But the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is…well…a statement. Thanks for confirming that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon doesn’t mean/prove anything. We are agreed.
You should go to bed and get some rest. Tomorrow morning you may wake up refreshed and recognize how silly you sound.
Get some rest, IHQ.
What I’m finding interesting is the fact that you’re placing all your eggs in one basket (statement) made by a prejudiced anti-Mormon and making a one to one comparison with the evidence for the plates.
And no, I’m not going to respond to your next question having to do with ‘show me the evidence for the plates’. This has been discussed ad nauseam.
The point of discussion is Steuss’s rather weak reference.
But the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is…well…a statement. Thanks for confirming that the best evidence for the Book of Mormon doesn’t mean/prove anything. We are agreed.
What I’m finding interesting is the fact that you’re placing all your eggs in one basket (statement) made by a prejudiced anti-Mormon and making a one to one comparison with the evidence for the plates.
What evidence for the plates?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
What I’m finding interesting is the fact that you’re placing all your eggs in one basket (statement) made by a prejudiced anti-Mormon and making a one to one comparison with the evidence for the plates.
What I’m finding interesting is the fact that you’re placing all your eggs in one basket (statement) made by a prejudiced anti-Mormon and making a one to one comparison with the evidence for the plates.
What evidence for the plates?
Bump
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
In 1838, Harris publicly admitted that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination."[229][230] Harris publicly denied that any of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon had ever seen or handled the golden plates. Harris's statement reportedly induced five influential members, including three apostles, to leave the church.[231] In the 1870s, Harris again gave an interview where he admitted "I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state." [232]
The best evidence for the Book of Mormon…etc
Steuss and Marcus have presented solid evidence that Smith used a tile brick as a prop to try and con people into believing he had gold plates. Harris confirms there weren’t any real gold plates.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
As I’ve said a number of times now, if you’re comfortable in believing this account/story that’s fine.
Granted, it does fit in with your overall narrative that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The plates are a little harder to navigate....
There doesn't seem to be an answer in there....
"What was the point of your incorrect accusion about Vogel's use of ellipses followed by your incorrect assumption of the historians meaning, and now backed up with another misunderstanding of Anderson?"
I'm sure you won't answer or even retract your nonsensical accusations, as usual, so ....moving on.
Hussey is buried in the Palmyra Cemetery. Based on when he passed (a few years after the Book of Mormon's publication), the account documented by McIntosh was either from a journal, affidavit, or from someone who had been told the story.
I can’t find where Vanduzer (whose name I misspelled before) was buried. I did find a transcription of the meeting minutes from a "special town meeting" of residents in Palmyra from January 20, 1818. Vanduzer was voted to serve as a Constable. It appears that Joseph Smith's grandfather may have been there too (small world moment), but it could have been another "Asa" Smith.
There's no reason to believe that they both didn't exist, and both weren't residents of Palmyra with Joseph Smith.
I agree, it's clear they were. I read a bit from grindael's old site which i ended up on while looking for the Anderson excerpt. He was a master at establishing the culture, the social scene, the lifestyle of the Smith family and neighborhood. His posts are as fascinating as ever.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
"What was the point of your incorrect accusion about Vogel's use of ellipses followed by your incorrect assumption of the historians meaning, and now backed up with another misunderstanding of Anderson?"
I'm sure you won't answer or even retract your nonsensical accusations, as usual, so ....moving on.
I agree, it's clear they were. I read a bit from grindael's old site which i ended up on while looking for the Anderson excerpt. He was a master at establishing the culture, the social scene, the lifestyle of the Smith family and neighborhood. His posts are as fascinating as ever.
But again, Pomeroy…if I’m not mistaken, included these testimonies at a later time. It was later recollection. Memories can be molded and morphed depending on the inward workings of an individual’s heart and mind over time.
There’s just not enough there there, in my opinion. I am wholly cognizant that opinions will vary, again, because of the inward workings of an individual’s own heart and mind.
It’s good to have different shades/levels of understanding in the mix so that all can benefit thereby. I appreciate the viewpoints of others. I just happen to disagree that the evidence is there for the brick story to replace the narrative of the plates.