why me Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Your suggestion that any random person claiming visionary experience trumps a historian, hobbyist or otherwise, is ludicrous. Please tell us on what grounds can such a person better assess and analyze historical sources?You have ignored my link showing two occasions where John seems to confirm that he saw and handled the plates without a cloth.
Dan Vogel Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 Why Me,I respond to this reported statement in detail in my essay. Briefly, it comes from a discredited source, P. Wilhelm Poulson, who questioned both David and John Whitmer. David complained about the accuracy of Poulson’s interview with him. He made David claim that after he and Cowdery had their vision they joined Harris and JS and had another. Of course, this strengthened their testimony.Poulson’s interview with John is wildly inaccurate, especially for its claim that the plates were show in the Smith home to four witnesses at a time.The clue is in Poulson’s question about the cloth. Where did he get that question? No one was discussing it and he had no access to that information, except through Whitmer. I believe he reversed what Whitmer had actually told him.
Dan Vogel Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 You have ignored my link showing two occasions where John seems to confirm that he saw and handled the plates without a cloth.You've ignored my entire essay where it was completely answered. If you haven't noticed, I'm more or less responding in order and I can stop without notice, so your complaint is unreasonable to say the least.
Dan Vogel Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 Why Me, “There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false?" Whitmer, asked, "Do you hint at me?" Elder Turley said, "If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." John replied: "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." Then he described in the presence of these bitter enemies how the plates were fastened and he said, "They were shown to me by a supernatural power.And this helps your interpretation how? He said he handled the plates, but they were shown to him supernaturally. How do you resolve that apparent conflict?I would argue that Harris gave us the clue to resolve that puzzle. Burnett’s letter reads: “he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight [witnesses] was false ...”Both statements were given in 1838 by the way.
why me Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 You've ignored my entire essay where it was completely answered. If you haven't noticed, I'm more or less responding in order and I can stop without notice, so your complaint is unreasonable to say the least.In your essay you concentrate on the 'supernatual power' angle. But this can be easily explained. For the witnesses it would not matter if they handled the plates with just JS present. It would still be possible to explain the experiences as by a supernatural power. We need to remember that much was probably said during that moment between JS and the witnesses. And many had the experience of knowing about the plates and how JS claimed they came about. How would you describe the event if you were one of the eight witnesses? The book of mormon was brought forth by a supernatural power and so, this expression would be typical.
why me Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Why Me,And this helps your interpretation how? He said he handled the plates, but they were shown to him supernaturally. How do you resolve that apparent conflict?I answered this in my last post above. At that time much that would be difficult to explain could be interpreted as supernatural. The whole book of mormon experience for the witnesses was supernatural.
Dan Vogel Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 In your essay you concentrate on the 'supernatual power' angle. But this can be easily explained. For the witnesses it would not matter if they handled the plates with just JS present. It would still be possible to explain the experiences as by a supernatural power. We need to remember that much was probably said during that moment between JS and the witnesses. And many had the experience of knowing about the plates and how JS claimed they came about. How would you describe the event if you were one of the eight witnesses? The book of mormon was brought forth by a supernatural power and so, this expression would be typical.Sorry, that makes no sense.
Dan Vogel Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 I answered this in my last post above. At that time much that would be difficult to explain could be interpreted as supernatural. The whole book of mormon experience for the witnesses was supernatural.Still makes no sense.
why me Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses_3.pdfHarris' final testimony on his deathbed is quite strong. Read the ending of the article.
why me Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Sorry, that makes no sense.It makes perfect sense. The entire experience of the witnesses was supernatural. They certainly wouldn't consider it an earthly experience. How would you explain the experience if you were one of the witnesses knowing what you know about how this book came into being? The term supernatural is a perfect description of the experience. We also need to remember that martin on his deathbed gave a power testimony where he claimed to have seen the plates.
why me Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Still makes no sense.How would you explain it if you were one of the witnesses knowing how this book came to be? Supernatural would mean not of this world. And the experience wasn't of this world. To see the plates that was claimed from an angel would be supernatural.
Dan Vogel Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 It makes perfect sense. The entire experience of the witnesses was supernatural. They certainly wouldn't consider it an earthly experience. How would you explain the experience if you were one of the witnesses knowing what you know about how this book came into being? The term supernatural is a perfect description of the experience. We also need to remember that martin on his deathbed gave a power testimony where he claimed to have seen the plates.If the eight witnesses viewed the plates in a completely natural way, you can't at the same time say it was entirely supernatural. Look up the term. Your line of argument doesn't make sense.
Dan Vogel Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 http://www.fairlds.o...Witnesses_3.pdfHarris' final testimony on his deathbed is quite strong. Read the ending of the article.I never said Harris denied his testimony or wasn't sure. To him it was real. That's not the issue here.
wenglund Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Wade, Your suggestion that any random person claiming visionary experience trumps a historian, hobbyist or otherwise, is ludicrous. Please tell us on what grounds can such a person better assess and analyze historical sources?So, anybody can claim to be an historian, and by so doing it somehow endows them with greater authority to speak about things they have not experienced than those who have? What idiocy!Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
why me Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) I never said Harris denied his testimony or wasn't sure. To him it was real. That's not the issue here.But it is the issue because critics like yourself bring up the spiritual eyes comment. Which by the way, would compliment the supernatural experience.I never said Harris denied his testimony or wasn't sure. To him it was real. That's not the issue here.As it was for Whitmer and Cowdery. All went to their deaths with their testimony on their lips. You make a big deal about the term supernatural. But harris, did not use that term on his deathbed. However, as an explanation among others, it is very visual and a good figurative word that john was in his right to use. Edited March 16, 2012 by why me
wenglund Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Speaking of contextualizing, let me restate (with additions) what I said earlier:The fundamental issue here is whether the golden plates physically existed or not and were in Joseph's possession.With that in mind, it may be prudent to explore the question of what, if anything, was the intended purpose for which the three witnesses and eight witnesses were chosen. Were they chosen to witness to and testify of visions, and/or to "view things as they are" (D&C 5:11-18)?What prompted the revelation linked above is, "Martin Harris has desired a witness at my hand, that you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., have got the plates of which you have testified and borne record that you have received of me;" (ibid. verse 1)Joseph was instructed to tell Martin: "I, the Lord, am God, and have given these things [the plates] unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and have commanded you that you should stand as a witness of these things; And I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I commanded you..." (ibid. verses 2-3)Evidently, the purpose for the three witnesses was, in part, to testify, along with Joseph, that Joseph did have the plates--i.e. the purpose was to fulfill the law of witnesses in regards to the physical existence of the plates. The law couldn't have been fulfilled except the three witnesses physically experienced the plates in the same way that Joseph had. A purely visionary experience would not suffice. The witnesses needed to "view things as they are," as the Lord commanded.In short, Vogel's argument doesm't make much sense in terms of the reason behind having witnesses to begin with.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited March 16, 2012 by wenglund
LDSToronto Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 How come none of you guys address what Dan actually wrote? H.
Dan Vogel Posted March 17, 2012 Author Posted March 17, 2012 So, anybody can claim to be an historian, and by so doing it somehow endows them with greater authority to speak about things they have not experienced than those who have? What idiocy!Thanks, -Wade Englund-Wade,You are making less and less sense. I care less about a label than about the evidence and arguments. I never made any claim to authority. You are trying to make an analogy with historians based on your own bad argument about people you have given authority because they have had visions.
Dan Vogel Posted March 17, 2012 Author Posted March 17, 2012 Why Me,Yes, I bring up Harris’s repeated spiritual eyes statement, along with others. I do that to show the subjective nature of his vision. That says nothing about the intensity of Harris’s belief that it was a real vision from God. That’s not in doubt, at least as far as I’m concerned. The same goes for Whitmer and Cowdery. On John Whitmer, I think you’re waffling.
Dan Vogel Posted March 17, 2012 Author Posted March 17, 2012 Speaking of contextualizing, let me restate (with additions) what I said earlier:The fundamental issue here is whether the golden plates physically existed or not and were in Joseph's possession.With that in mind, it may be prudent to explore the question of what, if anything, was the intended purpose for which the three witnesses and eight witnesses were chosen. Were they chosen to witness to and testify of visions, and/or to "view things as they are" (D&C 5:11-18)?What prompted the revelation linked above is, "Martin Harris has desired a witness at my hand, that you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., have got the plates of which you have testified and borne record that you have received of me;" (ibid. verse 1)Joseph was instructed to tell Martin: "I, the Lord, am God, and have given these things [the plates] unto you, my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and have commanded you that you should stand as a witness of these things; And I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them except to those persons to whom I commanded you..." (ibid. verses 2-3)Evidently, the purpose for the three witnesses was, in part, to testify, along with Joseph, that Joseph did have the plates--i.e. the purpose was to fulfill the law of witnesses in regards to the physical existence of the plates. The law couldn't have been fulfilled except the three witnesses physically experienced the plates in the same way that Joseph had. A purely visionary experience would not suffice. The witnesses needed to "view things as they are," as the Lord commanded.In short, Vogel's argument doesm't make much sense in terms of the reason behind having witnesses to begin with.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Wade,This argument, if it could be called that, doesn't make any sense.
Bob Oliverio Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 I admit I am late in this thread. And I do not want to interfere with the deep conversation about who "saw, touched, felt thought about, spiritualized or hallucinated about the plates"! But am I missing something here? Why spend so much time and effort on "who saw what and how"? Since the BoM is supposedly an accurate translation of the plates, shouldn't we be focused on what the evidence is for the historic claims of the BOM? All this arguing over the plates seems quite meaningless and trivial when the focus should be on evidence to their supposed history claims.Does that make any sense?
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) By the way, it is physiologically impossible for two different people to have the same hallucination.This is precisely the difference between subjective and objective according to many philosophers.If you are with a companion and you see, say, an unusual flash in the sky, the first thing you would do is ask your companion "Did you see that?" And why do you do that? Exactly because you want some kind of verification that your eyes were not playing tricks on you. Edited March 17, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Bill,True. But how would they know it was different?I touched on this in my original essay:Quote on "group hallucination"So hundreds see an angel or an apparition and it is dismissed totally as "group hallucination"? What kind of question-begging nonsense is that? Certainly any unknown phenomenon can be dismissed as "group hallucination", but exactly at the point, that term becomes meaningless. I suppose the first observers of the rings of Saturn could have been having a "group hallucination" in your opinion, but subsequent observation has proven that would have been an error.
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 Wade,This argument, if it could be called that, doesn't make any sense.It's a shame you can't tell us why. I see that a lot from you. Your arguments tend to begin and end with arguments from authority- and that authority is YOU. 1
LDSToronto Posted March 17, 2012 Posted March 17, 2012 This is precisely the difference between subjective and objective according to many philosophers.If you are with a companion and you see, say, an unusual flash in the sky, the first thing you would do is ask your companion "Did you see that?"And why do you do that? Exactly because you want some kind of verification that your eyes were not playing tricks on you.Or perhaps you wanted to share in the amazement. Or maybe it's a colloquialism used for expressing astonishment. There are interpretations that range beyond verification of an event.H.
Recommended Posts