Than you MG 2.0 for demonstrating the exact point I was making about witness testimony being unreliable.
So the fact that I look back 50 plus years ago and remember having had Dialogue journal and Sunstone magazine in our home but I’m off on the timeline is a big deal for you?
Well…OK.
Then to use that as a ‘sound bite’ to negate witness testimonies to the Book of Mormon and the plates?
Well…OK.
I’d suggest that others actually read the two links I posted and other material available looking at the Book of Mormon witnesses and come to your own conclusions.
Your one to one correlation and conclusive determination is transparently silly/shoddy, IHAQ.
Than you MG 2.0 for demonstrating the exact point I was making about witness testimony being unreliable.
So the fact that I look back 50 plus years ago and remember having had Dialogue journal and Sunstone magazine in our home but I’m off on the timeline is a big deal for you?
Well…OK.
Then to use that as a ‘sound bite’ to negate witness testimonies to the Book of Mormon and the plates?
Well…OK.
I’d suggest that others actually read the two links I posted and other material available looking at the Book of Mormon witnesses and come to your own conclusions.
Your one to one correlation and conclusive determination is transparently silly/shoddy, IHAQ.
Regards,
MG
There is no “one to one correlation”. I’m merely pointing out that you’ve offered up an example of one way that witness testimony can be unreliable.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
So the fact that I look back 50 plus years ago and remember having had Dialogue journal and Sunstone magazine in our home but I’m off on the timeline is a big deal for you?
Well…OK.
Then to use that as a ‘sound bite’ to negate witness testimonies to the Book of Mormon and the plates?
Well…OK.
I’d suggest that others actually read the two links I posted and other material available looking at the Book of Mormon witnesses and come to your own conclusions.
Your one to one correlation and conclusive determination is transparently silly/shoddy, IHAQ.
Regards,
MG
There is no “one to one correlation”. I’m merely pointing out that you’ve offered up an example of one way that witness testimony can be unreliable.
And it couldn't have been any more clear:
...So the fact that I look back ... and remember... but I’m off on the timeline is a big deal...
"being off on the timeline" is a tricky way to obfuscate "never happened."
"being off on the timeline" is a tricky way to obfuscate "never happened."
If you’re referring to my teenage and young adult years in which my dad subscribed to both Dialogue Journal and Sunstone Magazine and they were readily available in our home…then I’m going to accuse you of having misspoken…again.
You are making an implication that is in reality false.
Others should take notice that this practice is not uncommon by this poster.
So the fact that I look back 50 plus years ago and remember having had Dialogue journal and Sunstone magazine in our home but I’m off on the timeline is a big deal for you?
Well…OK.
Then to use that as a ‘sound bite’ to negate witness testimonies to the Book of Mormon and the plates?
Well…OK.
I’d suggest that others actually read the two links I posted and other material available looking at the Book of Mormon witnesses and come to your own conclusions.
Your one to one correlation and conclusive determination is transparently silly/shoddy, IHAQ.
Regards,
MG
There is no “one to one correlation”. I’m merely pointing out that you’ve offered up an example of one way that witness testimony can be unreliable.
Well…sure. But we already knew that. The question at hand is the Book of Mormon witness testimony. Not whether I remember exactly when I picked up Dialogue and Sunstone and read them.
Which was quite often, by the way. A LOT of stuff I hadn’t learned in Primary.
1. ‘Witness testimony’ is notoriously unreliable.
2. The strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon is ‘witness testimony’.
Ergo…
3. The strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon is unreliable.
But you knew that.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
1. ‘Witness testimony’ is notoriously unreliable.
2. The strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon is ‘witness testimony’
Ergo…
3. The strongest evidence for the Book of Mormon is unreliable.
But you knew that.
What I do know is that witness testimony is often reliable. I think that each person looking at Book of Mormon evidence needs to investigate witness testimony on their own and then decide whether or not they think it has merit.
I would guess you’ve spent a lot of time looking at witness testimony to conclude that they were either all in on it or had all been duped (from your perspective). It’s interesting how people can come to such different conclusions.
According to Brackney (2012) and Fine (2015), the French Huguenot magistrate M. le Loyer's The Ten Lost Tribes, published in 1590, provided one of the earliest expressions of the belief that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and associated peoples are the direct descendants of the Old Testament Israelites.[3][10]: 176 Anglo-Israelism has also been attributed to King James VI and I (1566–1625),[10] who is reported to have believed he was the King of Israel.[3] Adriaan van Schrieck (1560–1621), who influenced Henry Spelman (1562–1641) and John Sadler (1615–74), wrote in the early 17th century about his ideas on the origins of the Celtic and Saxon peoples. In 1649, Sadler published Rights of the Kingdom,[11] "which argues for an 'Israelite genealogy for the British people'".[10]: 176
Aspects of British Israelism and its influences have also been traced to Richard Brothers, who published A Revealed Knowledge of the Prophecies and Times in 1794,[12]: 1 John Wilson's Our Israelitish Origin (1844),[12]: 6-9 and John Pym Yeatman's The Shemetic Origin of the Nations of Western Europe (1879).[13] : 211
