Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!jonw
From: jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: The case against the Book of Mormon
Message-ID: <2140@tekmdp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Aug-83 16:01:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekmdp.2140
Posted: Wed Aug 17 16:01:56 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Aug-83 10:58:55 EDT
Lines: 110

I would like to respond to some statements from J. D. Jensen.  Concerning
the anti-Mormon affidavits:

   The question I propose deals with the validity of these `documented'
   writings. I find it interesting that NONE OF THESE
   DOCUMENTS CONTAINED SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS OF ANY CRIMES. 

Perhaps you might interested in actually reading some of the sworn statements 
contained in "The True Origin of the Book of Mormon" by Charles A. Shook.  The 
affidavit of William Stafford (p. 30) contains a story of how the Smiths 
convinced Stafford to go money digging with them, and how they defrauded him 
of a sheep.  The affidavit of Isaac Hale (Joseph's father-in-law, at whose 
house the Book of Mormon was actually translated) (p. 32) contains many 
incriminating details as to how the Mormon fraud was perpetrated.  And, after
all, fraud is a crime.

The Hon. Judge Daniel Woodard of the County Court of Windsor, Vermont, (a
former neighbor of the Smiths) went on record in the Historical Magazine
in 1870 with a statement to the effect that the elder Smith definitely was a
treasure hunter and "that he also became implicated with one Jack Downing, in
counterfeiting money, but turned State's evidence and escaped the penalty."

J. D. quoted from a book entitled "They Knew the Prophet" in order to refute
my contention that no contemporary pro-Mormon statements existed.  In order to
clarify my previous statement, I will quote Walter Martin, whose views I may
have misrepresented in the interest of brevity:

"Some persons reading this may feel that it unfair to quote only one side of
the story; what about those who are favorable to the Mormons, they will ask. In
answer to this, the amazing fact is that there exists no contemporary pro-
Mormon statements from reliable and informed sources who knew the Smith family
and Joseph intimately.  It has only been the over-wise Mormon historians,
utilizing hindsight over a hundred year period, who have able to even seriously
challenge the evidence of the neighbors, Joseph's father-in-law, and many
ex-Mormons who knew what was going on and went on record with the evidence not
even Mormon historians have bothered seriously to dispute."

In response to my statement that "No independent witness ever laid eyes on the 
gold plates...," Jensen came up with:

   Let's see what is available. In the front of The Book of Mormon is a
   statement called `The Testimony of Three Witnesses' signed by Oliver
   Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris... ...What is interesting is 
   that all three of these men left the church and the association of Joseph 
   Smith, yet they NEVER recanted their testimony of The Book of Mormon. 

First of all, these are hardly what could be called "independent witnesses."
Secondly, as I previously mentioned, after leaving the church these three men 
were described in such unflattering terms by the Mormons as to render their
testimony worthless.  (Smith denounced Harris in the Elders' Journal of August,
1838  "as so far beneath contempt that a notice of him would be too great a
sacrifice for a gentleman to make. ...he has given loose to all kinds of
abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, with all kinds of debauchery.")
Thirdly, Oliver Cowdery did deny his testimony, though not publicly.  A letter
from Judge W. Lang (Cowdery's closest friend and business partner of 40 years)
to Thomas Gregg, dated Nov. 5, 1881, contains the following:

"Once [and] for all I desire to be strictly understood when I say to you that I
cannot violate any confidence of a friend though he be dead.  This I will say
that Mr. Cowdery never spoke of his connection with the Mormons to anyone
except me.  We were intimate friends.  The plates were never translated and
could not be, were never intended to be.  What is claimed to be a translation
is the "Manuscript Found" worked over by C.  He was the best scholar amongst
them.  Rigdon got the original at the job printing office in Pittsburgh as I
have stated.  I often expressed my objection to the frequent repetition of
'And it came to pass' to Mr. Cowdery and said that a true scholar ought to have
avoided that, which only provoked a gentle smile from C."

Jensen also took issue with my statement: "Another indication of the shaky 
nature of the Book of Mormon is revealed in the fact that there have been over 
2,000 changes to the book over a period of 131 years."

   There were a number of grammmatical [sic] errors in the first edition of
   The Book of Mormon. There were also a number of changes which may
   be interpreted by some to be doctrinal...  If this were an attempt by 
   Smith to rewrite history I would be worried; examination of the changes 
   indicates that this is not the case... One on the more interesting is shown:
   
   "1 Ne 11:18 and he said unto	   "And he said unto me: Behold,
   me, Behold, the virgin which	   the virgin whom thou seest is
   thou seest, is the mother of	   the mother of the Son of God,
   God, after the manner of the	   after the manner of the flesh."
   flesh."   [A]                               [B]

This is a very interesting alteration to the inspired word of God.  Perhaps
you could explain exactly why it was necessary to change it.  Here is what 
Walter Martin has to say about this very correction:

"The Roman Catholic Church should be delighted with page 25 of the original
edition of the Book of Mormon which confirms one of their dogmas, namely, that
Mary is the mother of God. [A].  Noting this unfortunate lapse into Romanistic
theology, considerate Mormon editors have changed 1 Nephi 11:18 so that it now
reads [B]."

The archeological evidence that Jensen cites also sounds interesting.  I 
wonder why the Smithsonian Institution and virtually all reputable 
archeologists reject Mormon archeological evidence.  I guess the anti-Mormon 
conspiracy must be more pervasive than anyone can imagine.

   Jon, you talk about honesty. Do you feel that Martin was giving an
   honest portrayal of the character of Joseph Smith? Do you accept
   without question what critics say about the church? If so, I would
   like to talk to you about a fantastic deal I can get for you on
   the Brooklyn Bridge. :-)

It appears that you have already bought it. 

						Jon White
						Tektronix
						Aloha, Ore