hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (10/01/90)
In article <Sep.27.03.19.37.1990.14463@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Given that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated (as were most of the >witnesses listed at the beginning of the BoM), why is his testimony >taken seriously? True most left the church but that's not the point. The important point is that even outside the church they remained faithful to their testimony. If anything I think this strengthens the reasons to take them seriously, they were still supporting a cause they had quarreled with. BTW, of the first 3 witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris returned to the church, Harris moving to Utah where he died but Cowdery's health not permitting him to do so. David Whitmer never did return. >Concerning Isaiah, JS wrote an amplified/"corrected" version of the Bible; >part of Matthew is published by the LDS. I understand that the RLDS have >and use the whole thing. Shouldn't a Mormon analysis include JS's version >of Isaiah as well as the AV and MT? Indeed, shouldn't a Mormon analysis >take JS's version as _more_ correct than the MT? >-- He started but never finished this revision. In addition it never claimed to be a translation in the usual sense but an "inspired version" given by direct revelation to correct some errors. Not the sort of thing which lends itself well to scholarly tools.
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (10/04/90)
In article <Sep.27.03.19.37.1990.14463@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Given that Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated (as were most of the >witnesses listed at the beginning of the BoM), why is his testimony >taken seriously? In article <Sep.30.20.00.49.1990.15934@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >True most left the church but that's not the point. The important >point is that even outside the church they remained faithful to >their testimony. Not quite. In fact, all of the three witnesses (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris) later denied the key part of their sworn testimony: that they had physically seen the gold plates and the engravings thereon. Their persistence in this denial prompted Joseph Smith to call them "counterfeiters, thieves, liars and blacklegs" - not, one feels, a remark calculated to enhance either their credibility or his. In addition, if one counts Smith himself as a witness, four out of four changed their testimony. Smith's first account was that he was led to the plates not by an angel but by a dream, which is confirmed in a holograph letter from his mother written in 1829. He also claimed he was told how to obtain the plates by a glost: "like a Spaniard having a long beard, with his throat cut from ear to ear, and the blood streaming down." It was only in 1842 that he drafted the account that we now find in copies of the BoM, where he has replaced a story very like a contemporary gothic romance with a different story very like the Masonic legend of the Book of Enoch.
crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (10/04/90)
In article <Sep.30.20.00.49.1990.15934@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >[in a discussion about witnesses to the BoM] >True most left the church but that's not the point. The important >point is that even outside the church they remained faithful to >their testimony. If anything I think this strengthens the reasons >to take them seriously, they were still supporting a cause they had ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >quarreled with. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This statement needs a bit of clarification. The witnesses never renounced their testimony _to the Book of Mormon_, so if that's what you mean by "supporting a cause" then the statement is true. But if you understand "cause" to mean the LDS church then the statement is no longer true. In particular, I'm thinking of David Whitmer, who late in his life wrote "An Address to All Believers in Christ." His purpose was twofold: 1. to reaffirm his testimony to the BoM, even though he had left the LDS church many years before and had no intent of returning; 2. to warn people that Joseph Smith had introduced bad things into the LDS church that were unrelated to the BoM revelation (and that this was why he left). He summarized this by saying, if you believe my BoM testimony, you must also believe me when I say, get out of the LDS church. So it's sort of misleading for the LDS church to use (half of) Whitmer's testimony on its own behalf, while ignoring the rest of what he said. The above is a summary of what I remember from reading Whitmer's original work a couple of years ago. (It was on microfilm in the Princeton library, so those of you near large university libraries would probably also have access to it.) If there is interest I can dig the thing up again and post some direct quotes... Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (10/07/90)
In article <Oct.3.23.27.20.1990.2010@athos.rutgers.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >Not quite. In fact, all of the three witnesses [to the Book of >Mormon] (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris) later >denied the key part of their sworn testimony: that they had >physically seen the gold plates and the engravings thereon.... How about a reference for this? In fact you may have noticed that Charles Ferenbaugh posted an article which appeared here just after yours quoting David Whitmer *strongly* supporting his testimony of the Book of Mormon even as he claimed that the LDS church itself had gone astray. While some people have claimed the witnesses denied their testimony, I have never seen any believable documentation tracing that to anything verifiable. By that I mean a reference to something written by one of the 3 men or at least to first-hand written testimony of a reliable people who were present at their denial. The fact that 2 of the 3 later re-joined the church gives at least some evidence that they did stand by their testimonies. The one who did not re-join was David Whitmer and I've already mentioned his testimony in the preceeding paragraph. (Unfortunately I'm here in the position of trying to "prove a negative." Unless we can somehow find everything these men ever said or wrote we really can't prove that they never denied their testimonies. However we do have their statements from after the time they left the church indicating that they still stood by what they said.) >In addition, if one counts Smith himself as a witness, four out >of four changed their testimony. Smith's first account was that >he was led to the plates not by an angel but by a dream, which >is confirmed in a holograph letter from his mother written in >1829. He also claimed he was told how to obtain the plates by >a glost: "like a Spaniard having a long beard, with his throat >cut from ear to ear, and the blood streaming down." It was only >in 1842 that he drafted the account that we now find in copies of >the BoM, where he has replaced a story very like a contemporary >gothic romance with a different story very like the Masonic >legend of the Book of Enoch. Again you neglect to provide any references except to "the account that we now find in the BoM." While it is true that Joseph Smith wrote 3 accounts of what happened none of them mention your gory "Spaniard." The accounts differ from one another less than the gospels do. (And yes, I have read all 3, have you?) (Actually, if my admitedly hazy memory is correct the source of the "Spaniard" as well as the letter you mention from Joseph Smith's mother is the Mark Hoffman forgeries. They were total fabrications partly designed to discredit the church.)
wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com (10/07/90)
In article <Oct.3.23.27.20.1990.2010@athos.rutgers.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: > > In article <Sep.30.20.00.49.1990.15934@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: > > >True most left the church but that's not the point. The important > >point is that even outside the church they remained faithful to > >their testimony. > >Not quite. In fact, all of the three witnesses (Oliver Cowdery, >David Whitmer, Martin Harris) later denied the key part of their >sworn testimony: that they had physically seen the gold plates >and the engravings thereon. Their persistence in this denial >prompted Joseph Smith to call them "counterfeiters, thieves, >liars and blacklegs" - not, one feels, a remark calculated to >enhance either their credibility or his. Approximately two years ago, on t.r.m, Joe Applegate made this charge. I demanded exact citations to support this view, and he supplied, from the standard anti-Mormon literature, several references. When those references were chased down, they fell into one of three classes: either they were third hand accounts that led nowhere, because someone in the chain back to the witnesses was unnamed, they were forgeries that even other key anti-Mormon writers have since acknowledged, or they seem to be bothered by the witnesses insistance on stating that they saw the plates through the eye of faith. At the moment I am assuming that Robert's charge that they denied that "they had physically seen the gold plates ..." is related to the last class, "the eye of faith." The witnesses insistance on using this statement is based on something they all heard at the time they were shown the plates, a voice from heaven declared that they had been shown the plates "by the power of God." Whitmer and Harris both commented later on the usage of this phrase when an early writer of anti-Mormon literature, named Deming, attempted to claim that they had not physically seen the plates because they had used this phrase. Their response was essentially that Deming didn't know what he was talking about. As for Robert's suggestion that Joseph Smith called the witnesses liars and blacklegs because they denied their testimony of the BoM, I think that closer examination will show that this angry exchange had nothing to do with their testimony of the BoM, rather with charges that Joseph Smith had supported Samuel Avary's para-military movement in Missouri. >In addition, if one counts Smith himself as a witness, four out >of four changed their testimony. Smith's first account was that >he was led to the plates not by an angel but by a dream, which >is confirmed in a holograph letter from his mother written in >1829. He also claimed he was told how to obtain the plates by >a glost: "like a Spaniard having a long beard, with his throat >cut from ear to ear, and the blood streaming down." It was only >in 1842 that he drafted the account that we now find in copies of >the BoM, where he has replaced a story very like a contemporary >gothic romance with a different story very like the Masonic >legend of the Book of Enoch. Well, we can all see that the standard anti-Mormon literature has not caught up with the rest of the world. The 1829 letter referred to by Robert was actually a modern forgery penned by Mark Hoffman. The Spaniard with the long beard statement comes from an early anti-Mormon source (I think E.D. Howe). Most critics admit that it can't be traced back to any Mormon source, but it was one of the things that influenced Hoffman's later forgery "the Salamander Letter." As for the current standard version, I should point out that it was actually written in 1837, not 1842, as Robert suggests. But if Robert is really interested in the early versions of the coming forth of the BoM, perhaps I might point out a few versions that were written by JS in 1831, 1832, and 1834. Some of them were actually published in the early 1830s and throw a lot more detail on the sequence of events then the 1837 version, and have nothing in common with the "Spaniard." Perhaps, it might also be useful to point out to Robert that E.D. Howe was also an active member of the "anti-Masonic" league in Kirtland, Ohio. -- Willard C. Smith att!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/21/90)
In article <Oct.6.23.19.46.1990.1793@athos.rutgers.edu> wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: >Perhaps, it might also be useful to point out to Robert >that E.D. Howe was also an active member of the "anti-Masonic" league in >Kirtland, Ohio. Willard: Hi again. Been a while since we last chatted over this marvelous medium. ;-) What is the significance of the above statement concerning Howe? In her book _Occult Theocracy_, Edith Star Miller says this "Such was the excellency of their [Gnostics] knowledge and Illumination who arrogantly styled themselves Gnostics, that they [feel they] are superior to Peter and Paul or any of Christ's other disciples. They only, have drunk up the supreme Knowledge, are above Principalities and Powers, secure of Salvation: and for that very Reason are free to debauch Women. "Gnosticism, as the Mother of Freemasonry, has imposed its mark in the very centre of the chief symbol of this association. The most conspicuous emblem which one notices on entering a Masonic temple, the one which figures on the seals, on the rituals, everywhere in fact, appears in the middle of the interlaced square and compass, it is the five pointed star framing the letter G. "To the brothers frequenting the lodges admitting women as members, it [the G, which is often said to mean Geometry, then God, the Great Architect of the Universe] is revealed that the mystic letter means Generation...Finally, to those found worthy to penetrate into the sanctuary of Knights Kadosch, the enigmatic letter becomes the initial of the doctrine of the perfect initiates which is Gnosticism. "It is Gnosticism which is the real meaning of the G in the flamboyant star, for, after the grade of Kadosch the Freemasons dedicate themselves to the glorification of Gnosticism (or anti-christianity) which is defined by Albert Pike as "the soul and marrow of Freemasonry."" So I find it odd that you would think that Howe's activities in regards to Masonry of import. Grace and peace, Gene Gross [There seem to be a number of flavors of Freemasonry. I have known a number of Masons who assure me that their groups hold positions consistent with Christianity. However I also know of groups with the views you suggest. Thus it may be hard to know the significance of Masonic and anti-Masonic activities without knowing more details. --clh]
wcsa@iwsgw.att.com (Willard Smith) (10/23/90)
In article <Oct.21.01.22.40.1990.23757@athos.rutgers.edu>, gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >In article <Oct.6.23.19.46.1990.1793@athos.rutgers.edu> wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: >>Perhaps, it might also be useful to point out to Robert >>that E.D. Howe was also an active member of the "anti-Masonic" league in >>Kirtland, Ohio. > >Hi again. Been a while since we last chatted over this marvelous >medium. ;-) > >What is the significance of the above statement concerning Howe? Hi Gene, yes, it has been a long time; probably just before I took my six month "sabbatical" from the net the first of this year. The significance of Howe's anti-masonic activities suggests the motive of the story Robert Firth presented as an alternative version for the discovery of the BoM. As you will recall, Firth claimed that the earliest Mormon versions of the discovery of the BoM involved an old "Spaniard," whose throat had been cut from ear to ear, appearing to JS. Despite a great deal of searching, noone can find anything among materials written by any early Mormons to support this claim. This story can only be found among the writings of an old anti-Mormon, E.D. Howe. Several years ago, the general consensus among historians was that Howe attempted to consolidate anti-Mormon and anti-Masonic activities, and this story was just one of the ways he tried to do it. The cut throat alluded to the anti-Masonic stories of punishment metted out to disobedient Masons. -- Willard C. Smith att!cbnewsc!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."