Yes, but what about the now I see it, now I see it with my spiritual eyes as if in a vision testimonies? As for me and my house, I think some were part of the hoax and others bought into it spiritually...eyes or no eyes.
Martin Harris later tried to backpedal the "spiritual eyes" comment - but he was also trying to gain favor with utah LDS as well. But, overall, he was just nutty and unreliable. (or too mean to mention - or was that Joseph Smith' description of another witness? I can't remember which one he was attacking at the moment)
I think we see the same phenomenon today - the willingness on the part of some believers to embellish a bit to encourage faith in others. I'm reminded of this almost every time I watch EV healings on TV.
People lie. People lie all the time. People lie for a whole hosts of reasons. Many of these reasons do not seem rational to you or me. But they make perfect sense to the person telling the lie.
The entire notion that something HAS TO BE true because three people (or more) say its true is preposterous. The notion that something HAS TO BE true because three people (or more) say its true, despite no corroborating evidence but rather mountains of disconfirming evidence, is even more preposterous.
The weight TBMs put on the three witnesses is just plain silly, and its silly on it's face.
The whole debacle of James Strang, where he too produced his "witnesses," ougt to be enough by itself to dispel any notion that such witnesses demonstrate the truth of anything.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
guy sajer wrote:The whole debacle of James Strang, where he too produced his "witnesses," ougt to be enough by itself to dispel any notion that such witnesses demonstrate the truth of anything.
I suspect that relatively few TBM's know anything about James Strang or his witnesses. Those who were BIC very likely will never seriously delve into their own religion, even the scientific types who delve into other stuff on a daily basis. It's a given that turns into a habit and then into a conviction born of habit, not something to ever be questioned.
It's coming, Jason. It's not coming from me. Why on earth would it come from me?
Who is it coming from? Where is it? Is it available now? Or is this a "it is coming some day some how but just not yat..." type thing.
[b]It's not mine to give, Jason. You will have full access to it.
Whose is it? Where is it?
On what basis does Van Wagner dismiss Rigdon as the author of the Book of Mormon?
He has a chapter on this. Unfortunately I do not own the book, I borrowed it. But if I recall it is essentially based on the fact that there is no connection to be found between Smith and Rigdon before 1830. Course there could have been one and it has not been found yet. But the evidence has not been found. Also, he did not find the arguments for Rigdon stealing the Spalding manuscript compelling. You ought to get a hold of the book. I think you would enjoy it.
I have the book, and believe I have already copied the pertinent section. I'll look for it later today. This is one of the things that makes me lean towards believing rigdon was involved (along with all of Dale's research).
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.
guy sajer wrote:The whole debacle of James Strang, where he too produced his "witnesses," ougt to be enough by itself to dispel any notion that such witnesses demonstrate the truth of anything.
This is new to me. Do you have a link where I can read more about this? Or would you care to give us the readers digest version?
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
guy sajer wrote:The whole debacle of James Strang, where he too produced his "witnesses," ougt to be enough by itself to dispel any notion that such witnesses demonstrate the truth of anything.
This is new to me. Do you have a link where I can read more about this? Or would you care to give us the readers digest version?
You don't know the story of the Strangites, Scottie? Or do you mean the particulars of his witnesses?
Jersey Girl wrote:Wow! I'm lovin' this lively thread! Can I ask a stupid question? Why do some folks think the witnesses were telling the truth?
why do some think they were lying? Do you think witnesses in general are liars? Have you read Anderson's book on the witnesses?
No, I haven't read that book, Jason. Could you give me a general run down on it?
Oh goodness, much to much there to do that. However, it is an apologetic that defends the witnesses and their testimony and makes a case to trust their testimony.
It's coming, Jason. It's not coming from me. Why on earth would it come from me?
Who is it coming from? Where is it? Is it available now? Or is this a "it is coming some day some how but just not yat..." type thing.
[b]It's not mine to give, Jason. You will have full access to it.
Whose is it? Where is it?
On what basis does Van Wagner dismiss Rigdon as the author of the Book of Mormon?
He has a chapter on this. Unfortunately I do not own the book, I borrowed it. But if I recall it is essentially based on the fact that there is no connection to be found between Smith and Rigdon before 1830. Course there could have been one and it has not been found yet. But the evidence has not been found. Also, he did not find the arguments for Rigdon stealing the Spalding manuscript compelling. You ought to get a hold of the book. I think you would enjoy it.
With the exception of your book recommend, you ask too much of me here.