Book Of Mormon Witnesses Video

[Dan Vogel]

“Book of Mormon Witnesses.”

Pt. 1:

Pt. 2:

Pt. 3:

[why me]

“Book of Mormon Witnesses.”

Pt. 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47-RWVYzmkM&feature=g-upl

In regards to your first video we do have a source that claimed that John Whitmer said that he turned the pages of the plates over.

Here is John Whitmer: Whitmer replied to this: "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."

http://www.moroni10.com/mormon_history/theodore-turley-john-whitmer.html

How would John know that there were engravings on both sides of the plates if he were not it to be so or handled them?

[Dan Vogel]

In regards to your first video we do have a source that claimed that John Whitmer said that he turned the pages of the plates over.

Here is John Whitmer: Whitmer replied to this: "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."

http://www.moroni10....hn-whitmer.html

How would John know that there were engravings on both sides of the plates if he were not it to be so or handled them?

Emma said she could ruffle the edges through the cloth. Just because they are in a sack doesn't mean the pages couldn't be moved.

[Duncan]

Emma said she could ruffle the edges through the cloth. Just because they are in a sack doesn't mean the pages couldn't be moved.

well, John Whitmer said there were fine engravings on both sides so to me that indicates he looked on both sides to even know that

[cdowis]

Video 2.

Your use of the word "faulty" in your speech is itself misleading. It implies that the witness statements contradict historical facts, but the histories give additional details that are not found in the witness statements. Your use of "faulty" is flawed and itself disappointing. On the three witness statement, you make a broad accusation but do not show how a "two event" is significantly contradicted by the witness statement, but in reality is it merely a historical detail. Again, the "visionary" aspect of the statement is very clear, but the historical details again do not show that the witness statement is "faulty" but merely missing those details. Within the same paragraph describing the witness statements, you introduce both "faulty" and "hallucinaton" into the discourse. You have not even introduced your evidence and already you are giving us your conclusion. Even using "spiritual" in this early stage of your talk, coming from an unbeliever, is just another way of saying the same thing.

Clearly you alreasy had those words in mind in your initial examination of the evidence and you are now merely presenting evidence to prove your pre-determined conclusion.

You are missing the purpose of the witness statement. Those details are not excluded in an attempt to deceive or conceal, but are openly discussed in subsequent statements by the participants. The purpose of the witness statement is not to present a historical document but to give a simple statement of an event, and the details of that event are given later.

You find it significant that the angel's glory, for example, it is not mentioned in the statement, and clearly ascribe this missing detail as somehow deceptive. You demand the witness statement to reveal all details, including the date, time, location, and every detail of that experience. You then use this as an excuse to look elsewhere for an explanation, giving a fig leaf excuse to freely draw your conclusions.

"You did not tell me all the details, so we can simply dismiss it, and I am free to make up an alternative explanation such as a hallucination, 'spiritual' experience."

You criticize the artistic renderings of these event as unhistorical, but you have created your own word picture of the eight witnesses which is faulty, and supported only by your imagination and fantasy.

Edited September 9, 2012 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

Video 2.

Your use of the word "faulty" in your speech is itself misleading. It implies that the witness statements contradict historical facts, but the histories give additional details that are not found in the witness statements. Your use of "faulty" is flawed and itself disappointing. On the three witness statement, you make a broad accusation but do not show how a "two event" is significantly contradicted by the witness statement, but in reality is it merely a historical detail. Again, the "visionary" aspect of the statement is very clear, but the historical details again do not show that the witness statement is "faulty" but merely missing those details. Within the same paragraph describing the witness statements, you introduce both "faulty" and "hallucinaton" into the discourse. You have not even introduced your evidence and already you are giving us your conclusion. Even using "spiritual" in this early stage of your talk, coming from an unbeliever, is just another way of saying the same thing.

Clearly you alreasy had those words in mind in your initial examination of the evidence and you are now merely presenting evidence to prove your pre-determined conclusion.

You are missing the purpose of the witness statement. Those details are not excluded in an attempt to deceive or conceal, but are openly discussed in subsequent statements by the participants. The purpose of the witness statement is not to present a historical document but to give a simple statement of an event, and the details of that event are given later.

You find it significant that the angel's glory, for example, it is not mentioned in the statement, and clearly ascribe this missing detail as somehow deceptive. You demand the witness statement to reveal all details, including the date, time, location, and every detail of that experience. You then use this as an excuse to look elsewhere for an explanation, giving a fig leaf excuse to freely draw your conclusions.

"You did not tell me all the details, so we can simply dismiss it, and I am free to make up an alternative explanation such as a hallucination, 'spiritual' experience."

You criticize the artistic renderings of these event as unhistorical, but you have created your own word picture of the eight witnesses which is faulty, and supported only by your imagination and fantasy.

cdowis,

Thanks for your comments. I think you read too much into what I was saying about the Testimony of Three Witnesses not containing certain elements later mentioned by Harris and Whitmer. I wasn’t concerned about the intentions of the author, but rather with how it is read. Richard Anderson, for example, read it as a literal appearance of an angel, whereas Harris and Whitmer made it clear that it was a supernatural vision. My point in comparing the subsequent statements of the witnesses with the published Testimony was to show that it is impossible to reconstruct the historical event by using the Testimony only. So, when Anderson and other try to do it with the Testimony of Eight Witnesses, they are on dangerous ground.

My statement about “faulty”—to which you refer--was: “Clearly, without the subsequent statements of Whitmer and Harris our understanding of the experiences of the Three Witnesses would have been extremely limited and faulty.” I don’t see anything wrong with that.

My discussion of hallucination is that when one learns of the subjective nature of the Three Witnesses experience, the possibility of hallucination exists. That’s all. I made it clear that I wasn’t assuming it to be the case and that I was comparing Whitmer’s description of his experience to waking dreams.

Again, you seem to miss my point entirely. I pointed out that the Testimonies don’t mention time, date, place, or events behind them. They are not historical documents, which is another reason why attempting to reconstruct the historical event behind them using just them is foolish. But artists and historians try to say the Testimony of Eight Witnesses contradicts other sources that report they saw the plates supernaturally. And you are wrong that my reconstruction is “imagination and fantasy”. What about Turley’s report of John Whitmer and Burnett’s report of Martin Harris?

Edited September 19, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[Calm]

Richard Anderson, for example, read it as a literal appearance of an angel, whereas Harris and Whitmer made it clear that it was a supernatural vision.

How is an appearance of an angel not "supernatural"?

[cdowis]

Again, you seem to miss my point entirely. I pointed out that the Testimonies don’t mention time, date, place, or events behind them. They are not historical documents, which is another reason why attempting to reconstruct the historical event behind them using just them is foolish.

"We have few details from the eight witnesses, so this justifies using the three witness vision as a template for the eight witness experience. Professional historians are allowed to do such things to fill in the gaps."

That is using your imagination, filling in the gaps with scant, questionable evidence, and imaginary scenarios.

But artists and historians try to say the Testimony of Eight Witnesses contradicts other sources that report they saw the plates supernaturally.

With respect, please give us that exact statement from the eight witnesses, "We saw the plates supernaturally." Or perhaps you are interpreting some of the three witness statements, and pretending that they were made by the eight.

You then find it convenient to ignore, "we have seen and hefted", "we did handle with our hands." They testify hefting, handling with their hands, plates with the appearance of gold, and your imagination paints a picture of a spiritual experience.

Professional historians may be allowed to do such things. They are presented an award for such brillian analysis, give speeches to an adoring audience (who ask themselves, "why didn't I think of that? It was so obvious.")

Lacking the "historical details", you are now free to ignore the actual eight witness statement, and construct a spiritual visionary experience out of whole cloth.

And you are wrong that my reconstruction is “imagination and fantasy”. What about Turley’s report of John Whitmer and Burnett’s report of Martin Harris?

What about them? Review with us how your imagination constructed conclusions from these statements. I will then offer up a couple of observations and ask a question or two in response.

Perhaps you might want to review our previous discussion on this matter. There are still unanswered questions.

Edited September 20, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Since he appears to be busy, just a quick observation:

Both of these reports mention multiple witnesses. Considering the "explosive" nature of these so-called statements, we would expect to find at least ONE account which substantiates them. Someone who verifies the accuracy of these statements.

Again, I am not a historian, but I understand this is called "controlling one's sources" -- demonstrating their credibility. Now we have eight witnesses to their statement, regarding hefting, and handling the plates. In "controlling" his sources our award winning historian completely ignores their statement, and instead depends on unsubstantiated accounts which were clearly witnesses by others.

Perhaps he will return and respond to my observation. Last time I pointed this out, I am still waiting for his response, so he has had alot of time to think about it.

Perhaps the answer is so obvious that he deems it unnecessary to respond.

Edited September 23, 2012 by cdowis