eyewitness testimony vs. science

[_barrelomonkeys]

Oh, and it's just not the same without seeing Martha's lovely face with each of your posts!

[_rcrocket]

Unlike Islam, Christianity is based upon eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses to the miracles, to the raising of the dead, to the suffering on the Cross and the resurrection. Multiple witnesses. On paper. At least, that is what Christianity claims; the documents are so old and of such questionable provenance that it is too easy to take potshots at them.

The claims of Mormonism are much stronger. Multiple eyewitnesses claimed to see Jesus Christ, resurrected prophets, the plates, the miracles and more. And these are of recent vintage and there is little to no question about provenance.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

Oh, and it's just not the same without seeing Martha's lovely face with each of your posts!

I got tired of being a convicted felon. I'm looking for a new avatar. Maybe Alice Cooper.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Oh, and it's just not the same without seeing Martha's lovely face with each of your posts!

I got tired of being a convicted felon. I'm looking for a new avatar. Maybe Alice Cooper.

You could always have Michael Jackson?

[_beastie]

The eyewitness testimony to the plates is generally considered to be of high quality and there was some time spent with each witness to make sure they got it right. The testimony fits all the indicia of high quality -- the number of witnesses and the time spent on the view. I am familiar with the supposed impeaching evidence. In the case of David Whitmer, he saw and read impeaching evidence -- witnesses who claimed he recanted. He denounced such claims. In the case of Martin Harris, I am unaware that he was ever presented any evidence of the third-party claim of "spiritual eyes" so that he could denounce it. There is one story of questionable provenance of Oliver Cowdrey denouncing a claim that he had recanted; otherwise, there is no evidence of claims of Oliver's recantation.

Generally considered to be of high quality by whom? Certainly Joseph Smith did not view their characters to be of particularly high quality when they left the church.

History of the Church

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.231
And now, brethren, we say unto you—what more can we enumerate? Is not all manner of evil of every description spoken of us falsely, yea, we say unto you falsely. We have been misrepresented and misunderstood, and belied, and the purity and integrity and uprightness of our hearts have not been known—and it is through ignorance—yea, the [p.232] very depths of ignorance is the cause of it; and not only ignorance, but on the part of some, gross wickedness and hypocrisy also; for some, by a long face and sanctimonious prayers, and very pious sermons, had power to lead the minds of the ignorant and unwary, and thereby obtain such influence that when we approached their iniquities the devil gained great advantage—would bring great trouble and sorrow upon our heads;and, in fine, we have waded through an ocean of tribulation and mean abuse, practiced upon us by the ill bred and the ignorant, such as Hinkle, Corrill, Phelps, Avard, Reed Peck, Cleminson, and various others, who are so very ignorant that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society, and whose eyes are full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin. Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them. Marsh and "another," whose hearts are full of corruption. whose cloak of hypocrisy was not sufficient to shield them or to hold them up in the hour of trouble, who after having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, became again entangled and overcome—their latter end is worse than the first. But it has happened unto them according to the word of the Scripture: "The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

[_The Dude]

Generally considered to be of high quality by whom? Certainly Joseph Smith did not view their characters to be of particularly high quality when they left the church.

Well, everything had sort of disintegrated by that time. They were fallen witnesses and Joseph was their fallen prophet.

[_Mercury]

I was watching 12 angry (white) men last night in a legal class at school. The actors were going back and forth about eye witness testimony. I thought about witness's to the Book of Mormon. Did they see what they said they saw and did they give other testimony later on in life.

I then was thinking about the Lawyers who are getting people out of prison through DNA. Clearly, the witnesses in their case were mistaken as science demonstrated they were wrong. I would be intersted in your thoughts.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

What the witnesses saw was highly steerable. Take a bunch of hllbillies, make them fast for several days. Then feed whiskey to them like water at a marathon. I'm sure many religions have been started this way. The added signatures also could have been used as a weapon by Joe.