Witnesses to fraud

[_why me]

This is a fascinating thread, psychologically speaking.

It does seem that the critics are in denial on this thread. I tend to call it critic cogdis. It is a strange site to behold.

[_Mercury]

This is a fascinating thread, psychologically speaking.

It does seem that the critics are in denial on this thread. I tend to call it critic cogdis. It is a strange site to behold.

Wow, the "I know you are but what am I" defense.

Retarded.

[_marg]

Just answer my questions Why me in your own words..not some prepared script put out by the Church. I'm not asking for some lengthy response.

Which witnesses saw the plates with spiritual eyes, which with natural eyes? Which witnesses heard the voice of God with spiritual hearing, with natural hearing? Which witnesses touched the plates and examined them without them being covered with cloth. Which witnesses touched them but they were covered with a cloth?'

l'll add another...is Martin Harris the only one who described the experience when seeing the plates as with "spiritual" eyes?

[_why me]

Just answer my questions Why me in your own words..not some prepared script put out by the Church. I'm not asking for some lengthy response.

Which witnesses saw the plates with spiritual eyes, which with natural eyes? Which witnesses heard the voice of God with spiritual hearing, with natural hearing? Which witnesses touched the plates and examined them without them being covered with cloth. Which witnesses touched them but they were covered with a cloth?'

l'll add another...is Martin Harris the only one who described the experience when seeing the plates as with "spiritual" eyes?

I think that the FAIR piece says it quite well and explains the origins of the phrase. And I agree with them. The FAIR piece contradicts your thesis. What more can I say? I can only summarize what the FAIR piece said.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just answer my questions Why me in your own words..not some prepared script put out by the Church. I'm not asking for some lengthy response.

As I say, she typically refuses to inform herself on the topics she discusses.



.

[_harmony]

Please provide a chronology describing when, where and in what sequence
the events testified to occurred -- also documentation on who wrote the
statement; when it was written; who signed the statement and where it
can be examined today.

UD

In the vault? Don't tell me the original went the way of the plates themselves...

[_Uncle Dale]

...
In the vault?...

Nah -- probably destroyed by water damage when resting in
the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House.

I just wanted WhyMe to get off his behind and go do a little research.

If he looks long enough, he will see that Bro. Joseph rather unceremoniously
dumped the original Book of Mormon manuscript and associated documents into the
building's foundations, muttering that they had given him "trouble enough."

So -- when David Whitmer went to point out his signature on the three witnesses'
affidavit (to impress some visitors to his home in Richmond) all he could find was
Oliver Cowdery's handwritten copy of the lost affidavit. Which caused David to
stop and ponder the fact that what he was safeguarding was only the "printer's copy"
and not the original "dictated" manuscript. *

-------
* Don't you just hate it, when you encounter Mormons who are so ignorant, that you
are forced to teach them their own seminary lessons -- which they probably missed
while slipping out of class to light up a Chesterfield?

Ah, the trials and tribulations of a rabid anti-Mormon attack dog!

UD

[_marg]

No Why Me you have not answered my questions...and your avoidance only shows how disingenuous you are in discussing this. That's fine if you don't or can't discuss this with intellectual honesty...it's understandable given how ludicrous your position is.

Note I didn't question what a spiritual witness was, what sort of evidence exists for spiritual witness experiences existing which is what the FAIR link addresses. Instead I asked specifically who claimed to have have seen the plates with "spiritual eyes", who claimed to have seen them with natural eyes, and I suppose we can add which witnesses claimed both spiritual and natural. Then I also asked who felt the plates...unhindered by any cloth, who felt them while they were under a cloth.

It really speaks volumes when simple queries are avoided. You are the one theoretically who should be interested in explaining to me what happened, I'm not the one making any claims here other than I'm skeptical of claims being made.

I'll wait to see if Jason shows some intellectual honesty in his responses.

[_why me]

It really speaks volumes when simple queries are avoided. You are the one theoretically who should be interested in explaining to me what happened, I'm not the one making any claims here other than I'm skeptical of claims being made.

I'll wait to see if Jason shows some intellectual honesty in his responses.

Actually it really speaks volumes that you avoid doing your own research. If it is so important for you, look it up yourself and let me know you find. I have no interest in devoting time to your questions. But you certainly can do it if you wish. Just ask Uncle Dale. His website is full of tidbits. Who did what or felt what or saw what is not important. I have a statement with names on it. And so far, not one of those names recanted. Now we do know that John Whitmer felt the plates. This is courtesy of uncle dale.

Intellectual honesty comes from doing your own research to your own questions.

[_why me]

Just answer my questions Why me in your own words..not some prepared script put out by the Church. I'm not asking for some lengthy response.

As I say, she typically refuses to inform herself on the topics she discusses.

I know what you mean. I feel like a slave who needs to answer her own questions that she can find the answers to herself. Now if she already has the answers and just expects me to do some work, well, that ain't goin to fly with me. I graduated grade school a while ago.