Joseph Smith wrote witnesses statement

why me · **Joined:** Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm **Posts:** 7907

Drifting wrote:

]

What do you think the phrase "I saw them with spiritual eyes" means?

Bumpage...

I must be on ignore. :rolleyes:

Doctor CamNC4Me · **Joined:** Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am **Posts:** 4559

why me wrote:

And if we did find conclusive evidence, what would you do? Hightail it back to church, live the commandments, head to the temple...or would you still be where you are now when it comes to the lds church?

Well, of course. But that hasn't happened.

- VRDRC

Drifting · **Joined:** Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am **Posts:** 7308

Why were the eight additional witnesses necessary?

lulu · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:18 am

Whole lot a duckin' goin' on. Ya alls goin' hurt yur necks.

Let's just get a specific, detailed, responsive answer to this question

lulu wrote:

And I'm wondering why D&C 17 doesn't just say, you'll see the plates. Why the need for the qualifier - as Joseph Smith has seen them?

Why the need for the qualifier?

why me · **Joined:** Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm **Posts:** 7907

lulu wrote:

[color=#400040]Whole lot a duckin' goin' on. Ya alls goin' hurt yur necks.

Lets try this again. Oliver wasn't ducking with his statement here:

Here is more oliver:

While darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people; long after the authority to administer in holy things had been taken away, the Lord opened the heavens and sent forth His word to the salvation of Israel. In the fulfillment of the sacred Scriptures, the everlasting Gospel was proclaimed by the mighty Angel (Moroni), who, clothed with the authority of his mission, gave glory to God in the highest. John the Baptist, holding the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood; Peter, James, and John, holding the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood, have also ministered for those who shall be heirs of salvation, and with these administrations ordained men to the same Priesthood. These Priesthoods, with their authority, are now, and must continue to be, in the body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Blessed is the Elder who has received the same, and thrice blessed and holy is he who shall endure to the end.

Accept assurances, dear brother, of the unfeigned prayer of him who, in connection with Joseph the Seer, was blessed with the above ministrations, and who earnestly and devotedly hopes to meet you in the celestial glory.

(Signed) Oliver Cowdery.
To Elder Samuel W. Richards
January 13, 1849.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2010/08/2 ... testimony/

I see no spiritual eyes here either. Notice the date. He returned to the church and was still relating the story for the upteenth time. Oliver is a strong witness to what he has experienced.

why me · **Joined:** Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm **Posts:** 7907

lulu wrote:

Why the need for the qualifier?

Why not?

Darth J · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:04 pm

why me wrote:

Darth J wrote:

I wonder if, at some point, Why Me or gdemetz will be able to consider that the so-called "Book of Mormon witnesses" gave inconsistent statements about what they claimed to have experienced.

Are the witnesses robots, taught to memorize a response? We have 11 people being asked several times in their lives about what they experienced. Unfortunately they could not play a tape when asked. Anyone who has told the story in the same manner in the same way must have rehearsed the story over and over again because they have something to hide.

No, it's not a matter of them reciting verbatim the words that Joseph Smith put in their mouths. It is whether the story is the same in substance. The claimed Book of Mormon witnesses, who in fact had no personal knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true, sometimes told their stories in a way that made it sound like a physical experience, and at other times made it sound like a visionary experience.

why me wrote:

Darth J wrote:

But let's turn your question around, gdemetz. For how long, and in how many places, would we have to look for evidence of the Nephite or Jaredite civilizations and not find it before you would be willing to consider that neither of these civilizations ever existed?

And if we did find conclusive evidence, what would you do? Hightail it back to church, live the commandments, head to the temple...or would you still be where you are now when it comes to the lds church?

It's a non sequitur that if the Book of Mormon is true, the modern LDS Church must be true.

Darth J · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:09 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

It was no delusion:

Quote:

Because Oliver Cowdery died in 1850 at age 43 and Martin Harris died in 1875 at age 91, David Whitmer was the only survivor of the Three Witnesses for 13 years. At Richmond, Missouri, he sometimes received several inquirers daily asking about his connection to the Book of Mormon, including Mormon missionaries who were traveling from Utah to the eastern United States and Europe. Despite his hostility toward the LDS Church, Whitmer always stood by his claim that he had actually seen the Golden Plates.[30]

Nevertheless, his testimonies were recorded differently from one retelling to another.[31] Recounting the vision to Orson Pratt in 1878, Whitmer claimed to have seen not only the Golden Plates but the "Brass Plates, the plates containing the record of the wickedness of the people of the world....the sword of Laban, the Directors (i.e. the ball which Lehi had) and the Interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed...."[32]

In 1880, John Murphy interviewed Whitmer and later published an account suggesting that perhaps Whitmer's experience was a "delusion or perhaps a cunning scheme." Murphy's account said that Whitmer had not been able to describe the appearance of an angel and had likened Whitmer's experience to the "impressions as the quaker [receives] when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience."[33] Whitmer responded by publishing A Proclamation, reaffirming his testimony and saying,

"It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the BOOK OF MORMON. To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement: That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published. He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; it was no delusion!"[34]

To the Proclamation Whitmer attached an affidavit attesting to his honesty and standing in the community.[35] Whitmer ordered that his testimony to the Book of Mormon be placed on his tombstone.[36]

This only shows that David Whitmer was convinced of his experience. It does nothing to demonstrate that his claimed experience was indicative of objective reality (i.e., that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical record). But this statement is also non-responsive to the issue of whether David Whitmer's experience was physical and tangible or whether it was a vision. 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."

Darth J · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:11 pm

why me wrote:

lulu wrote:

[color=#400040]Whole lot a duckin' goin' on. Ya alls goin' hurt yur necks.

Lets try this again. Oliver wasn't ducking with his statement here:

Here is more oliver:

While darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people; long after the authority to administer in holy things had been taken away, the Lord opened the heavens and sent forth His word to the salvation of Israel. In the fulfillment of the sacred Scriptures, the everlasting Gospel was proclaimed by the mighty Angel (Moroni), who, clothed with the authority of his mission, gave glory to God in the highest. John the Baptist, holding the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood; Peter, James, and John, holding the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood, have also ministered for those who shall be heirs of salvation, and with these administrations ordained men to the same Priesthood. These Priesthoods, with their authority, are now, and must continue to be, in the body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Blessed is the Elder who has received the same, and thrice blessed and holy is he who shall endure to the end.

Accept assurances, dear brother, of the unfeigned prayer of him who, in connection with Joseph the Seer, was blessed with the above ministrations, and who earnestly and devotedly hopes to meet you in the celestial glory.

(Signed) Oliver Cowdery.
To Elder Samuel W. Richards
January 13, 1849.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2010/08/2 ... testimony/

I see no spiritual eyes here either. Notice the date. He returned to the church and was still relating the story for the upteenth time. Oliver is a strong witness to what he has experienced.

Another non-responsive statement. The above quote does not say anything about Oliver Cowdery's claimed experience that was the basis for him being one of the Three Witnesses.

RayAgostini · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:43 pm **Posts:** 1633

Darth J wrote:

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.

Tobin · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:19 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

Darth J wrote:

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.

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

Chap · **Joined:** Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am **Posts:** 5561

RayAgostini wrote:

Darth J wrote:

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.

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

Chap · **Joined:** Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am **Posts:** 5561

Tobin wrote:

Pur-lease ...

Darth J · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:35 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

Darth J wrote:

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 won't, 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 · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:43 pm **Posts:** 1633

Chap wrote:

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

Try these two links:

The New Inquisition.

Wiki.

Darth J · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:47 pm

Tobin wrote:

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 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:52 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

Chap wrote:

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 · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:43 pm **Posts:** 1633

Darth J wrote:

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?:

Quote:

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 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:27 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

WHY did you leave out the last sentence?:

Quote:

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 · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:43 pm **Posts:** 1633

Darth J wrote:

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 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:35 pm

RayAgostini wrote:

Darth J wrote:

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.

Joseph Smith wrote witnesses statement

Who is online