Witnesses to fraud

[_why me]

...
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."

UD

And I wouldn't blame him one bit. I have already said numerous times that if Joseph Smith were a fraudster, he certainly regretted the Book of Mormon. He was better off without it by just starting a new protestant sect. The Book of Mormon brought nothing but pain for him, as did the first vision.

Now let me see, where is my automatic post button. I usually post my posts from the vantage point of my lazyboy. Wait, it is under my butt. Just a moment, Now I have it....okay...I need to press the green button...good it worked. I hate getting off my butt.

[_harmony]

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.

Just because they saw something, doesn't mean they saw what they thought they saw, what they had been told they saw. So they signed their names. That doesn't mean what they saw (or felt) was what they thought they saw.

[_marg]

I have done research Why Me, and frankly because it is not clear exactly what happened ..because the signed statement in the Book of Mormon is not clear I'm asking you...the defender of the claims in the Book of Mormon to elaborate.

I gather you are unable to.

If the plates could be seen by at least one person and felt without any cloth, then that should have been the case with the other witnesses...so why the inconsistency.

If at least one claimed to have seen the plates with spiritual eyes but not all the other witnesses, then why the inconsistency.

If the plates physically existed why the need to mention "spiritual' eyes.

What has been established is inconsistency in witnesses' statements. The evidence, including the statements in the Book of Mormon indicate a con job. No evidence for God, angels, Jesus, or plates has been established, only asserted by those closely involved and except Harris all related to one another by blood or marriage. And apparantly according to Dale there doesn't even exist a signed affidavit of the Book of Mormon statement, to show such a thing exists. Actually lack of evidence of signed evidence indicates no God involved, because at the very least if a God was involved, those affidavits would exist. If a God was involved,not that I think one ever was but just to play your game, the evidence indicates that that God went out of it's way to destroy evidence.

As far as why wouldn't anyone later recant which you can't seem to fathom...there is no benefit to do so only cost. No one admires, respects those who take advantage of others, especially when religion is used to do so. Not only could they not live it down but it would stain the family name and negatively impact not just themselves but their families. And they may have risked their lives perhaps even their families if they had done so. Some I believe told close friends and family who they knew would be no threat to them, but as far as going on a campaign to do so, it wouldn't be worth the time and trouble.

[_Uncle Dale]

...a signed affidavit of the Book of Mormon statement, to show such a thing exists.
...

Mormon apologist Richard L. Anderson says that he rejects the two separate
(one from Manchester, the other from Palmyra) multiple attestations to Smith
family reputation, because no signed originals have been put forth for his
examination, and because the wording in those two Howe-published
affidavits is so similar. Therefore they must be forgeries of some sort, and
all of those dozens of Manchester and Palmyra residents never signed them:

1. two statements, representing several witnesses, obviously both written by the same person
2. only a published fac-simile of the purported two affidavits exists
3. no certified, signed, sealed and recorded original document exists
4. later cross-examination and careful inspection of the witness testimony reveals inconsistencies

Therefore we must reject the two affidavits in Howe's 1834 book.
However, we must accept the two affidavits in Smith's 1830 book.

Let's take this "evidence" and present it before impartial judges in the
World Court at The Hague, and see whether they rank the Smith affidavits
as a more reliable set of evidence than the Howe affidavits.

UD

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason you didn't go through my questions and answer them.

Perhaps not. But you did not answer my question either. I asked:

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.

And you replied with a list of your own questions for me. Really before I answer yours should you not answer mine? Can you tell me which statements you find so obviously unreliable? I don't think you did that.

Now I think I gave you a general answer to your initial questions. They all seemed to revolve around seeing with spiritual vs. natural eyes. I said it was my understanding that Harris was the only one who used the term spiritual eyes. Then I gave you the testimony all three signed as well as other comments by Cowdrey that do not imply spiritual eyes at all.

But let me be more specific.

You wrote:

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?

Cowdrey did not go into the woods to simply view the plate. He and Whitmer went into the woods with Smith to pray for the witness of the angel. The claim that Moroni visited them, showed them the plates and a number of other artifacts. The main purpose of this event was to see the angel not the plates.

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.

As noted I believe Whitmer and Cowdrey make no reference to spiritual eyes.

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

I do not think the 3 witnesses handled the plates but rather they saw the angel. I think you are confusing the events surrounding the testimony of the three witnesses with the viewing of the plates by the other 8 witnesses who only saw the plates and did not see the angel.

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

Cowdry claims he heard the voice. I believe Whitmer does as well.

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?

It seems you are not very familiar with the accounts. Martin went with the others but the angel did not appear. He felt is was because of his lack of faith or unworthiness and withdrew. The angel then came to Cowdry and Whitmner. Later Harris and Smith together pleaded with the Lord for a witness and the account is that visitation came.

Actually I don't think that's the case, but let's assume it is.

Could be. However I did provide a few quotes by Cowdrey that seem to imply that he SAW and HEARD just like he saw and


So we have 3 witnesses signing a pre-prepared statement which give the impression they shared the exact same experience, but then we find out later that their experiences were not the same..didn't even allegedly occur at the same time. That calls into question how reliable the signed Book of Mormon statement is.

Now if we have 2 witnesses (based upon your argument) saying they saw with (natural) eyes. That would mean there was a physical presence of plates...why would Harris have had difficulty seeing physical plates? Why would anyone make it difficult for harris to see the plates..let alone some superpower, supernatural entity? According to other witnesses they felt the plates under cloth, according to at least one, they physically turned a leaf. Why aren't their stories of their experiences consistent with one another? Why would any witness need to qualify that a supernatural element was involved when it came to the plates, since the claim is they actually existed.

Your premise here is flawed. The plates were not central to the event that generated the testimony I am referring to. The event was the visit of the angel who gave testimony to the call of Smith as translator of the plates into the Book of Mormon. The Angel had the plates with him I believe but it was not the pivotal event of that day.

Also you are pitting two separate events that occurred on different dates to different people and trying to create inconsistencies between them. I think you need to get these straight. I am wondering how familiar you are with this topic.

Here is their written testimony as found in the Book of Mormon:

snip....

It's not their statements Jason, it was prepared for them and they signed. Why are you being less than forthright with me?

What does it matter if it was prepared for them? If I sign a document that purports something I am approving it and stating I agree with what is in it. I was not being less than forthright with you.

How would Cowdery know what the voice of Jesus sounds like..assuming for argument sake he even heard a voice? And if he couldn't possibly know what the voice of Jesus sounds like, why does he claim to know?

I would assume the voice identified itself. Of course someone could have been standing in the woods with a megaphone and pretending right?

And what about hearing the voice of God..was that spiritual or physical?

When I read many of the accounts I would conclude it was physical.

If God can physically communicate with sound, why not to all witnesses, why not witnesses not related familially as all of them were except harris.

Why does he have to? Is three not good enough? Why are their limited witnesses to many things in this life?

Why doesn't God do that now...come to speak on behalf of the Book of Mormon? What's the big deal?

Marg I know nothing less would satisfy you given your world view. I cannot answer your questions really on this point. Ask God.


By the way, I hope these answers are intellectually honest enough for you. However, I do question how familiar you are with the events that the witnesses attest too. I also question the debate tactic you use of inundating your opponent with question after question. As noted above in the opening to this post, you did not bother to answer my initial questions. Your answer was simply and onslaught of questions. Is that intellectually honest? Or perhaps better said it that congenial debate tactics? Also, please drop comments about one's intellectual honesty and/or lack of critical thinking skills. It add little to the discussion.

[_marg]

And you replied with a list of your own questions for me. Really before I answer yours should you not answer mine? Can you tell me which statements you find so obviously unreliable? I don't think you did that.

Well if you wish to list all the various statements from each individual witness, describe the circumstances during which they were made then I'll comment on them.

However as to your question about 'shouldn't I answer your questions before I ask you some?'...the answer is no. I'm the skeptic you are the one supporting the claims, so you should have no qualms answering legitimate questions. I'm not asking anything weird. I haven't read the rest of your response yet, will do so later.

[_marg]

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

I do not think the 3 witnesses handled the plates but rather they saw the angel. I think you are confusing the events surrounding the testimony of the three witnesses with the viewing of the plates by the other 8 witnesses who only saw the plates and did not see the angel.

No I'm not confusing the witnesses...I'm including any witnesses for the Book of Mormon, in particular the ones in the statements at the beginning of the modern Book of Mormon.

So are you saying that the other 8 witnesses in the Book of Mormon saw the plates? I'm not aware of any of the other 8 actually "seeing" the plates, I thought I read somewhere that one had and had claimed to have turned some of the leaves. What were the circumstances of them "seeing" the plates?

[_Jason Bourne]

Well if you wish to list all the various statements from each individual witness, describe the circumstances during which they were made then I'll comment on them.

However as to your question about 'shouldn't I answer your questions before I ask you some?'...the answer is no.

I disagree. When you state that there testimony is so obviously unreliable I think the burden is on you to outline what things you find unreliable.

I'm the skeptic you are the one supporting the claims, so you should have no qualms answering legitimate questions. I'm not asking anything weird.

If I am presenting the case for the divine claims behind the Book of Mormon and I present as evidence the testimony of the three witnesses and evidence then you must tell me what parts of the evidence you disagree with. A blanket statement that what they say is obviously absurd does not cut it. You should outline what you think is absurd ans why as well as why we cannot trust their testimony. Some of this it seems you eventually did do in your avalanche of questions. It seems you do not trust them because one at least stated their experience was not physical. You also do not trust them because they were either family, related by marriage or invested in the production of the book. I think some of those are not unreasonable concerns to perhaps lower the value of their testimony. I am not sure it ranks up there as a reason to totally dismiss it.

I haven't read the rest of your response yet, will do so later.

Thanks

[_marg]

What I think is absurd? There is so much I think is absurd. If we look at the "supernatural" aspects...3 people's say so, all of whom are closely connected to the Book of Mormon endeavour, is not strong evidence of anything... let alone evidence for claims to the extraordinary..of God and Angels. Three people, 2 related, all involved in the endeavour of producing the Book of Mormon and in creating the start-up religion, all with a vested interest and motivated to offer up confirming evidence for the Book of Mormon ..is about the weakest evidence one could have...and yet their claims are about the most extraordinary one could have..of angels and God. If it was disconfirming evidence and even though they were related to one another and connected ... ok that sort of evidence would have some reason to be reliable. But there is no objective reason why their claims in the Book of Mormon statement have any reliability if evaluated objectively.

It gets worse, the statement they all signed was prepared by Smith or someone in the organization..therefore not an objective individual. It lacks detail, it makes it sound as if the 3 individuals experienced the same thing, at the same time, and as if the experience was an actual experience with their full sober natural senses. But then later from witnesses' statements (if true) 2 of them mention the supernatural as being as aspect to how they experienced what is claimed in the Book of Mormon statement. So now 2 of them are not just claiming they observed the "supernatural" but that they did so via supernatural means.

And problems are also with the statement of the 8 witnesses. Again in the Book of Mormon it sounds as if they all had the same experience at the same time, and they all were able to physically examine the plates. It turns out later (if true) some witnesses claim they weren't allowed to see the plates because Smith had said he was instructed by an angel not to show them so they had to be covered, whereas others said they not only observed the plates but could turn leaves. The stories are not consistent with one another.

So ...there is too much inconsistency, too much motivation by witnesses due to their involvement in starting up the religion to provide evidence which confirms and the evidence of their say so is much too weak.

Other than wishful thinking in which case one believes whatever they wish, but objectively ...there is insufficient reasoning and evidence offered to accept the Book of Mormon statements as reliable.

And that's not even getting into the evidence that indicates the Book of Mormon is an obvious 19 Century fabrication.

[_karl61]

it would have been nice to have Charles Anton brought in to be one of the eight witnesses.