Joseph Smith wrote witnesses statement

[_Chap]

<Wait till my sky-daddy gets you. Then you'll be sorry.>

Pur-lease ...

[_Darth J]

The above statement you quoted does not refute Murphy's reporting Whitmer saying that the angel had no form and that his experience was a metaphysical "impression."

Henry Moyle thought the same thing, but he chose, overall, to believe Whitmer. Remember, he was the one who didn't want to go through life "believing a lie". But I understand that you must absolutely refute anything that doesn't fit your "rational" worldview, and you'll do it 'til the cows come home.

Well, Ray, I think you have conclusively established your opposition to a rational worldview. As is your wont, you are misstating the issue. It is not a matter of David Whitmer's sincerity. It is a matter of whether what David Whitmer sincerely believed he experienced being objectively true. His sincere belief that he had a supernatural experience does not mean that the Book of Mormon is in fact what it claims to be.

And the particular issue that has been raised in this thread is Whitmer's inconsistency about what his claimed experience was. Whitmer did in fact tell Murphy that the angel had no form and that his seeing the golden plates was an "impression" in a metaphysical sense.

Before you again remind everyone about the virtues of unrestrained gullibility, the big picture is not whether supernatural or mystical experiences in general are real. The specific issue is whether on this particular occasion, David Whitmer had a supernatural experience that proves the Book of Mormon is the authentic ancient record that it claims to be.

[_RayAgostini]

What exactly is the difference between a rational worldview and a "rational" worldview?

Try these two links:

The New Inquisition.

Wiki.

[_Darth J]

No, he's only got till when he sees the Lord. God vs Sith Lord. I'm betting on God.

Yes, indeed, Elohim is going to get me because I think the Book of Mormon is not true.

And Allah is going to get me because I think the Koran is not true.

And Krishna is going to get me because I think the Bhagavad Gita is not true.

And Zeus is going to get me because I think The Illiad is not true.

And Xenu is going to get me because I think Dianetics is not true.

And someone or other is going to get me because I think the Urantia Book is not true.

And Jehovah God is going to get me because I think the latest issue of The Watchtower is not true.

And Anu is going to get me because I think the epic of Gilgamesh is not true.

And..............

[_Darth J]

What exactly is the difference between a rational worldview and a "rational" worldview?

Try these two links:

The New Inquisition.

Wiki.

Jim Lippard described the quality of research in the book as "very shoddy". Lippard listed inaccuracies about the Esperanza stone, fish falling from the sky and the alleged Mars Effect. The book had a large number of typographical errors. He also said that Wilsons' message about avoiding dogmatism was worthwhile, that the book was entertaining but that readers should be careful about taking Wilsons' explanations seriously.

Kristin Buxton compared Wilson to Martin Gardner, noting that Gardner has written on many of the topics that Wilson writes about in the book, taking very different points of view. She pointed out that Gardner doesn't think it is easy to exactly define pseudoscience, nor does Gardner think his ideas are infallible. She mentioned that other reviewers had pointed out problems with the research and that the book needs to be read with care.

[_RayAgostini]

Jim Lippard described the quality of research in the book as "very shoddy". Lippard listed inaccuracies about the Esperanza stone, fish falling from the sky and the alleged Mars Effect. The book had a large number of typographical errors. He also said that Wilsons' message about avoiding dogmatism was worthwhile, that the book was entertaining but that readers should be careful about taking Wilsons' explanations seriously.

Kristin Buxton compared Wilson to Martin Gardner, noting that Gardner has written on many of the topics that Wilson writes about in the book, taking very different points of view. She pointed out that Gardner doesn't think it is easy to exactly define pseudoscience, nor does Gardner think his ideas are infallible. She mentioned that other reviewers had pointed out problems with the research and that the book needs to be read with care.

WHY did you leave out the last sentence?:

She concluded with suggesting a merging of the views of Robert Anton Wilson and Martin Gardner as a possible new approach to science.

I'll tell you why. Because you're a dishonest person. Too bad your followers here haven't yet realised that.

[_Darth J]

WHY did you leave out the last sentence?:

She concluded with suggesting a merging of the views of Robert Anton Wilson and Martin Gardner as a possible new approach to science.

I'll tell you why. Because you're a dishonest person. Too bad your followers here haven't yet realised that.

No, I left it out because the idea that one should not be dogmatic about anything is so self-explanatory and obvious that the observation is trivial. And since one can arrive at this conclusion without wading through a book full of specious claims and inaccurate factual statements, the value of said book is questionable.

Anyway, Ray, how is it going addressing the OP? Do you intend to do that anytime soon, or will we be presented with more endless pages of your entreaties against dogmatic skepticism that are completely devoid of any evidence that your interlocutors are dogmatically skeptical?

[_RayAgostini]

No, I left it out because the idea that one should not be dogmatic about anything is so self-explanatory and obvious that the observation is trivial.

You really think people are that stupid, don't you?

[_Darth J]

No, I left it out because the idea that one should not be dogmatic about anything is so self-explanatory and obvious that the observation is trivial.

You really think people are that stupid, don't you?

No, if I am saying that it is self-explanatory that one should avoid dogmatism, it means I think people are not stupid.

Anyway, Ray, how about the issue raised in the OP? That's really something, isn't it? Maybe you should address the OP for once in any given thread in which you are participating. Given the similarity to UFO believers pointing to accounts of alien abductions, I would think that making the case for the persuasiveness of the Book of Mormon testimonials would be good practice for you.

[_lulu]

Why the need for the qualifier?

Why not?

Yet another high point in online Mormon apologetics.