jdj55611@ihuxk.UUCP (08/16/83)
I would like to make some comments on the article that Steve Den Beste submitted. Concerning the comparison between Christ and Smith: >>The syllogism went something like: >>There were reports that Smith was a fraud. >>There were similiar reports that Jesus was a fraud. >>If Smith was a fraud then Jesus must have been one also. >>QED Smith was a saint. >>This syllogism is incomplete, and therefore ambiguous. >>Unfortunately, I interpret it the other way: >>QED They BOTH were frauds. First of all, I was not attempting to create the syllogism that Steve pushed on me. I would not agree, logically, to either of the conclusions he proffered; and find his interpretation equally ambiguous. The point is: basing a decision of the credibility of Joseph Smith on the what other people have reported is not adequate. I do admit that it is an easy out; by simply accepting what the detracters of J. S. propound, you do not have to put forth the effort to decide for yourself. Concerning the three witnesses and the maintenance of their testimony of the Book of Mormon, Steve proposes: >>Fraud is a felony, and if they confessed they faced long prison terms. >> >>Even after they ceased to benefit from the fraud, they had a vested >>interest in maintaining it so as to maintain their freedom of movement. >>Remember, this was the U.S. of the 1830's and 1840's, and they used >>to HANG horse-thieves. What would they do to someone who had swindled >>thousands of dollars from people? Yes, I agree. Let us remember that this was the 1830's and 40's. This is the same time that Gov. Lilburn Boggs of Missouri issued the `Mormon Extermination Order' which effectively legalized mob violence against the members of the church in that state. This is also the period in which Joseph Smith was murdered while incarcerated and the Saints were driven from their homes in Nauvoo in the middle of the winter. I would say that this is not the healthiest clime to be in and have your name attached to the Book of Mormon as a witness. Do you think that the same people would drive the `Mormons' out of the state would then turn around and try someone for claiming that his part in the whole affair was a hoax? I would not think so, rather the opposite would be true. By claiming the Book of Mormon to be a hoax, Gov. Boggs, probably, would have given the `Key to the City' to the three witnesses. Several years before his death, David Whitmer, one of the three, recorded this statement on the experience: "It was in June, 1829,[when we saw the plates] the latter part of the month, and the eight witnesses saw them, I think the next day or the day after. Joseph showed them the plates himself, but the angel showed us the plates... I saw them just as plain as I see this bed and I heard the voice of the Lord, as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life, declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God." I find it unfortunate that some deem themselves experts on other peoples religions and find it difficult to equate the `Christian ethic' of love and honor with some of the allegations I have seen recently. I am sure that it is amusing to an atheist to see `christians' nailing each other to the wall; a type of behavior which is, I hope, atypical. J. D. Jensen ihuxk!jdj55611 BTL Naperville IL
jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (08/17/83)
I'm going to jump into the middle of a discussion between Steve Den Beste and J. D Jensen. Steve mentioned that the original witnesses to the Book of Mormon may have avoided recanting their testimony due to fear of prosecution for fraud. To which J. D. responded: Yes, I agree. Let us remember that this was the 1830's and 40's. This is the same time that Gov. Lilburn Boggs of Missouri issued the `Mormon Extermination Order' which effectively legalized mob violence against the members of the church in that state. This is also the period in which Joseph Smith was murdered while incarcerated and the Saints were driven from their homes in Nauvoo in the middle of the winter. I would say that this is not the healthiest clime to be in and have your name attached to the Book of Mormon as a witness. Let us also remember that the Mormons had their own violent mobs (from which the original three witnesses had to flee for their lives) and their own bands of hired assassins. If memory serves me correctly, it was just such assassins who seriously wounded Gov. Boggs in an attempted murder committed in his own home. Apparently, it was not all that safe to oppose the Mormon Church. Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore
sdb@shark.UUCP (Steven Den Beste) (08/18/83)
J. D. Jensen posted an article with several responses to an earlier
put-down of Smith and the Book of Mormon.
In that article, Jensen says words to the effect that the slanders
reported about Smith are much the same as those reported about Jesus
by his contemporaries.
Well, as an atheist I have to agree. The syllogism went something like:
There were reports that Smith was a fraud.
There were similiar reports that Jesus was a fraud.
If Smith was a fraud then Jesus must have been one also.
QED Smith was a saint.
This syllogism is incomplete, and therefore ambiguous.
Unfortunately, I interpret it the other way:
QED They BOTH were frauds.
There was also a comment by Jensen about the "three witnesses" who
had seen the gold plates and attested to their reality, even though
they later left the church. Why, Jensen asks rhetorically, didn't
they 'fess up after they left the church if it was a fraud?
Fraud is a felony, and if they confessed they faced long prison terms.
Even after they ceased to benefit from the fraud, they had a vested
interest in maintaining it so as to maintain their freedom of movement.
Remember, this was the U.S. of the 1830's and 1840's, and they used
to HANG horse-thieves. What would they do to someone who had swindled
thousands of dollars from people?
Just thought I would toss those two monkey wrenches in the works.
You know, folks, sitting on the outside watching all this intra-sect
squabbling is somewhat amusing!
Steve Den Beste
[decvax|ucbvax]!teklabs!tekecs!shark!sdbmabgarstin@watcgl.UUCP (MAB Garstin) (08/20/83)
To respond to Steven Den Beste's comment and a point that seems to have been
missed here about the three witnesses (well, about two of them actually), first
the comment by Steve about the witnesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was also a comment by Jensen about the "three witnesses" who
had seen the gold plates and attested to their reality, even though
they later left the church. Why, Jensen asks rhetorically, didn't
they 'fess up after they left the church if it was a fraud?
Fraud is a felony, and if they confessed they faced long prison terms.
Even after they ceased to benefit from the fraud, they had a vested
interest in maintaining it so as to maintain their freedom of movement.
Remember, this was the U.S. of the 1830's and 1840's, and they used
to HANG horse-thieves. What would they do to someone who had swindled
thousands of dollars from people?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure enough, if any of the three witnesses had denied their testimonies
and exposed the church as a hoax they would have been prosecuted for fraud.
The fact exists though that with both Oliver Cowdry and Martin Harris, two
of the three witnesses that saw the plates in the presence of an angle and
later excommunicated from the church and loosing alot of personal property
in the process, were asked to deny their testimonies on their death
beds, from which prosecution is not possible on the individual. They did not
deny their testimonies, in fact they reaffirmed their testimonies and
witness as to what they saw. Now what could an individual, after having gone
through the trials, hardships, putdowns, persecutions and humiliations ever
hope to gain by continuing a hoax of this nature from their death bed?
O.K., I might believe that one slightly derranged individual might do
such a thing but two people did this and although I cannot speek with
assurity for the third, as regards any death bed statements, the third is not
recorded as having ever refuted his witness either.
MAB