrable fraud, so clearly Oliver Cowdery's rod did not aid in its production. Also, Cowdery had left the church in Missouri in 1838. Joseph Smith did not produce the short document which he called The Book of Abraham until 1842, in Nauvoo. So Cowdery had nothing to do with that production. All of the "interpretations" of the characters on the "fascimiles" and the claims about what the papyrus contained were done by Smith, with no help from Cowdery or anyone else.
@@randyjordan5521
When God calls a prophet Satan will call ten false ones. If God gives his prophet a seer stone Satan will give a crystal ball to his prophets. Moses had a rod, Pharaoh's soothsayer had their's too.
Now bear with me here;
I found a book at the OliverCowdrey website about Joseph's and Oliver's supposé treasure hunting called, The Rodsmen. Here is an example of how it is written;
"It is not known exactly when Alvah.... became a rodsman, but he may have had family connections in Vermont .....in fact, Alvah Beaman may well have accompanied Smith to the Great Bend of the Susquehanna and there applied his rodsman skills as a supplement to Smith's seer-stone diving of treasure sites...additional fact that Oliver himself possessed "the gift" of the witch hazel divining rod, it is entirely reasonable to assume that Oliver and Alvah would have had much in common, long before they both became Mormons..."
"It is not known exactly...may well have...entirely reasonable to assume" is not history and in fact is really lying.
The false assumption is everyone is guilty because they lived within 5 to 10 miles of each other and might have known someone who maybe was a rodsmen.
Even within families some will believe and others not, plus even the most brilliant of men can believe that a dowsing rod works.
My Great Grandfather Issac Sopp lived out on the Mojave Desert. During WW2 the government came in and took his land to build Edwards Air Force Base. They had a problem, they couldn't find water. So they came to Issac to ask for his help, Grandpa pulled out his rod and lo there was water.
Now you said Joseph changed the revelation to try and step away from folk-magic practices, why? Why would he and Oliver stop believing they could find water with a rod? Lots of people believed so why did they feel the need to hide it?
I have yet to read anywhere where Oliver was seen using his rod in any capacity. Show me anyone asking him to find gold or water or anything.
It seems like with the Urim and Thummin he hid it away. It does say in the revelation that he used it to receive personal revelation and it would be used in the future to translate.
There is no written explanation on how the Book of Abraham was translated, but Oliver was involved. You are wrong about the date.
Joseph acquired the scrolls in July of 1835 it was translated at least up to chapter 3 some time between Aug and September, in time for the 1835 edition of the D&C.
Abraham 3:13 And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun
In Sec 96 of the 1835 D&C, there is an added heading to an 1833 revelation, the heading uses symbolic names;
"A Revelation to Enoch [JS], showing the order of the city or stake of Zion, Shinehah [Kirtland], given for a sample to the saints in Kirtland, June, 1833."
The name Shinehah or the sun is fitting for Kirtland. The sun represents the Celestial Kingdom and it is in Kirtland where the keys to the gathering of Israel were given. You can find a paper at Pearlofgreatprice.org which explains how the word Shinehah is Egyptian and found in the Pyramid Texts.
The Book of Abraham is a beautiful book, it explains our pre-existence, what is going on in Zech 3, where evil comes from and who the elect are.
I have been impressed with your knowledge about the witnesses and the applicable documents. I wish that they had had you on this panel, as I think you would have contributed a meaningful perspective to the discussion. The way you've been able to anticipate documentary evidence or questions with your guests on this subject had been nothing short of impressive evidence of the time and effort you've spent on understanding this topic.
12:00 You've experienced a faith crisis. I can't imagine you don't see why this is seen as weak evidence of "miraculous prophecy" to someone evaluating Mormonism with the same level of skepticism they would impose on any other such claim. I remember being excited about these passages as a believer too, but, as someone who has seen the other side of the coin, I can't imagine you don't see the problems here.
18:15 Certainly none of them were hostile to the work, and all of them stood to gain something from it. Considering the magical worldview that these men held in addition to that, yeah, it's not hard to see how they could be induced into a state of religious trance/fervor/reverie that they would consider a vision of an angel. There are all sorts of people who just seem to have knack for understanding how to... guide the emotions and mental states of other people. Such would not require superlative or supernatural gifts for Joseph Smith.
19:20 Did they attempt to shake the angel's hand? I wish that I was asking that with mirth, but I'm not. Joseph Smith provided the test for physical interactions with angelic beings, and if that test was not performed, there is no way that the witnesses could be sure that they saw an angel from God or from another source. And I don't think we can excuse their ignorance of that test here, especially considering the import of their role as witnesses.
23:35 Nah, this doesn't have to indicate conspiracy. It just indicates that they were in a position where they would more probably be predisposed to affirming or supporting Joseph's claims/work. This is a sign that they are intrinsically more friendly to the supernatural claim. And there are no hostile witnesses.
33:30 That one anomaly in your story would actually be a HUGE deal. It would raise so many questions for me about the other 19 testimonies you had given. Why the variation? Were you speaking to a different audience? Were you going through something at the time of the variant statement that affected your lucidity? So, so many questions would come from that. As you're a living person, I would want to do some cross-examination, really tease out the potential causes of the anomaly. If you were a not living person, and all we had were those 20 statements, that 1 anomalous statement would absolutely be a huge deal for my study of your story, especially if it gave significant recontextualization of your other statements. And that's the issue that the LDS Discussions panel will present here.
35:00 You're strawmanning Nemo here. He's not saying that they aren't going into as much detail in those 95% of cases, he's saying that they're giving another detail, a different detail, in those 5% that is useful for understanding the whole. And they aren't saying that the witnesses don't believe that the angel appeared to them. They are saying that the manner in which the angel appeared them, which the witnesses would have believed was totally real, matters in how we evaluate the reliability of their statement(s) for establishing the historicity of the matter at hand. I don't think anyone on that panel is doubting that Martin Harris or John Whitmer or others experienced something that they understood to be the manifestation of an angel with golden plates. The issue is whether that interpretation of their experience is reliable.
39:40 Wouldn't that lack of a heavenly light component be consistent with biblical manifestations of angels or divine beings, though? The young man at the tomb in Mark? Jesus on the road to Emmaus? The angels who visit Lot?
44:50 Martin appears to have been pretty competent as a businessman. He also appears to have been incredibly credulous. Dude probably would LOVE the History Channel today, especially Ancient Aliens. Both those things can be true. If I had a good friend who was hard-working, honest, compassionate, and competent in their progression who claimed to be abducted by aliens, I would be pretty skeptical about their claim of having been abducted by aliens.
48:00 Sunk cost fallacy is a powerful drug. Once he sank funds into the production of the Book of Mormon, Martin became financially biased to the text/movement. This is part of what makes tithing such a powerful tool for religions to keep people in the tradition.
Same notes really for Cowdery and D. Whitmer.
1:04:00 You've said a couple of times now that "eye of faith" is a scriptural term. While it does appear in the Book of Mormon, I don't see any biblical references to that phrase. "Spiritual eyes" seems to only appear in PoGP's Moses. And "seeing in vision" may be too generic, but I find no scriptural uses of that phrase (even with different tense conjugations applied). In other words, all these phrases appear to be extra-biblical, with the accuracy of the description "scriptural" being anachronistic to the experience of the witnesses.
Okay, this comment is long enough. I'll watch the rest. May comment again if something especially interesting comes up. I'll just say that Hume's razor applies to the three and the eight witnesses.
I find the "spiritual eyes = not real" argument dumb. If every one of your senses is experiencing hallucinations, how the hell would someone be able to distinguish whether or not it actually happened outside of their own mind?
If they applied this standard consistently it would make more sense, but even in the video when they quote Harris(?) saying that *all* of these experiences must be viewed with spiritual eyes, they laugh and say "Except for Paul, Alma the Younger, etc" 🤦♂️. That's Harris' point! Those experiences *were* seen with spiritual eyes, and that doesn't mean that those heavenly beings didn't actually appear to them.
To me, it seems clear that "spiritual eyes" refers to either some form of transfiguration at one end of the spectrum or simply "the eye of faith" on the other, which makes sense considering that that one witness left because he didn't feel worthy or whatever it was
"Hallucinations" is not the correct description of the most natural, common-sense explanation. If someone tells you to picture in your mind a huge pink elephant, a white unicorn with a rainbow horn and a little girl riding a bright red tricycle in circles around them...can you do it? Can you develop a visual scene in your mind...in your imagination? Most people can. Is it a hallucination? Obviously not. Anyone who reads a book, like a Harry Potter book, is constantly picturing things in their mind, as they read descriptions in the book. It would be deceptive to label such things as "hallucinations".
Now, think about the official "Testimony" of the Three Witnesses. It's very short. It's not even their own words (for Martin and David). Joseph and Oliver prepared it for them and made it say what Joseph Smith wanted it to say. When you cut out all the flowery, preachy fluff that contains no substance regarding the actual claimed experience, you're left with three simple things, completely lacking detail: (1) they "saw" an angel; (2) they "saw" plates with engravings on them; (3) they could only see these things with the power of God (supernatural power), not of man (ordinary human capability). That's it. That's all. And it's not even their own words. It's what Joseph Smith wanted them to say they saw. And every element of what they "saw" is just one of the most basic, basic, basic elements of the story that JS had already been pumping into their heads for months. No hallucinations necessary. No genuine spiritually real experience necessary.
The notion that it could only be (a) weird and inexplicable hallucinations or (b) a real experience involving a real angel and a real stack of gold plates containing real engravings...is nonsense. From the historical record, we can't even know if they even really went through the motions of pretending to see those things. Faithful Mormons are simply choosing to believe the words that Joseph Smith approved for them to say, when Joseph Smith was the main beneficiary of the "Testimony". Then, weirdly, faithful Mormons choose to believe that the fact that the witnesses did not confess to being liars for Joe and/or fools for Joe at some point in their later lives must be accepted as 100% confirmation that the witness statement is true. Except for Joe's own father and brothers, ALL of the "witlesses" left the church, making it clear that they did so because they believed that Joe couldn't be trusted. Well, they would know.
@@TEAM__POSEID0N Them having imagined it is an even dumber explanation than them having hallucinations. I can't believe you think imagining huge pink elephants is in any way comparable to the descriptions they gave of seeing an angel and the gold plates.
This theory of yours completely ignores the data. They claimed on multiple occasions that they saw the plates as clear as they could see them holding their hand in front of their face. Sorry, but "imagination" doesn't fit that description. And what, you think Joseph and Oliver prepared the their testimony and the others simply... didn't notice that it was twisted? You think they went their whole lives and just never used their own words to describe it? Did you even *watch* the video?
And once again, them leaving the Church does *nothing* to harm their testimonies. If anything, it makes them *stronger* . They left the Church, and *still* never denied their testimonies about seeing the gold plates. So what if they changed their mind about Joseph being a prophet, why didn't they do so with the gold plates?
When you have Martin Harris ALSO claiming to have had “contact” with Christ and The Devil in the form of animals….that blows away his credibility
You're not supposed to talk about such things. For true believers, Martin Harris's statements and comments only count when he's confirming that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the gold plates were real and the glow-in-the-dark resurrected-man-angel who hauled things back and forth between heaven and earth and took away the gold plates was real. Everything else is "anti-Mormon lies, lies and more lies".
Whether the witnesses saw plates is not nearly as important as what we're asked to believe. That thousands of years ago Jewish tribes crossed the ocean and wrote two "histories" (because they knew 116 pages would be lost). That Smith chatted with Bible characters, many considered legendary - Adam, Abraham, Moses, . That an angel showed him gold plates that only he could view in a language linguists say has never existed and "translated"with a rock in a top hat. That verses from Luke appeared in the Book of Mormon despite being written 600 years later and parts of the KJV wrongly translated appeared in the Book of Mormon. That Smith was a prophet yet "mistranslated" an Egyptian scroll he claimed was written by Abraham.
Most people inside the faith bubble have been taught to believe that having faith in this fairy tale is automatically credited to them as a virtue. Refusing to apply common sense and refusing to acknowledge that they would not apply the same suspension of disbelief to any similarly far-fetched claims from any competing faith tradition or cult...is in their minds something that earns them gold stars and brownie points in heaven. Even just looking at only the "Testimony" of the "Three Witnesses" reveals how little there is there for any serious and sensible person to regard as evidence of anything. The witnesses couldn't even be bothered to provide separate, independently written detailed accounts of their experience. All we get is a short statement, lacking details, prepared for them by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (and even apparently having their names initially affixed under it for them by JS and OC). And of course JS is the person who benefits most from the "Testimony". The only real details (after subtracting the preachy, flowery "be it known unto all nations, kindreds..." type of religio-linguistic fluff): (1) they saw an angel; (2) they saw plates and engravings on plates; (3) they saw these things by the power of God, not of man. That's it. No details. No separate questions. All supernatural. All just elements derived from the story that JS had already been telling them for months. Nobody who is not a Whitmer (by blood or marriage), a Smith or a Harris (all of whom are already deeply invested in the book project and hoping it will turn out to be a big seller) will ever be allowed to "see the angel"...or "see the plates and engravings"...because the magic angel magically hauled everything up to heaven.
The story of the lost 166 pages is a huge "tell" that the BOM is a fake. To explain: If God had all of those ancient prophets record their dealings on those golden plates for centuries, and that information was so vital to the salvation mankind here in these latter days, when why didn't God just prevent the 116 pages from being stolen in the first place? Couldn't God have just struck the would-be thieves dead, or sent the angel to give them a personal conversion experience, like Paul on the road to Damascus? Why did God have to instruct Joseph to start all over and translate from a different set of plates?
Taking that line of thinking even further, why did God even need Joseph to translate the plates to begin with? Couldn't Moroni have presented Joseph with a manuscript of the ancient record on modern paper, already translated into English? And couldn't Moroni have given Joseph a few gold nuggets which could pay for the printing? Or maybe enough gold nuggets that Joseph could buy his own print shop and hire his own printers? And if it was so important for the world to have the BOM, couldn't God just have thousands of angels floating all over the globe, dropping a finished, translated BOM into every household, in every reader's own language?
@@TEAM__POSEID0N " Nobody who is not a Whitmer (by blood or marriage), a Smith or a Harris (all of whom are already deeply invested in the book project and hoping it will turn out to be a big seller) will ever be allowed to "see the angel"."
As Mark Twain sarcastically quipped, “I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.”
@@randyjordan5521 Yes. I notice that several of the true believers get all worked up and excited about the Mary Whitmer experience. Me: "Oh, great...another Whitmer witness." I'm still looking for the relevant "prophecy" in scripture. I think it's supposed to go something like this: "In the mouth of 7, 10, 20 or 200 Whitmers shall the truth of Joseph Smith's gold-plates-and-glowing-angel story be established."
Funny thing about Mary's experience is that Moroni just appeared uninvited, not glowing and looking like a bum, while Mary was shoveling cow dung or something. But for special witness Martin, Moroni wasn't willing to put on a show for him for hours until Martin shaped up and got himself worked up into a full and frothy lather of faith, pursuant to intense coaching from Joe, who was telling Martin exactly what Martin was supposed to see.
You are becoming an expert at mental gymnastics. I tried warning you that this was a Fool's errand trying to defend a faith that has systematically lied to you about everything. But you do you
I don't agree Richard. In this video I'm responding against critiques of the witnesses which I don't think hold up and showing the majority of their primary and secondary statements which they don't acknowledge.
If a positive case can be made for LDS truth claims that should be presented, as well as the critical case against and apologetic responses to it. People should have as much of the data available before making a final conclusion. It just takes time to explore each topic! But when it comes to the witnesses and others usually, there's often Two sides or information/evidence critics don't address. Or other interpretations.
If you conclude from the last 45 mins of the video you still reject their testimonies then that's people's decisions, but we should be aware of their collective statements. If there are responses to criticisms they should be presented and provided and I though their arguments weren't good in this video.
People can decide if they hold up or not. In this topic compared to others I don't find the criticisms against the witnesses statements of the plates strong or that they were being fully transparent.
To me, the witnesses are one of the most interesting and simultaneously boring topics of Church history. From a purely secular perspective, despite all the facts, I don’t think anything can be concluded at all.
Actually, the fact that the Book of Mormon is a fraud negates the witnesses' alleged testimonies. If there were no ancient Nephites or Lamanites, there was no angel Moroni and no golden plates.
2:54:00 I feel like you're really stretching what is "prophesied" about the witnesses in the Book of Mormon. At no point does the text suggest that the three would not deny their testimony. In fact, the fate of the three after they bear witness of seeing is the plates is completely absent from the Book of Mormon.
As for "prophesying" of the three witnesses, it seems wholly unremarkable to me that this notion starts to appear at the tail end of the translation process when Joseph would have had time to consider this act and who the three would be. That he chose people who had acted as scribes or who had otherwise invested time, money, and other resources into the project as witnesses is also rather unremarkable.
It is worth stating that there are no public denials of their testimonies. I seem to recall the LDS Discussions panel acknowledged as much. However, understanding that the witnesses came from a worldview where magic was considered literally real is important. It is also important to note that there other claims of miraculous events that are even better attested than the BoM witnesses.
And that's where Hume's razor comes into play and is so important. Even if there is a tiny, miniscule chance that these three men were mistaken about having seen an actual literal physical angel, that tiny, miniscule chance is still orders of magnitude more probable than that they actually did see an actual literal physical angel.
I'm not stretching the prophecies, I don't say they will never deny is prophesied. I just find it quite astounding and unlikely/improbable that Joseph prophesied this and pulled off a mass hallucination upon the 3 witnesses, all seeing the angel and plates and later none ever denying it. That's quite a thing to pull off. If I were a fraud I wouldn't do that.
@@mormonismwiththemurph I misunderstood your statement then. Apologies for that. I would just refer to the rest of the statement then that isn't referent to any potential discrepancy with the text. Getting three people who were in a position to be predisposed to the experience, likely given reason to be excited about the experience and then providing them a statement to define that experience. I'm not suggesting conspiracy, just that human suggestibility is much more an issue here than your argument is giving weight to.
These sorts of displays are pretty common to religious figureheads. Muhammad has splitting the moon. There are all sorts of catholic saints that have their miracle claims and testifiers. Even L. Ron Hubbard has the e-meter, which is supposed to directly measure a person's thetan level. Then there's really wild stuff, like the miracle of the sun. In the Mormon movement, James Strang has his witnesses (and took the same sorts of risks that Joseph did).
And this is why I think Huming this is so important. Witnesses can have experiences that are real for them, but which do not adequately evidence the thing they claim it does.
You seem very knowledgeable about the documents. I've just personally never understood, even when I was a believer, why anyone considered the witness testimony to be good evidence. Miracle claims are common among all sorts of faiths with contrary claims to Mormonism. It seems your entire point is that the witnesses truly believed they had their experience happened (whether in the body or out of the body). Side note, but you should notice that your validation of the witnesses experience was largely based entirely on Mormon beliefs in angels--including your use of Book of Mormon scriptures. By doing so, you're using entirely circular logic. Those things are the things you're attempting to prove true with the evidence you think the witnesses are. You're assuming it's true to prove it true in a very obvious sense. Do you see that?
Back to my point on the witnesses sincerely believing. Why should I care about this as being evidence if I cannot dismiss similar claims from other faiths? The fact that other people in these mens' community thought they were trustworthy doesn't much when we know definitively they believed in these folk beliefs that you do not accept. More special pleading. The entire point of understanding the context of who these men were (and it's undeniable they each had participated in the folk magic world, so I don't care how much people who were also very likely participating in the same activities you and I both consider ridiculous thought they were). You're right that their involvement in the folk magic doesn't automatically disprove their testimony, but it certainly changes the context.
I suppose I could put it this way. You keep making the point that these "visionary" or "second sight" accounts from the witnesses don't matter because they're consistent with the event literally happening. You need to see the reverse side. Because we know these men were believers in folk magic, I can accept fully that 95% of their statements described this as a literal event. I can accept they sincerely believe that the event literally occurred. But their belief in these beliefs that I do not share with them makes me a lot less certain that I am willing to believe them in a literal way. Because I know they don't share a literal experience in the way we do centuries later. And I don't even have to believe this was some hallucinatory experience. I've seen first hand from my time in religion how collaborative spirituality can be.
Would you be willing to discuss epistemology with me on these questions? Not the documents but the actual reasoning behind valuing and weighing the evidence? I'm a practicing attorney and I think you and I having a discussion about what the evidence actually means would be fun.
Love this Reply
Hi, it is true miracle or visionary claims aren’t exclusive to the witnesses. I’m not entirely dismissive of other people’s visionary claims, e.g Mohammed, Near Death Experiences etc. I tend to like to listen to accounts myself, weigh up if I think they are sincere or not and believable to me. So I begin with a bias that I’m open to supernatural, miracles appearing. The point of my video isn’t to prove the witnesses really saw the angel and the plates, I stated at the beginning I can’t know that. I also acknowledge it is rational, understandable and reasonable to reject their testimonies/experience. I responded because I felt that their arguments trying to undermine the witnesses credibility or testimony not strong, wanting to represent their testimony accurately and collectively. Even if it was a mass hallucination, that could be the case. My point is I feel that focusing on the minority of 2nd or 3rd hand accounts, this explains what the witnesses meant of their experience isn’t fair. What I find more compelling about the witnesses, why I'm not so quick to reject or deny is the fact all 3 experienced it, which it's statistically unlikely or difficult to replicate something like this happening, the fact it's promised/prophesied in the BOM and that none ever deny- even after leaving and if it was just a hallucination or just imagined in their mind or enduced through Joseph, I think they would have questioned it more to me. Also the fact that the majority of their statements are very consistent gives me reason to take them more seriously.
I acknowledge they had a magical worldview, a better argument is to say they had a visionary mindset and were believers in the supernatural so were more susceptible to having a hallucination/vision experience. I’m not trying to prove true the witnesses experience, I’m trying to show what they consistently said about it that it wasn’t second sight, a trance, hallucination or hypnosis to them, they describe it in a very literal and matter of fact way. When I first lost my faith and left the church I judged the witnesses testimony based on only knowing the few quotes talked about, not being aware or considering all of the others. When I first was exposed to many of the others as an exmormon I had to acknowledge being ‘intellectually honest’ the vast majority of their statements, they are adamant and know they saw the angel and plates, the 8 saw and handled, and that critics were only focusing on a minority of statements. Informed consent is important, I think people should be informed on what the witnesses had to say collectively to make an informed decision whether to believe or not believe their testimonies.
That is totally fine if people want to reject their testimony because of a magical worldview. My point about spiritual eyes, vision or second sight accounts. First the witnesses never describe it as second sight. If critics or unbelievers want to interpret their experience based upon a small number of quotes using language of spiritual eyes or vision and then say ah they didn’t really see, it wasn’t literal. You can interpret it that way, but looking at their statements collectively it is clear that isn’t how they interpreted it, they saw with their eyes and heard with their hears and it was real to them. Second the words spiritual eyes or vision doesn't mean they believe it just happened in their mind, that's not how they describe it. You can’t know the way they describe their experience as literal is different from ours, that’s your view or opinion but you can’t know that in any factual way.
Sure I’d be up for a discussion about epistemology. So would you want to discuss epistemology when it comes to the witnesses statements, or belief in God and Mormonism in general?
@@mormonismwiththemurph I’m open for a discussion about either.
I’m very curious about your comments in response to me pointing out the circle in your logic. You assumed the truth of Mormon scriptures describing visionary experiences in consideration of a piece of supposed evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon. You literally quoted from the Book of Mormon (multiple passages, I think) to prove true the Book of Mormon. Do you acknowledge that?
To your response, if your entire point is that these people legitimately believed that they had an experience-I just struggle to see the point. If you cannot prove the experience true, and people from different faith traditions can have completely contradictory miraculous claims-how is this evidence to you at all? Have you ever researched the Miracle of Fatima? Far more than three people (having two separate experiences, which you keep omitting though you acknowledged this in the video) experienced something. I can even accept those people may not have been intending to deceive but, like the witnesses, truly experienced something. But we know from the documentary evidence that the sun did not stand still barely 100 years ago-despite the fact that many more than three claimed it.
I agree with you entirely on informed consent (which John and Co. openly disclosed near the opening of their video they were talking about the minority of accounts so they seem to as well).
You jump too quickly between two ends of what is not a true dichotomy. One need not only accept their testimony as literal fact or outright reject it because of the witnesses’ magical worldview-that was not my claim. The point is the context. I listened to your entire presentation and can accept completely that the witnesses were sincere and generally trustworthy (those seemed to be your two large points). Neither of those things changes that context. Your statement that I cannot know the way they describe the literality of their experience is different from ours isn’t just an assumption. You’re right I do not know it definitively-but that’s a shift of the burden of proof. Believers are the ones claiming this is evidence, so they would bear the burden that the context is the same/similar and it simply was not. It’s a probabilistic case given we know what else these men believed in that does not line up with reality.
@@reddish22 ' You assumed the truth of Mormon scriptures describing visionary experiences in consideration of a piece of supposed evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon. You literally quoted from the Book of Mormon (multiple passages, I think) to prove true the Book of Mormon. Do you acknowledge that?'
I'm not sure what passages you mean? Is it the ones mentioned about the prophecies of the 3 witnesses? If so I only highlighted that if Joseph is the author and predicted all 3 men would have a vision/hallucination, that is quite a bold and confident thing to promise, put in scriptures and then pull off. I personally find it improbable, but not impossible.
It was to represent their statements and character more thoroughly, to clarify the spiritual vs natural eyes and if the witnesses testified to the seeing the angel and plates in reality. I see it as evidence or an argument in favour to the reality of the plates and authenticity of the BOM- their lives and testimony seem sincere and emphatic, I personally find them compelling. But if you don't that's fine. I know they acknowledged they'd be focusing primarily on the 5%, but I am the sort of person who wants to read as much of the data as possible to come to my own interpretation. If you're only provided a few statements that support a conclusion the presenter wants you to come to, I find that not being transparent. Which is why in my response I wanted to not edit out those quotes and many of their arguments, so people can hear their arguments too.
It is important to be aware of the context and culture for sure. I acknowledge that visions seem to occur more during the 19th century than happens today, so that is a reason to have some skepticism. In a court case you'd know as a lawyer- witness testimony can be viewed as direct evidence- I don't believe they can be impeached for bias, conspiracy or inconsistent statement, however I know because they're claiming something supernatural one might be more cautious and sceptical. I don't see the testimony of the witnesses us undeniable evidence or proof, but I definitely take it seriously as I read their statements.
Why don't we chat online and we can discuss points to cover in a discussion :) let me check if you're on my fb
@@mormonismwiththemurph " What I find more compelling about the witnesses, why I'm not so quick to reject or deny is the fact all 3 experienced it, which it's statistically unlikely or difficult to replicate something like this happening, the fact it's promised/prophesied in the BOM"
LOL. You do realize that if the BOM is fiction written by Joseph Smith, then it was he who made that "prophecy," and thus your point is circular reasoning, right?
I find it hilarious the LDS tries to defend a book that they don't actually believe in. If the BOM was somehow true( which it is not), then the rest of mormonism is not. The reason for this is that the newer LDS "revelations" flat out contradict the BOM.
nice. You gave a lot of clear evidence in your comment. Not sure which "revelations" you are referring to. Care to list some? Or did your paid pastor not give you any to share at your last "how to tract to Mormons" workshop lol
@@GwPoKo yes I have examples. maybe you should keep your mocking mouth shut before it gets you into trouble.
how well do you know the articles of faith? 2nd Nephi 2:21 is a complete contradiction to one of them. i can go on, but the point should be clear. I know what I am talking about, especially better than you.
This is antimormon podcast
It is not. Did you listen to the whole video? Murph is defending the Latter-day Saint faith's truth claims by pointing out the weaknesses in (and his disagreements with) the video by the 'LDS DIscussions' podcast. Perhaps you just watched a clip of the critical video from LDS Discussions?
Reality is an "antimormon podcast"
You clearly did not watch the video...
Thanks!
Thank you I really appreciate it