Any independent verification?
How convenient.
What did it look like? Did anyone but Smith ever see it or use it? What happened to it? Did an angel take it away too?
Because a belief in divine inspiration establishes authority. The belief in infallibility establishes reliability. The two are not equivalent concepts. Moses, for example, was divinely inspired but he was not infallible.
So you have witnessed him acting in a saintly matter in latter days (whatever those are)?
Be more specific. Are you asking for verification of the published testimonials, or verification aside from the published testimonials?
What would you consider independent?
I beleive the three primary witnesses to the plates – those who not only saw the plates but also the angel – all disaffected from Mormonism due to personal disputes with Smith. But to my knowledge none of them ever recanted his testimony, and I believe all of them reaffirmed that testimonial even during their disaffection.
I am told that a significant number of the secondary witnesses – those to whom Smith showed the plates in a normal setting – also disaffected from the church organization but stood by their testimonial.
Martin Harris, one of Smith’s associates, was allowed to take a hand-drawn copy of the glyphs that Smith prepared for him to an eminent professor. Harris had been asked to mortgage his farm to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon, and he sought independent verification before taking financial risk. At this point accounts diverge; the professor says he did not authenticate the writings, but Harris said he did and mortgaged his farm anyway. How one interprets this story depends on whom one believes. This, of course, would not constitute indepedent verification of the plates themselves, but only their alleged contents.
Is there a point you wish to make?
The only description of it describes two stones set in a sort of framework.
Depends on the scope of your question. It is mentioned in Ex. 28:30, Lev. 8:8, Num. 27:21, Deut. 33:8, 1Sam 28:6, and in the Apocrypha. It was clearly known in Old Testament times.
If you mean to ask if Smith showed it to any of his contemporaries or allowed anyone else to use it, I haven’t heard one way or the other.
Unknown. Some Mormons seem to believe the current church leadership has access to it and perhaps uses it, but there is no authoritative statement to support this belief. The device seems to have little or no relevance to modern Mormonism.
What do you mean by independent verification? A total of 12 people besides Joseph Smith saw them, and testified to that. They were, of course, believers in the veracity of the Book of Mormon (and although several of them later left Joseph Smith, none ever retracted their statements). I have a feeling that you would consider any testimony claiming to have seen the plates to be suspect, so this is not something anyone can answer to your satisfaction, is it?
I think one or two people saw the instrument Smith used for translation, but I’m not sure. It has been only vaguely described as a breastplate with spectacles attached.
I notice, btw, that you never answered my last comment in the other thread. Guess I gotcha, huh? 
No, I’ve simply forgotten to respond! :o
The Ryan wrote:
<Insert Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home joke here>
JayUtah wrote:
Um … the only commonality between those 5 Old Testament passages is the mention of the Urim.
Are you saying that the Golden Tablets of the LDS Church are the Urim?
tracer, if you follow the attributions more carefully, you’ll see that JayUtah was referring to the device used to translate the plates.
So, you believe in divine authority of false statements? A statement can be untrue, yet have the authority of God? You don’t see a contradiction here?
This is not just a topic for the LDS, it affects all Christians and actually anyone on earth. It is believed that Lucifer was God’s right hand man until he thought he was the best being of them all. Lucifer means “lighted one” and so he thought he was just the best, even better than God. At this point, for his disobediance, Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, but he took his followers with him - about 1/3 of all the angels. It is believed that Lucifer and his fallen angels are waging a war (that will eventually be lost) against God and all that is good. Hence, Lucifer is the devil, in opposition to God. Lucifer knows that he will never defeat God, but he puts evil into the world in a futile attempt to destroy God and his plan. It is also said that the Final battle, Armeggedon, will start on earth, and then Lucifer and his armies will fight God and his angels, where Lucifer is at last defeated.
Any independent verification of The Burning Bush? Thought not.
What is cynical about asking if the tablets were silver or gold? I thought they were silver, so I was wrong.
JepSnertRF wrote:
The acts you attribute to “Lucifer” are attributed to “Satan” in the places in the Bible where they occur at all. What Biblical evidence do you have that Satan is Lucifer? (And, no, the passage in the Old Testament that refers to Nebuchanezer as the “light bearer” is not evidence that Satan is Lucifer.)
Not quite. The context of some of them establishes the role of the Urim and Thumim in O.T. prophetic activity.
No. The question was about the seerstones Joseph Smith is said to have used to aid him in the translation of the plates, not about the plates themselves. Smith specifically referred to them as the Urim and Thumim, which had just this role in the Israelite tradition.
Since the poster wasn’t clear whether he was asking for references contemporary to Smith or references to the more general notion of these items, I provided the Bible references thinking they may be relevant.
Not at all.
I said authority and infallibility were not equivalent concepts. I do not believe they are orthogonal concepts or unrelated concepts. But by claiming that they are not equivalent, I can believe that establishing one does not necessarily establish the other.
I made no such statement nor did I intend my remarks to support such a statement.
Jab1 wishes to establish that because Joseph Smith may have erred in naming the devil Lucifer, his claim to prophetic ability is by that same token also false. I am merely pointing out what I believe to be a flaw in that argument.
As I stated previously in my example, Moses is considered by Christians and Jews to have been divinely inspired. Yet we also know that Moses was not infallible. Indeed, he erred in personal pride and was forbidden to enter the promised land. Because Moses was sometimes given divine revelation, are we to attribute this personal failure to God? If Jab1’s logic is expected to hold, then we must.
It’s reasonable to believe that Joseph Smith followed contemporary nomenclature in referring to the antithesis of God. Modern scholarship considers this incorrect usage of “Lucifer”. That’s debatable, but so be it. If we are to assume that the influence of God in someone’s life somehow renders that person incapable of error – even if only in the communication of that experience to others – then we must hold each allegation of divine inspiration up to equal scrutiny.
Whether one believes Joseph Smith or not is a matter of faith. But if one presumes to construct a line of reasoning by which Smith’s claims are to be rejected, then one may not selectively refrain from applying that same line of reasoning to other, more prominent, figures whose claims of prophetic ability are more widely accepted.
I think any claim of infallibility should be taken with a grain of salt. The involvement of God in an affair does not automatically grant the seal of infallibility or perfection over that affair, especially if mortals also take part.
Back in 1991, he and I were working on a computer project together. Tragically, we were locked out of the computer lab the day before the final project was due. Fortunately, that was the day his dad had lent him a ladder, which he then used to gain access to the second floor lab. We finished the project just in time, which was a miracle.
So, yes, he’s a ladder day saint.
I think I see your point, but then what good is divine authority if it is always going to be filtered through a fallable human? What value is gained by following someone’s teachings, even if you fully believe in their divine inspiration, when they are as likely to be wrong as anybody else?
Why would God bother divinely inspiring people when his decision to make humans imperfect seems to destroy any benefit of being divinely inspired?
Because less than infallible authority is better than no authority at all.
If one crawls, parched, through the desert, is it wise to refuse a glass of water because it smells somewhat of chlorine? If one clings precariously to a cliff, should one refuse an offered rope because it looks frayed?
Well, now you’re asking the “why” question that more properly ought to be asked of God, not of me.
You seem to approach the question from the point of view of what you want. That is, your inner monologue is telling you, “My salvation depends upon having perfect, unsoiled information regarding God’s will for me. God knows this, and wants it for me. Therefore the means through which I obtain my information regarding salvation must be infallible.”
It may be comforting to reason this way, but unfortunately you’re prescribing a modus operandi for God based on what you believe you want or need. That is, you’ve chosen a conclusion and then constructed a line of reasoning with its attendent premises and conditions in order to arrive at the desired conclusion.
I approach the problem from the basis of observation. I note that everyone seems to be fallible, including those who profess divine inspiration, be he Joseph Smith, Moses, St. Paul, or Rev. Schuler. Based on this, I simply conclude that fallibility and divine inspiration must not be mutually exclusive, else all claim to divine authority must be false. I don’t profess to know the why and wherefore. I simply observe the state of things and conclude that since this state seems to have persisted throughout Christian and Jewish history, it must be all right for it to be that way.
The dilemma is resolved by noting that even fallible people often get things right. Fallible doesn’t mean bumbling or necessarily erroneous. It means simply an absence of the assurance of correctness. Moses committed an error which offended God. He was fallible. Yet at other times he conveyed the will of God to an extent believable by Christians and Jews. God didn’t have to wave the magic wand and remove Moses’ capacity for error in order to use Moses as his agent.
I’m not especially interested in the philosophical implications of this. I don’t profess to be wise or inspired. I merely wish to see that Mormon claims are not rejected on the basis of arguments which would also dismiss mainstream beliefs.
Jab1’s argument might be expressed in the following syllogism:
People who make errors cannot be divinely inspired
Joseph Smith committed an error, therefore
Joseph Smith was not divinely inspired.
Replace “Joseph Smith” with “Moses” and you’ll see the basis of my objection. The syllogism is said to hold for Smith, but not hold for Moses. Therefore the syllogism is not valid. It is my argument that the syllogism is not valid because I observe the major premise to be untrue.
For the sake of argument (and for no other reason), I will assume that Moses spoke the word of God. If God is infallible, then the words repeated by Moses would also have been infallible. But when Moses was speaking his own mind, he was fallible and no one should have expected otherwise.
We should, therefore, expect the same from Joseph Smith; i.e., when he allegedly translated the golden plates, he should have translated them without error, because, presumably, he was under the direction of the infallible God.
But Smith was not infallible if he repeatedly wrote “Lucifer” when he should have written “Satan” because, in the only Biblical passage that mentions “Lucifer” (and only in the KJV, for that matter), it does not refer to Satan but to King Nebuchadnezzar (however it’s spelled!).
If you believe that Isaiah 14 is referring to Satan metaphorically or if it’s comparing King Neb to Satan, I’d like to see your reasoning. How do you know that it isn’t mmeant to be taken literally?
A person should be considered infallible ONLY when under the direction of God. At other times, he’s just as fallible as the rest of us.
As for Moses, he was in error even when he was allegedly speaking the word of God (or wrote it down):
-
Leviticus 11:6 says that hares chew their cud. They do no such thing.
-
Lev. 11:19 says bats are birds.
-
Lev. 11:20, 21 and 23 refers to four-legged creatures that can fly. What are they? There is no such animal.
I could go on.