Jersey Girl wrote:Going to have to work my way from the bottom to top of your post, charity. I won't be able to finish today but here is a beginning:
You mean the CONNEAUT witnesses? The ones whose documents are obviously tampered with, written down 50 years after Joseph was murdered, the ones published by a known anti-Mormon who couldn't vouch for the story? That witness
Alright, spell checker! This is obviously payback for correcting Shades spelling on another thread...goes around, comes around.
What is the evidence that suggests the testimonies of the CONNEAUT witnesses were tampered with?
This theory is based on a collected affidavits gathered by Erastus Hurlburt. They mainly state that the individuals so disposed heard portions of the manuscript of Solomon Spaulding read to them some 20+ years earlier. Then more recently, had become acquainted with the Book of Mormon, although their descriptions of that "acquaintace" was scanty at best. And based on the memories of 20 years earlier, thought that the names were similar to those in the Book of Mormon. Hurlburt was a rabid anti-Mormon, suppressed the Spaulding manuscript when it was discovered because it was so dissimilar to the Book of Mormon, and still put forth the manufactured affidavits. It is a rather tawdry story. Now a real laugher since the manuscript was located fairly recently. I even have a copy of it.
Jersey Girl wrote:Going to have to work my way from the bottom to top of your post, charity. I won't be able to finish today but here is a beginning:
You mean the CONNEAUT witnesses? The ones whose documents are obviously tampered with, written down 50 years after Joseph was murdered, the ones published by a known anti-Mormon who couldn't vouch for the story? That witness
Alright, spell checker! This is obviously payback for correcting Shades spelling on another thread...goes around, comes around.
What is the evidence that suggests the testimonies of the CONNEAUT witnesses were tampered with?
This theory is based on a collected affidavits gathered by Erastus Hurlburt. They mainly state that the individuals so disposed heard portions of the manuscript of Solomon Spaulding read to them some 20+ years earlier. Then more recently, had become acquainted with the Book of Mormon, although their descriptions of that "acquaintace" was scanty at best. And based on the memories of 20 years earlier, thought that the names were similar to those in the Book of Mormon. Hurlburt was a rabid anti-Mormon, suppressed the Spaulding manuscript when it was discovered because it was so dissimilar to the Book of Mormon, and still put forth the manufactured affidavits. It is a rather tawdry story. Now a real laugher since the manuscript was located fairly recently. I even have a copy of it.
You know I'm gonna get you back for the CONNEAUT crack, right? It's Doctor PHILASTUS Hurlbut, charity. \o/\o/\o/
I'll get back to you on this, I'm on my way out the door and just wanted to see if you had a chance to reply.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My mind, as usual, is in the gutter, but this thread keeps reminding me of the BBC version of the Office:
[Dawn and Tim are getting a laugh out of pretending Gareth is gay] Tim: We were wondering if a military man like you, a soldier, er, could you give a man a lethal blow? Gareth: If I was forced to, I could. If it was absolutely necessary, if he was attacking me. Tim: What if he was coming, really hard? Gareth: Yeah, if my life was in danger, yeah. Dawn: And do you always imagine doing it face to face with a bloke, or could you take a man from behind? Gareth: Either way's easy. Dawn: So you could take a man from behind? Gareth: Yeah. Dawn: Lovely.
I'd like to know why we're supposed to hold the word of these witnesses in such high regard when Joseph Smith himself spoke poorly of a few himself.
Aside from Smith's disparaging later comments about the witnesses, there are other problems, such as Martin Harris' strong testimony of subsequent religious claims and David Whitmer's Address To Believers.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:I'd like to know why we're supposed to hold the word of these witnesses in such high regard when Joseph Smith himself spoke poorly of a few himself.
Aside from Smith's disparaging later comments about the witnesses, there are other problems, such as Martin Harris' strong testimony of subsequent religious claims and David Whitmer's Address To Believers.
I've always loved Mark Twain's response to the witnesses:
Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either.
Next comes this:
[Eight witness statement]
And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.
beastie wrote:I'd like to know why we're supposed to hold the word of these witnesses in such high regard when Joseph Smith himself spoke poorly of a few himself.
Aside from Smith's disparaging later comments about the witnesses, there are other problems, such as Martin Harris' strong testimony of subsequent religious claims and David Whitmer's Address To Believers.
It has stood for a convincing witness that even though they had personal problems with Joseph, and at least in their own minds, reason to damage Joseph's reputation if they could, they NEVER denied what they had seen. That is something there is no reason for if they had participated in a fraud.
It has stood for a convincing witness that even though they had personal problems with Joseph, and at least in their own minds, reason to damage Joseph's reputation if they could, they NEVER denied what they had seen. That is something there is no reason for if they had participated in a fraud.
David Whitmer also asserted that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and polygamy was an abomination. Shall we take his word on that, as well?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
charity wrote:It has stood for a convincing witness that even though they had personal problems with Joseph, and at least in their own minds, reason to damage Joseph's reputation if they could, they NEVER denied what they had seen. That is something there is no reason for if they had participated in a fraud.
That would suggest to me that they were victims of the fraud rather than perpetrators. A credulous lot, they were. Having read a lot about Martin Harris, I'd certainly be wary of using him as a credible witness.
The interesting thing about David Whitmer is that he claims to have received divine instruction regarding Joseph Smith's status as a fallen prophet. I find that hard to reconcile with the idea that he was a convincing witness for the Book of Mormon.
charity wrote:It has stood for a convincing witness that even though they had personal problems with Joseph, and at least in their own minds, reason to damage Joseph's reputation if they could, they NEVER denied what they had seen. That is something there is no reason for if they had participated in a fraud.
That would suggest to me that they were victims of the fraud rather than perpetrators. A credulous lot, they were. Having read a lot about Martin Harris, I'd certainly be wary of using him as a credible witness.
The interesting thing about David Whitmer is that he claims to have received divine instruction regarding Joseph Smith's status as a fallen prophet. I find that hard to reconcile with the idea that he was a convincing witness for the Book of Mormon.
Absolutely! If I am to believe the testimony of a person, I would be an idiot not to evaluate his consistency and honesty in other areas. If John Doe tells me he saw a murder with his own eyes, but also says he flies to the moon every night with an alien, I might not trust his testimony.
In every period of history there are those individuals who tend to be credulous and suggestible. Such people desire to be a part of the fantastic or supernatural, and their very desire leaves them vulnerable to deception or manipulation. Research done on the period of American history from the late 1700s to early 1800s shows this time period to be no exception. Like today, a certain segment of the population desired and pursued subjective and mystical experiences in a quest for spiritual significance. Tales of spirit apparitions, buried treasure and the ability to see things with "spiritual eyes" that cannot be confirmed with the physical senses, were "reality" for those who lived through them. Experiences perceived with "second sight" were taken seriously and held as undeniable fact. But should testimony of this nature be presented as undeniable empirical evidence?"
As I read the words of many folks in those days, I am convinced that their "testimonies" of physical events are questionable. Even the play/movie "The Crucible" illustrates the magical thinking of many in the Salem Witch Hunt days...and with the early church history coming from the same general area a bit later, I think there might have been some weird influences from that too...