DCP equates the Witnesses of the plates to witnesses of the Lincoln assassination

[drumdude]

Brian Hales hypothesizes that the polygamy denials were "denying polygamy through verbal technicalities that contained intentional ambiguity."

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... olygamist/


The problem is, we see the same intentional ambiguity and verbal technicalities throughout the accounts of how the Book of Mormon came to be. All of these men knew how to turn a phrase in order to intentionally deceive others.

[Rivendale]

Brian Hales hypothesizes that the polygamy denials were "denying polygamy through verbal technicalities that contained intentional ambiguity."

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... olygamist/


The problem is, we see the same intentional ambiguity and verbal technicalities throughout the accounts of how the Book of Mormon came to be. All of these men knew how to turn a phrase in order to intentionally deceive others.

My favorite verbal technicality? When Emily Partridge said she had "carnal intercourse" with Joseph Smith, she meant she engaged in an exchange of meat, such as passing him a platter of turkey. https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/ ... ologetics/

[drumdude]

Brian Hales hypothesizes that the polygamy denials were "denying polygamy through verbal technicalities that contained intentional ambiguity."

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... olygamist/


The problem is, we see the same intentional ambiguity and verbal technicalities throughout the accounts of how the Book of Mormon came to be. All of these men knew how to turn a phrase in order to intentionally deceive others.

My favorite verbal technicality? When Emily Partridge said she had "carnal intercourse" with Joseph Smith, she meant she engaged in an exchange of meat, such as passing him a platter of turkey. https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/ ... ologetics/

Incredible mental gymnastics. This is why I love watching LDS apologetics. It should be an Olympic sport.

[Marcus]

Brian Hales hypothesizes that the polygamy denials were "denying polygamy through verbal technicalities that contained intentional ambiguity."

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... olygamist/


The problem is, we see the same intentional ambiguity and verbal technicalities throughout the accounts of how the Book of Mormon came to be. All of these men knew how to turn a phrase in order to intentionally deceive others.

My favorite verbal technicality? When Emily Partridge said she had "carnal intercourse" with Joseph Smith, she meant she engaged in an exchange of meat, such as passing him a platter of turkey. https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/ ... ologetics/

omg, i hope we can get the thread restored that discussed this. that was hilarious. who knew there were so many puns to be discovered? it was a fabulous thread. I read so many excerpts from that to my family members. The humor never ended.

[Philo Sofee]

Doesn’t everything Peterson writes make sense when you realize it’s all a devotional?

ZING! This is precisely correct. As always I appreciate your astute observations good Dr.

[Res Ipsa]

My favorite verbal technicality? When Emily Partridge said she had "carnal intercourse" with Joseph Smith, she meant she engaged in an exchange of meat, such as passing him a platter of turkey. https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/ ... ologetics/

omg, i hope we can get the thread restored that discussed this. that was hilarious. who knew there were so many puns to be discovered? it was a fabulous thread. I read so many excerpts from that to my family members. The humor never ended.

It sure made me think about carne asada differently...

[Dr Moore]

My favorite verbal technicality? When Emily Partridge said she had "carnal intercourse" with Joseph Smith, she meant she engaged in an exchange of meat, such as passing him a platter of turkey. https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/ ... ologetics/

omg, i hope we can get the thread restored that discussed this. that was hilarious. who knew there were so many puns to be discovered? it was a fabulous thread. I read so many excerpts from that to my family members. The humor never ended.

Was that thread on this board?

[Marcus]

omg, i hope we can get the thread restored that discussed this. that was hilarious. who knew there were so many puns to be discovered? it was a fabulous thread. I read so many excerpts from that to my family members. The humor never ended.

Was that thread on this board?

There was a thread here , but in the previous rendition i think

[Dr Moore]

Was that thread on this board?

There was a thread here , but in the previous rendition i think

I found these. Maybe bump one if it’s relevant.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=103791&hilit=emily+partridge
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=103554&hilit=emily+partridge
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=103048&hilit=emily+partridge
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=102275&hilit=emily+partridge

[Kishkumen]

The body of Lincoln was available for examination by disinterested parties. Can the same be said for the plates?

Also, Joseph Smith got people to sign an affidavit falsely claiming that Joseph Smith was not involved in polygamy. That's a huge red flag, on top of the red flags of the plates witnesses signing something they didn't write, having an interest in the outcome of the Book of Mormon, being closely related to the parties involved, and so forth.

Indeed. The fact that the witnesses did not write their own statements should be a huge red flag. My recollection was that some of them hesitated to sign because they felt the statement did not really reflect their individual experiences. And let’s face it, if you signed it, and the church later became the only significant thing you had any role in, you would have very good reasons to stick by the testimony, flawed as it was.

The Book of Mormon witnesses are poorly understood and misused.