The USA should abolish the death penalty in my opinion.

Such diversity of Witnesses!!! Most related. If it was a group effort, the Witnesses constitute the group. I really don’t give much credence to someone never admitting to a lie. WHO on their deathbed wants to die knowing that forevermore, they will be remembered as some of the biggest liars and hoaxsters???

Are you Christian?​@@krismurphy7711

@@krismurphy7711 This is what you sound like to me: "If some guy named Paul walked up and said a second-rate rabbi from Nazareth (everyone knows THAT was a village of low-lifes; I won't even repeat the rumors about his mother) claims he was a prophecy-come-true (what, his COUSIN was his first big supporter?) and even came back to life (LOL) after getting executed by the Romans, only a dupe would believe it! Where's the proof? That would be so easy to fake! And twelve guys swore he was "saving the world?" I hear these guys were all brothers and cousins of the same family, all worked together before this Nazarene showed up (one of 'em was tax collector who hated everybody), and I'm sure they were just tired of being poor fishermen and decided to make a side hustle out of religion. One of 'em turned in the big fraud to authorities, so that shows the whole thing was a scam run by a conman!" "As for Paul, he probably coerced the men with him (they SAID they "saw nothing!") when he says he "saw God." I mean, everyone knows no man can see God and live! And I don't give much credence to them never admitting to a lie. Trials, going to jail, murdered-that doesn't prove anything now, and it didn't then." Kris, why do you fight the Book of Mormon? Do you have something against "the convincing of Jew and Gentile that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD" - the purpose of the Book? Do you want the heavens closed, because you have got a Bible, and you need no more Bible? "I want no more books teaching ME about Jesus!" Take Gamaliel's advice: "Keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan is of men, it will fail, but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even find yourself fighting against God!" Acts 5:38-39 ESV

Wow thank you so much! That's so generous :)

Man casually dropped 100 bones on this 💀

@mormonismwiththemurph I appreciate all of your hard work! I listen to you all the time. I appreciate how you make an obvious effort to remain fair and present both sides of the argument. I actually heard you mentioned in steak conference here in Utah, but the speaker misspoke and said you were British 😆 Thanks for all of you effort and know that you are making a difference in people's lives.

Welcome!

Thank you, I appreciate you saying that!

It’s just evidence that they believed what they believed. None of them had the skills or capacity to know that the narrated text of the Book of Mormon had anything to do with the Plates or the inscriptions, or whether or not the Plates were actually ancient instead of a device created by Joseph, similar to his Masonic dagger, or his Lamens parchment, or devices not created by Joseph, like the Kinderhook Plates, or the Papyri and other things with the mummies.

​@@anthonymiller3869I agree to an extent with the 8 witnesses. I think the question with the 3 witnesses is whether it was a real vision or hallucination. They claim to hear the voice of God declaring the translation is correct, so unless it was an audio hallucination, I can understand why the 3 claim to know the translation is correct- I'd have no doubts if God declared it. Obviously it hangs upon their testimonies being authentic and not hallucinatory. With regards to the 8- they couldn't have verified the translation. In the last episode I mentioned that John Whitmer when he felt most disillusioned was asked by Theodore Turley why if he saw the plates he no longer believed in Joseph. He said that he saw the characters but didn't know whether they were authentic or not. While he reaffirmed at the end of his life the divine authenticity, its clear the 8 could only testify to the reality of plates but couldn't verify the translation. For believers they would see the combination of the 3 and 8 and informal supportive of Joseph receiving plates from an angel. I don't think there testimony proves the authenticity of the plates but certainly adds to a case in favour, its important we look at all of their statements to fully understand their claims. If those people who say the witnesses don't matter to the case of determining the BOM true or not- then episodes shouldn't be put out finding faults with them based upon a small minority of the data, ignoring the majority supporting their adamence, consistency and sincerity.

@@mormonismwiththemurph The metaphysical experiences of the 3 Witnesses, differing in some details, perhaps contradictory in some ways, and not shared at the very same time with Harris’, because his was later, and that were matters of expression of faith and senses of worthiness to experience, I think is a class of metaphysical experience that corresponds with other metaphysical experiences-like visitations of Spirit Animals and ancestors for indigenous peoples, or visitations of the Virgin Mary or Saints for Catholics, or visitations of other divine beings or spirits for people with other belief systems. That doesn’t necessarily mean all those experiences mean are all delusions, or all evidence that the specific belief systems and understandings of all those peoples who have had those experiences are literally true, etc. Individuals and groups of multiple individuals have experienced metaphysical visitations-Saints, Mary, etc.-but that does not mean their attributions of meaning to those experiences nor that their belief constructs (Catholicism, etc.) are literally true. It just means that those individuals had experiences to which they attributed meaning.

@@anthonymiller3869 have you ever seen anything with your own two eyes that you could be a witness to? Do you have the skills to know what you saw? Do you know you are on planet earth? Can you observe that? John Whitmer, while persecuting the saints said when he was called out (paraphrasing) “I saw the plates but I couldn’t read them and don’t know if what they said was true” he witnessed to the level of his skill. They obviously had looked real enough for him to not deny seeing them, but he did not continue in faith because he saw them. That is what the world does with signs. You would most likely do the same. It’s a blessing to you that God left room for you to doubt, and the rest of us. Less condemnation required. In His mercy, God left room for doubt. Strengthen your relationship with God by doing His will to the best of your “skills and capacity” show Him your sincerity, and God will provide a witness strong enough to overcome your doubts. Best wishes to you.

@@Kaydubbbb If I had seen and handled the Plates, the Kinderhook Plates, or the JS Papyri, I would not have the skills or capacity to know whether or not either of the 3 were ancient, or whether or not the inscriptions on them were an actual language, or whether or not the inscriptions on the Plates had anything to do with the narrated text of the Book of Mormon, or whether or not the inscriptions on the Kinderhook Plates were about what Joseph claimed they were about, or whether or not the JS Papyri had anything to do with the actual text of the Book of Abraham. I could witness to whether or not they existed. I could witness to what I believed they were. But, my witness could not be anything more than evidence of my belief and that those things existed. I can witness that I believe I am on planet earth and that I trust the science that claims I am on planet earth. President Eyring’s father, as a scientist, and as a believer, once expressed to President Eyring that he didn’t have to believe anything that wasn’t true. I find that a helpful observation. With that expressed, I can believe and witness that I have experienced Spirit in my study with the Book of Mormon, and I can also express that for most of my life, I attributed meaning to those experiences with Spirit as reliable divine witnesses of objective truth. However, that eventually proved a false attribution of meaning for me because I experienced Spirit with many partially or entirely objectively false things, and in the study of Church History, I discovered that it proved to be an objectively false attribution of meaning for experience of Spirit for the Brethren-individually and collectively-on many topics, doctrines, and policies throughout the history of the Church. So, what can I witness of and know is true? I can witness that I experienced Spirit with the Book of Mormon. I can also witness that experiences of Spirit proved to be something other than reliable divine witnesses of truth for me and for the leaders of the Church. And, due to further study of history, Biblical scholarship, etc., I can witness that the overwhelming evidence, based upon my understanding, is that the Book of Mormon is a 19th Century creation, with textual and historical anachronisms that make it clear to me that it cannot be what it represents itself to be. Does that mean I can witness that there isn’t divinity in it? I can’t. That doesn’t mean that I can witness that Joseph didn’t feel inspired when he narrated it. I can’t. I think he probably felt inspired. The evidence seems to me to lean that way. But, I can’t know. I can only express what I believe based upon evidence and the meanings I attribute to that evidence. I don’t feel a need anymore to “faith logic chain” things that are not actually related or reasonable. I can accept that the Witnesses believed what they believed. That doesn’t remotely mean that the text of the Book of Mormon has anything to do with the Plates, nor that the Plates were ancient, nor that the content of the text of the Book of Mormon is anything more than a narration of Joseph. These are independent things. I don’t know how God would require me to believe something that isn’t true, or something that I recognize isn’t true.

Thank you!

You're overcomplicating things. Once you accept that, to the extent they ever existed, any plates were not an ancient record, providing them would have proven the entire thing to be a hoax. So they were never provided...

@@minaguta4147 I 100% agree. I’m simply trying to get a believer to respond with anything other than “You just need faith”. If it’s just about faith, witnesses are not needed at all. Tangible scientific examination of the plates with validation of Smith’s claims would be far more faith promoting than these witnesses. The church membership would be 200 million rather than 20 million.

Hey Zeett 👋🏻 Happy to engage here. In religious philosophy, the term used here is “epistemic distance”. For whatever reason, especially in a Christ-centered Gospel, faith does appear to be a critical (and real) component to the process of Christian sanctification. Even in tradition, Matt 16:17 we see Jesus not discovering his divinity to Peter until Peter confessed it openly that Jesus is the Christ. And he declares, “Blessed are you, Peter. For you didn’t learn this through tangible means, but by the spirit.” After which, Peter is one of the few that actually experiences seeing Christ after his death (at least purportedly, right? 😅) And yet we have zero contemporary attestations of Jesus outside of the writings of his followers. Yet there isn’t any serious scholar today that would deny the fact that there clearly was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. That purportedly went about teaching in the streets of Jerusalem. He was killed by the Romans & was never seen again. Except that we have the written attestations of actual people that claim to be witnesses of seeing him as a resurrected being. Now we don’t have to believe their claims but the historic record (& the consensus of scholars) is clear - Jesus was a real person, & after his death there really were followers to testified throughout the remainder of their lives (even until death) of his divinity & resurrection. That they *believed* in a tangible, literal resurrected Jesus is historically attested. And if that is true, we simply have to take them at their word. He could have appeared to the Roman Senate - but he didn’t. He (apparently) went only but a dozen or so witnesses. The same is the case for the tangible, literal record that Joseph claims to have had from 1827-1829. And from that, we have 17+ witnesses affirming their tangible, literal existence. Men, women, and children. Family, friends, and some even became Joseph’s worst critics. Yet each of affirmed their reality by having felt, handled, hefted, or viewing the plates for themselves. Most historians in Mormon Studies, even among critics now recognize the tangible reality of these plates. Now it's impossible to know if these plates were ancient or divine. We simply have to study the witnesses & their statements & decide for ourselves. However, if we're to conclude that theyre not what they claim to be, we still are tasked w/ answering where they came from. Bc a 21-YO farm boy lugging ~50lb finely engraved gold-passing metal plates around is really odd, when we consider that Joseph couldn't even afford the paper & ink needed for his dictation of the Book of Mormon. Nonetheless, true or not - it's all very interesting.

@@awsmoot Thanks. Interesting. I guess I’m just a born skeptic. I need more than witnesses. I’m the type that if I were part of a jury in a murder trial I’d put DNA evidence over eyewitness testimony. I personally think Mr. Smith created some tin plates and then covered them up with a cloth claiming nobody should actually see them else doom and gloom. I’m also old and I’m from the era (early 1970’s) when the Kinderhook plates were propped up as more evidence of Mr. Smith’s incredible ability to translate ancient languages. 1980’s science determined they were a fraud. I’d simply prefer that the gold plates were similarly made available for scientific scrutiny I would trust that over any witnesses. As for the biblical Jesus I’d have the same skepticism regarding the miracles and resurrection claims. I’m the type that would acknowledge all the wise messages of Jesus yet not be interested in the miracles or divinity claims. I’d be more like Thomas Jefferson and cut out those parts and skinny the Bible down to basic human love and decency principles. Anyway thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

@Zeett09 - That is a very common question, and though awsmoot gave a good answer, I'd like to add a few more points: I read a book recently by Terryl and Fiona Givens called "The Crucible of Doubt", which covers this topic in great detail. One of my favorite quotes from that book is: "There is a type of flower that can only bloom in the desert of doubt. Faith that we elect to perfect in the absence of certainty is an offering that is entirely free, unconditioned and utterly authentic. Such a gesture represents our considered and chosen response to the universe, our ascent to what we find beautiful and worthy, and deserving of our risk." This concept of 'epistemic distance' applies to a belief in God, a belief in Jesus Christ and his divine nature and mission, and any other belief of a religious nature that cannot be proven in a purely physical manner without the need for faith. The Book of Mormon fits into this category. It is unique from the Bible in that a belief in its historicity automatically implies that God exists, that Jesus Christ is exactly who he claimed to be in the New Testament writings, that Joseph Smith was inspired, and that all the doctrine in it was given by divine inspiration. Not so with the Bible. A non-believer in God can still accept the Bible as a historical document without believing its religious claims. So if God had given absolute proof of the Book of Mormon's authenticity by making the plates on which it was written available for worldwide inspection without regard to each individual's widely varying desires and beliefs, it would be like revealing all that knowledge I mentioned without a requirement of faith on anyone's part. That is contrary to the way God has designed the veil between the earth and the spirit world. The veil is part and parcel of our entire mortal experience. Throughout history, God has only revealed such knowledge to those who seek after it and desire it with 'full purpose of heart', not to those who just want to satisfy their curiosity, who have little or no intention of following through on the implications of acquiring that kind of knowledge. The Bible often refers to such folks as 'sign seekers', who are not really wanting to believe in God because they don't really want to live according to the implications of such a belief, but who really want to justify their unbelief. God really allows us to believe what we desire to believe, without forcing us one way or the other. Forcing us to believe by providing undeniable proof would essentially turn us into automatons who are in essence forced to go along regardless of our innermost desires. Either that or those who didn't want to conform to the implications of the forced set of beliefs would probably find some other way to get around it by denying the authenticity of the provided proof in various creative ways. For myself, I'm really glad the veil is there, as having some doubts without having 100% perfect knowledge of all things related to my religious beliefs has allowed me to work through a lifetime of learning and growing gradually through my faith, bit by bit, through trials and errors and mistakes, which as allowed my faith to grow hand in hand with my abilities to live a more Christ-like life. I would not have wanted my hand 'forced' by a perfect knowledge too early on, before I had a chance to work through all my mortal weaknesses, faults, and temptations, which of course is an ongoing process - I am really grateful for the requirement of faith :)

This was a long way of saying "I don't want to deal with the eyewitnesses"

@@danielockey9883Not remotely. It means accepting the Witnesses sincerely believed that they said they believed, but also recognizing none of them had the skills or capacity to determine whether the Plates were more than a prop, whether the inscriptions were actually a language, or whether the narrated text of the Book of Mormon had anything to do with the Plates or the inscriptions.

@@anthonymiller3869 your expressed opinion is evidence of your opinion and nothing more.😊 The witnesses had the skill and capacity to declare what they saw in just the same way that all of us can witness that we are on planet earth. Beyond that, God is blessing us with room for doubt. He won’t force you to believe anything, but He has left us with a way to know: John 7:14-24

If the church wasn't true you would never waste your time being here.

@@RichardHolmes-ll8ii Things can be interesting and not true. I don’t believe the Mennonite and other Anabaptist movements are true, but they connect to my family history as far back as the 1500s, and I find the history interesting. However, Mormonism is super interesting to me-not only because I was a member until my age 51, but because it is such a young religion that we have more reliable history regarding what happened over time. I also find Biblical scholarship and history very interesting, even though I believe it is likely that the first actual literal historical person in the texts is likely King David, and the stories attributed to him are mostly not true. I find the Gospels in the New Testament very interesting, even though I believe they are largely embellishments from non-eyewitnesses.

They could have maybe been sued civilly, but not arrested.

lol

Yeah, I hate when people use that as proof. They would have gone to prison the moment they had denied their experience. Their reputation would have been destroyed, their businesses lost customers. So, why would they have had any incentives to tell the truth once they left the Church?

@@mgeuleinstsear Exactly. Thanks for adding reasons.

And, they could have seen plates, just not ancient ones. These witnesses aren’t very useful in case these plates were fabricated. The witnesses aren’t proof that they were ancient plates.