Dan Vogel Posted April 13, 2007 Posted April 13, 2007 I wasn't impressed with Anderson's response. I have given some response to it on this board, which can be found easily by searching.
Dan Vogel Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 I did not see an in-depth reponse in my searches.OK. Let's try this. You tell us what you think is Anderson's strongest argument against those who think the eight witnesses saw the plates with spiritual eyes.
Log Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 Several witnesses left accounts wherein they specifically claimed to have handled the plates, turned the leaves thereof, and described characters being engraved on both sides. None appear to have said, in so many words, "we hefted the plates in a box, and then the eyes of our minds were opened to see the plates in the box as a vision."
Dan Vogel Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 Several witnesses left accounts wherein they specifically claimed to have handled the plates, turned the leaves thereof, and described characters being engraved on both sides. None appear to have said, in so many words, "we hefted the plates in a box, and then the eyes of our minds were opened to see the plates in the box as a vision."How do you deal with John Whitmer's telling Theodore Turley in 1839 that the plates were shown to him by a "supernatural power"?
Log Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 How do you deal with John Whitmer's telling Theodore Turley in 1839 that the plates were shown to him by a "supernatural power"?I personally feel Anderson's explanation is probably correct. Where do you think he errs in his analysis on this point, found on page 6 of the article?But even at best, it is difficult to reconcile your notion of psuedohallucination, or spiritual-only-vision of the plates, with Whitmer's multiple statements that he handled the plates, and observed fine engravings on both sides, within the same interview.
charity Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 What did John Whitmer define "supernatural power" as? From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:SUPERNAT'URAL, a. [super and natural.] Being beyond or exceeding the powers or laws of nature; miraculous. A supernatural event is one which is not produced according to the ordinary or established laws of natural things. Thus if iron has more specific gravity than water, it will sink in that fluid; and the floating of iron on water must be a supernatural event. Now no human being can alter a law of nature; the floating of iron on water therefore must be caused by divine power specially exerted to suspend, in this instance,a law of nature. Hence supernatural events or miracles can be produced only by the immediate agency of divine power.The plates were in the possession of Joseph Smith how? Divine power.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.