Not Your Standard First Vision Thread

[Limnor]

I’m not sure this will be understandable, but I’ll try.

In my view, each witness that claimed “it’s true” affirmed a true record of guilt and succession disguised as scripture.

The repeated insistence that “we know it is true” becomes an unconscious confession chorus, each voice confirming the truth of what happened and their part in it.

Consider:

A prophetic record is taken from its rightful keeper through betrayal, spiritual violence, and death.

Allegory:

This represents the transfer of authority from Alvin (the original seer) to Joseph (the successor and appropriator).

The Book itself is the memorialized record of that act.

A confession encoded as scripture.

[Limnor]

I’m glad you explained, malkie, thank you.

[malkie]

Try reading my comment to determine whether it appears to have been intended to be "directly applicable ...to what [you] said", whether "point by point" or not.

If it's not, then the comment really does not add to the discussion in my opinion. It's merely a rhetorical 'side tracking' and deflating device/method to take the air out of what was being said and make it appear to be of little or no worth.

Regards,
MG

OK

[MG 2.0]

And so far, none that spilled the beans. And they may have even had good reason to...in their mind.

Regards,
MG

If Rigdon knew he contributed he would loose his own aspirations if he admitted it. Could be true of any others helping produce the book.

There is a possibility Rigdon contributed without knowing it. I do not think that is what Limnor is proposing however.

To me there's something a bit fishy about a fraud hypothesis that has been pinned, at least initially, on two people in a church that required ongoing devotion and loyalty. It seems as though the fraud, if there was fraud, was contagious...or the sincerity was.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...To me there's something a bit fishy about a fraud hypothesis that has been pinned, at least initially, on two people in a church that required ongoing devotion and loyalty. It seems as though the fraud, if there was fraud, was contagious...or the sincerity was. ...

And yet another post that malkie's comment most adequately described:

It reminds me a bit of the guy who, for safety, snuck a b*mb onto a plane. After all, he reasoned, the probability of two b*mbs on a plane is so much less than the probability of one.

[I Have Questions]

It reminds me a bit of the guy who, for safety, snuck a b*mb onto a plane. After all, he reasoned, the probability of two b*mbs on a plane is so much less than the probability of one.

The presence of one bomb does not influence the probability of another bomb being on a plane. The idea that one bomb protects against the other is absurd. Please show how this reasoning that you're putting out there, even if somewhat in jest, is directly applicable point by point to what I've said.

Regards,
MG

Earlier you said

The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds".

Is there someone around you that can explain how the two statements you’ve made are contradictory? I’m wondering if you realise that. You also don’t seem to comprehend the concept of theoretical probability.

[I Have Questions]

In order to put those two in that category wouldn't you by default have to put a bunch of others in that group also? By making it a small group it's easier to wrap your mind around, right? The larger the group you have to at least entertain the possibility that they are not all "frauds". If that is true, one might then be led to ask themself whether ANY of them were frauds.

In the example of Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent Ponzi scheme, the group involved in its perpetuation was larger than 2. It directly undermines your suggestion and shows it to be illogical.

[MG 2.0]

If Rigdon knew he contributed he would loose his own aspirations if he admitted it. Could be true of any others helping produce the book.

There is a possibility Rigdon contributed without knowing it. I do not think that is what Limnor is proposing however.

To me there's something a bit fishy about a fraud hypothesis that has been pinned, at least initially, on two people in a church that required ongoing devotion and loyalty. It seems as though the fraud, if there was fraud, was contagious...or the sincerity was.

Regards,
MG

In addition to this one might consider that the larger the group, the more likely someone would have broken ranks, and the more difficult it becomes to maintain a coordinated deception. Some kind of sincerity seems to be at play. I suppose one could ask what kind of sincerity we are talking about.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

To me there's something a bit fishy about a fraud hypothesis that has been pinned, at least initially, on two people in a church that required ongoing devotion and loyalty. It seems as though the fraud, if there was fraud, was contagious...or the sincerity was.

Regards,
MG

In addition to this one might consider that the larger the group, the more likely someone would have broken ranks, and the more difficult it becomes to maintain a coordinated deception. Some kind of sincerity seems to be at play. I suppose one could ask what kind of sincerity we are talking about.

Regards,
MG

Not when it’s all family and friends with a vested interest, as has already been pointed out to you.

In the example of Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent Ponzi scheme, the group involved in its perpetuation was larger than 2. It directly undermines your suggestion and shows it to be illogical.

The Manhattan Project, the resting place of Ghengis Khan, The location of the Ark of the Covenant, the planned movements of Royals and Presidents…etc etc etc. Larger groups of people can, and do, keep secrets.

[Limnor]

In addition to this one might consider that the larger the group, the more likely someone would have broken ranks, and the more difficult it becomes to maintain a coordinated deception. Some kind of sincerity seems to be at play. I suppose one could ask what kind of sincerity we are talking about.

Regards,
MG

Not when it’s all family and friends with a vested interest, as has already been pointed out to you.

In the example of Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent Ponzi scheme, the group involved in its perpetuation was larger than 2. It directly undermines your suggestion and shows it to be illogical.

The Manhattan Project, the resting place of Ghengis Khan, The location of the Ark of the Covenant, the planned movements of Royals and Presidents…etc etc etc. Larger groups of people can, and do, keep secrets.

I said this earlier in the thread. My job requires me to keep secrets, and a great number of people are aware of those same secrets without leaking them. Sometimes leaks happen, yes, but it isn’t a given that because a number of people are privy to something that it follows that the secret can’t be kept.