Witnesses to fraud

[_why me]

If you want mathematical proofs, stick to mathematics. If you want to deal with history, deal with historical data and historical method.

And the gems keep rolling from the BYU teacher!!!

Perhaps you could get the Clark/Sorenson papers on this standard next time they think they have something that won't be ignored from their peer group when attempting to establish the Book of Mormon historicity. Remember Clark's statement!!! He said it, we didn't!!

Only in Provo folks, only in Provo!!!!

Maybe you can give us your opinion about the topic of the thread. I know that we all look forward to your wisdom.

[_harmony]

What smoke and mirrors? Here we have 11 witnesses that signed a statement as to what they saw. That is quite ironclad to be sure. And one of those witnesses was the father of Joseph Smith. He doesn't seem like a smoke and mirror kind of guy.

I am not so sure. He sure seemed to have a lot of foibles. According to Bushman Joseph Smith Senior was behind much of the treasure digging and Joseph Smith even said he had to tell his father no more teasure digging. He also lost a a bunch of money in a speculative business venture early in his career that seemed like a scam. Of course anyone can be scammed. But Joseph Smith Senior may have been prone to it.

What goes around comes around? Or... the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree?

[_Joey]

Maybe you can give us your opinion about the topic of the thread. I know that we all look forward to your wisdom.

My answer would parallel that of the academic and professional peer group of Clark/Sorenson who refuse to spend their time opining (or giving any attention) on the Book of Mormon historicity works of Clark/Sorenson.

Many would look forward to their wisdom as well. But those of us w common sense know what they would say already: "Only in Provo folks, only in Provo"!!

[_marg]

Maybe you can give us your opinion about the topic of the thread. I know that we all look forward to your wisdom.

My answer would parallel that of the academic and professional peer group of Clark/Sorenson who refuse to spend their time opining (or giving any attention) on the Book of Mormon historicity works of Clark/Sorenson.

Many would look forward to their wisdom as well. But those of us w common sense know what they would say already: "Only in Provo folks, only in Provo"!!

Exactly Joey...while I'm sure Whyme is serious about believing the witness statements, they are so obviously unreliable, not believable, as to not merit being taken serious for discussion purposes. If someone is that gullible and can not figure it out themselves as to why such statements are absurd, then perhaps it is just best to ignore them.

[_Jason Bourne]

Exactly Joey...while I'm sure Whyme is serious about believing the witness statements, they are so obviously unreliable, not believable, as to not merit being taken serious for discussion purposes.

Can you tell us specifically what statements from David Whitmer, let's start with him, about his witness of the Book of Mormon, the angel and the plates that you find so obviously unreliable and not believable? Or take Oliver Cowdrey if you prefer.

Thanks

[_marg]

Exactly Joey...while I'm sure Whyme is serious about believing the witness statements, they are so obviously unreliable, not believable, as to not merit being taken serious for discussion purposes.

Can you tell us specifically what statements from David Whitmer, let's start with him, about his witness of the Book of Mormon, the angel and the plates that you find so obviously unreliable and not believable? Or take Oliver Cowdrey if you prefer.

I know you are serious Jason..but really.

Let me ask you some questions.

Why would Oliver Cowdery need to go into the woods to view plates...if he was one of the scribes and plates were not even needed, not only were they not needed and used but he was the scribe for a good proportion of it..something like over 80% of it I believe?

Were the plates observed with natural eyes as opposed to spiritual eyes by all witnesses. If not which ones saw with spiritual eyes, which ones with natural.

Of all the witness which ones saw with natural eye and were able to examine the plates, turning the pages etc?

Did the witnesses hear the voice of God with natural hearing or with spiritual hearing?

If the hearing the voice of god per Book of Mormon statementm was with natural hearing...then why didn't Harris hear at the same time as Cowdery and D. Whitmer?

So will start with those.

[_Uncle Dale]

...why such statements are absurd
....

David Whitmer learned during his very first meeting with Joseph that, by means of the seer stone,
Joseph was able to see in detail actions many miles away. In late May of 1828, at the request
of Oliver Cowdery and Joseph, David traveled from Fayette, New York, over one hundred miles to
Harmony, Pennsylvania, to take the two men back to his father's farmhouse so they could complete
the translation. As he neared Harmony, he was surprised to meet Joseph and Oliver, who "were
coming toward me, and met me some little distance from the house."

David reported further:

Oliver told me that Joseph had told him when I started from home,
where I had stopped the first night, how I read the sign at the
tavern, where I stopped the next night and that I would be there
that day before dinner, and this was why they had come out to meet me,
all of which was exactly as Joseph had told Oliver, at which I was
greatly astonished."

Alexander L Baugh, "Moving Forward Together--Parting the Veil:
The Visions of Joseph Smith," BYU Studies v38, Number 1--1999

http://byustudies2.BYU.edu/JSChronology ... 1Baugh.pdf

Josiah Stowell was not a Book of Mormon witness, but he evidently reported much the same thing:

According to the 1826 court record of Joseph's examination as a "glass-looker" Stowell testified
"that [Joseph] looked through a stone and described Josiah Stowel's house and out houses, while at
Palmyra at Simpson Stowels[,] correctly, that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand
painted upon it by means of said stone . . ."
(Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 4:252-53).

Need I get into Martin Harris' account of Joe Smith finding the needle in the haystack
(or pin in the wood-shavings) by consulting his infamous peepstone?

This is the sort of stuff Bushman says was preparing Joe to become a prophet.

More like preparing a side-show at a P. T. Barnum exhibit, in my estimation.

UD

[_marg]

This is the sort of stuff Bushman says was preparing Joe to become a prophet.

More like preparing a side-show at a P. T. Barnum exhibit, in my estimation.

Yup.

Finding a needle in a haystack is not impressive when it can be planted in advance...I seem to remember that story but not the details.

Describing someone's house ..again not impressive as J.Smith was likely informed by someone.

And the other one of Smith claiming to know where Whitmer stopped on his trip to Harmony, well there are a number of potential problems which make it unreliable. Cowdery and D. Whitmer are friends, stories get elaborated, distorted, misrepresented over time. If the scenario was instead that a test was made to verify J. Smith had this "prophetic" ability ..and it was be objectively tested and repeatedly verified, then that would give it credibility. But that's not what occurred, it was a one time event not repeated for an objective audience, not verified, and based on a story by friends. In addition there might have been some truth, such as Smith could have easily quessed where it was likely that D. Whitmer would have stopped on his trip. That wouldn't be very profound, but a coincidence like that likely overblown and remembered as showing prophetic ability, yet all the times J. Smith was in error in foreseeing or predicting...it's not noticed.

[_Mercury]

I'm also unimpressed by airy (but extraordinarily selective and agenda-driven) a priori dismissals of witness testimony.

Classic. Absofuckinlutely classic.

Mormons are irony impaired.

[_Mercury]

Exactly Joey...while I'm sure Whyme is serious about believing the witness statements, they are so obviously unreliable, not believable, as to not merit being taken serious for discussion purposes.

Can you tell us specifically what statements from David Whitmer, let's start with him, about his witness of the Book of Mormon, the angel and the plates that you find so obviously unreliable and not believable? Or take Oliver Cowdrey if you prefer.

Thanks

I'll try.

How about the fact that he mentioned angels and gold plates? That alone smacks of kookery right there.

Exclude someones opinion based on supernatural claims? Yes.

Ridicule and skepticism is the only response to be given to those who say stupid things.