Reviews of RSR

[noel00]

Marvin Hill has a review in Dialogue Vol 39, No3 on RSR.I was amazed how critical he was of the book. Some of the major points he raised were the differences between the 1832 and 1838 account, exactly how and what the BOM witnesses saw (with their naked or spiritual eyes). While he is impressed with much of the book he thought their were serious problems with how Bushman chose which evidence to accept and his interpretation of difficult areas.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Marvin Hill has a review in Dialogue Vol 39, No3 on RSR.I was amazed how critical he was of the book. Some of the major points he raised were the differences between the 1832 and 1838 account, exactly how and what the BOM witnesses saw (with their naked or spiritual eyes). While he is impressed with much of the book he thought their were serious problems with how Bushman chose which evidence to accept and his interpretation of difficult areas.

The naked/spiritual eyes "problem" is mostly the invention of those who wish to do away with the power of witnesses to the physical, actual BoM plates, plain and simple. Looking at the full historical record as much as is available critics are making a mountain from a molehill by selecting evidence which favors their spirity version.

[volgadon]

David Whitmer on that is particularly interesting.

[the narrator]

The naked/spiritual eyes "problem" is mostly the invention of those who wish to do away with the power of witnesses to the physical, actual BoM plates, plain and simple. Looking at the full historical record as much as is available critics are making a mountain from a molehill by selecting evidence which favors their spirity version.

I think that this is a bit too simplistic. Withing the context of magic, the spiritual/physical divide of seeing is very thin. While the testimonies of the eight witnesses (and maybe David Whitmer's and Oliver Cowdery's) perhaps lend themselves to a more physical manifestation. Martin Harris's vision of the plates, and his own descriptions of the vision, seems to be a spiritual and not physical experience.

[USU78]

I think that this is a bit too simplistic. Withing the context of magic, the spiritual/physical divide of seeing is very thin. While the testimonies of the eight witnesses (and maybe David Whitmer's and Oliver Cowdery's) perhaps lend themselves to a more physical manifestation. Martin Harris's vision of the plates, and his own descriptions of the vision, seems to be a spiritual and not physical experience.

Maybe . . . perhaps . . . seems . . .

Hmmmmmm

[the narrator]

Maybe . . . perhaps . . . seems . . .

Hmmmmmm

forgive me for not being a omniscient God like you who is able to make absolute claims.

[Chris Smith]

The book was definitely lacking in a few respects, including in its treatment of polygamy (IMO). It is, however, the best Joseph Smith biography currently available, and what it does include makes up in large measure for what is omitted.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think that this is a bit too simplistic. Withing the context of magic, the spiritual/physical divide of seeing is very thin.

Which exactly supports my point. And Martin Harris specifically made statements that made it clear he believed he physically saw and handled the plates in addition to any spiritual element.

While the testimonies of the eight witnesses (and maybe David Whitmer's and Oliver Cowdery's) perhaps lend themselves to a more physical manifestation.

More physical in terms of "yes, we handled it with our own hands" sort of thing.

Martin Harris's vision of the plates, and his own descriptions of the vision, seems to be a spiritual and not physical experience.

Wow, I should have read your whole post first. As you can see, I disagree.

[Nathair/|\]

forgive me for not being a omniscient God like you who is able to make absolute claims.

I know some minor gods who are leery about doing that outside their areas of expertise.

Yours under the semi-scient oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Anijen]

The book was definitely lacking in a few respects, including in its treatment of polygamy (IMO). It is, however, the best Joseph Smith biography currently available, and what it does include makes up in large measure for what is omitted.

I agree. It is the best thus far, notwithstanding its weaknesses.