Did you forget the Eight Witnesses who saw AND touched the plates?
Did you forget the nearly 20 witnesses of the dictation process?
Are you aware David, Martin and Oliver refuted what you said in their life times?
Are you aware not a single Mormon Church doctrine is found in the Book of Mormon? If you wish to bash the Mormons, use the D&C or the PofGP.
I mean, I don't even know where to start.
For those who don't want to click on the links provided to me, let me give you a little bit of info from one of them...
Whitmer College: Anti-Mormon, Pro-Book of Mormon
David Whitmer (for whom this site is named), was a follower of Jesus Christ, having obtained his testimony from a life of experience and study of the Bible and Book of Mormon. It was the Book of Mormon that showed David the errors of Joseph's church, and his post-Book of Mormon revelations.
Continually accused by the LDS and RLDS for being an "excommunicated apostate," David was neither. Whitmer College establishes these and other truths long obscured.
The other two are similar. I won't go into detail copying and pasting all the information for each one of them. There is no point.
Can I tell you how much I hate the word "Anti-Mormon?" I don't even like "anti-religion." It makes it seem as if I hate all Mormons and I hate all religious people. That isn't true. Most of my friends and family are religious people, and I love them dearly. I believe they are putting their faith and money into ancient fairy tales, but that doesn't mean I am against THEM. Just against the dogma in general.
Just wanted to clarify that.
The people on these websites believe that Joseph Smith went astray, but they still believe in the Book of Mormon. I really don't understand that way of thinking, but hell... I don't understand most religious thinking anymore... so I am the first to admit that my patience for this kind of thing is low.
Here is what I don't understand, BOMG...
You mentioned that there were people who touched the plates. That is actually true from all of the studying and researching I have done about this particular topic. Guess what, though? They didn't see the plates AND touch the plates at the same time. They were simply touching the plates while being covered with a cloth of some kind.
Why was it necessary to cover the plates with cloth? If God and Joseph Smith had nothing to hide, why were they hiding it?
Here is the deal with this way of thinking...
Lets pretend for a moment that the plates were actually real (don't buy it... I think that the things these men touched and assumed were brass plates was actually a prop of some kind to trick people) and Joseph had them in his possession. What I don't get is why God wouldn't WANT people to see the plates? Wouldn't God want as many people as possible to see for themselves that the plates were real? Wouldn't it do God a HUGE favor if scientific studies could now be performed on these plates to authenticate them? Imagine the people who would be converted if this were possible! It makes no sense for a God to want people to believe in him, believe in the Book of Mormon/Bible and then make it so HARD TO BELIEVE.
Instead, we have to just believe this on faith alone. Just like the Bible. There is zero evidence to support any of these stories, yet people are willing to believe them because it makes them feel better about life and death (IMO).
If a God wanted us to believe that the plates were authentic, the information was correct and that we should follow this book, Joseph and the witnesses should have handled things this way (from MormonThink.com... a great place for information).
1. None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.
2. The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.
3. There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested some $5,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.
4. Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.
5. The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.
6. The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.
7. The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates.
8. The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).
9. All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media.
10. And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true.
That doesn't really matter in the long run though. Even if the men in question really touched plates of some kind, doesn't make the information from those plates true. As I mentioned earlier, there is sooooo much against the validity of the Book of Mormon that its laughable. I have shared these examples before, but here they are again...
- Laban's sword blade was made of steel, long before steel existed.
- "We did work timbers of curious workmanship." But where did Nephi get the lumber? There are very few trees in the Arabian desert.
- Nephi used a compass to navigate with about 1800 years before compasses were discovered.
- Nephi found cows, horses, oxen, asses, and goats and goats when he arrived in the New World in 590 BCE. Yet none of these domesticated animals existed in North America before the Europeans brought them over 2000 years later.
This list goes on and on and on. I encourage you to really think about these facts. If the Book of Mormon were true, why did God make it so hard to believe in? Same goes with the Bible.
Now for the argument that the men I mentioned recanted their stories at one point or another. This actually proves my point. If they said one thing, and then recanted and then went back to their original position on the matter they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. At some point they lied.
"The sky is red."We can't talk to the witnesses personally and gauge for ourselves if they were telling the truth or lying in the first place. So, since that can't be proven we have to look elsewhere to determine if the information from the Book of Mormon is in fact truth. To do this, we go to science. We compare the information from the book to data and things that can be verified. When we do this, the Book of Mormon comes across as a bunch of crap (cause it is!).
"This wasn't true. The sky was blue. Those who believe the sky is red are being taken advantage of."
"I was right the first time. The sky is red."
You are willing to place your faith in something without having any evidence. You are trusting the men who make these claims instead of looking at the scientific and historical proof. On one side of the coin we have a group of men who have many reasons to lie for Joseph Smith, or who were conned by him. On the other side we have science, logic, reason and historical evidence that can prove many things in this book false.
I am on the side of science here.
Men lie. Especially when they have something to gain. Money, power, or just to make the people in their lives happy.
Seriously dude... think about it.