charity wrote:Jersey Girl wrote: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.
We're even.
Runtu wrote: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.
Dr. Shades wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:charity,
Let me ask you this. What was the point of dispute that led to Rigdon's break from the Campbellites? If anyone else would care to supply an answer (so charity doesn't feel more hopped on than she already is), I'll take it!
The major points of dispute were Rigdon's assertion of the corruption/apostasy of modern Christianity and the need for a restoration. Campbell disagreed with both of these points.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Rigdon's relationship with the Campbellites in August 1830. Sidney converts in December and in February, voila! The Law of Consecration is received through revelation.
No, I'm saying that I think Rigdon was largely responsible for the production of the Book of Mormon AND the religion, charity. Take the witnesses out of the picture for a moment and consider these questions.
Who was more literate, Joseph or Sidney?
Who was more doctrinally aware, Joseph or Sidney?
Who was the superior orator, Joseph or Sidney?
Who had a reason to branch off into a new religion?
When you take the witnesses out of the picture, what I think we are left with is a direct line to Rigdon. I'll try to add more soon.
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.
The smoking gun is just not there. No proof Rigdon had any contact with Smith till after the Book of Mormon was done. Till that happens your pet theory falls apart.
Jersey Girl wrote:Let us pause to recalibrate ourselves...
JasonThe smoking gun is just not there. No proof Rigdon had any contact with Smith till after the Book of Mormon was done. Till that happens your pet theory falls apart.
My "pet theory"? This means what, exactly? I have no dog in this fight, Jason. I find it interesting, thought provoking and worthy of discussion. Having said that...
Of what significance is there to when or how Smith had contact with Rigdon? What has that got to do with the production of the Book of Mormon or the development of the religion? You appear to think that prior contact between Rigdon and Smith is somehow critical.
As to smoking guns, we'll have to wait and see, no?
Rigdon and Smith did now know about or of each other till after the Book of Mormon was published.
If Rigdon was the author this seems to pose a problem.
I call it your pet theory because it is one you bring up often.
And when I responded to your OP here you said that I needed to brace myself....yet I see nothing new, no connections between Smith and Rigdon before 1830.
Rigdon and Smith did now know about or of each other till after the Book of Mormon was published.
If Rigdon was the author this seems to pose a problem.
I don't see how it would matter.
I call it your pet theory because it is one you bring up often.
Yes I do. As I stated a while back on this board, I would like to see this topic remain in the minds of people.
[/quote]And when I responded to your OP here you said that I needed to brace myself....yet I see nothing new, no connections between Smith and Rigdon before 1830.
You see nothing new in this thread. There is more coming on this topic, Jason.