Regarding Brodie

[Robin]

Originally Posted by tooblue

A confession wilst faced with certain death .... or .... refusing to contradict a your own words after a long and fruitful life wilst faced with the reality of death.

Apples to oranges my good man ... in fact potatos to oranges!!

Not everyone who claimed to have seen such devilish acts was ever in danger, nor did every person who made such claims come to deny them later (how could they? And confess to the statements that put innocent people do death?).

Group-think has an interesting way of taking over the minds of the masses. The tradition of babbling in incoherent tongues was popular in the early Mormon church as well as it was among the holy rollers. Was that an example of devilry, group-think, or the divine?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Robin

Group-think has an interesting way of taking over the minds of the masses. The tradition of babbling in incoherent tongues was popular in the early Mormon church as well as it was among the holy rollers. Was that an example of devilry, group-think, or the divine?

Who is to know? Are people not entitled to spiritual experiences outside of the established norm?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

Not everyone who claimed to have seen such devilish acts was ever in danger, nor did every person who made such claims come to deny them later (how could they? And confess to the statements that put innocent people do death?).

Group-think has an interesting way of taking over the minds of the masses. The tradition of babbling in incoherent tongues was popular in the early Mormon church as well as it was among the holy rollers. Was that an example of devilry, group-think, or the divine?

We all have different answers to that question. I assume that rehashing them in this forum will ultimately prove futile for all.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Robin

Not everyone who claimed to have seen such devilish acts was ever in danger, nor did every person who made such claims come to deny them later (how could they? And confess to the statements that put innocent people do death?).

Group-think has an interesting way of taking over the minds of the masses. The tradition of babbling in incoherent tongues was popular in the early Mormon church as well as it was among the holy rollers. Was that an example of devilry, group-think, or the divine?

Your still arguing apples to oranges ... the comparison is woefully weak.

[MikeWaters]

Apostates who don't believe in spiritual experiences bore me. And I'm not talking about a green meadow, or a Chopin etude. Ones that don't believe in the Holy Ghost.

I find my apostate friend who does believe in some semblance of the Holy
Ghost to be more interesting. THere is a common language, a common understanding.

Frankly, I don't understand why someone who doesn't believe in God/Christ/Holy Ghost would care to argue with me about spiritual experiences.

Believers sense something. They read something, and they sense something. Non-believers don't. End of story.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Care to try to make the argument that they didn't actually believe that record? That they didn't go to their graves with the reiteration of their testimony freshly fallen from their lips?

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=...le=transcripts

Good luck.

I suppose that this is where Occam's razor comes in. Given that we don't have the original affidavits, and the types of things the Whitmers et al. claim to have seen don't comport with common experience in real life, and you are citing an article generated by a notoriously one-sided organization (Brodie's very alter ego so to speak), I would say a shockinglingly intellectually dishonest oranization from my brushes with them, and the article relies upon multiple levels of hearsay piled upon one another uttered by interested "witnesses," and the culture from which the alleged affiants hail has a particularly lively affinity for embellishment (witness the decades of claiming all aboriginies in the Western Hemisphere are Lamanites), I would say there are many more likely scenarios than that the so-called witnesses actually saw the angel and/or the plates. The odds are against their "testimony" being true. I can only conjuecture about how the affidavits came to be generated. Robin cited a possible historical parallel. It seems to me Joan of Arc may provide perhaps a closer analogy. I don't know.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Apostates who don't believe in spiritual experiences bore me. And I'm not talking about a green meadow, or a Chopin etude. Ones that don't believe in the Holy Ghost.

I find my apostate friend who does believe in some semblance of the Holy
Ghost to be more interesting. THere is a common language, a common understanding.

Frankly, I don't understand why someone who doesn't believe in God/Christ/Holy Ghost would care to argue with me about spiritual experiences.

Believers sense something. They read something, and they sense something. Non-believers don't. End of story.

Now are we talking about the still small voice, spiritual feelings, or claims of having witnessed angels and gold books? I think there's a difference. Apparently you do too. Your post has nothing to do with this thread.

[MikeWaters]

why does it matter to you whether a few people said they saw an angel and plates or not. I can't see how it could possibly matter to you that some hicks did or didn't see this.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

why does it matter to you whether a few people said they saw an angel and plates or not. I can't see how it could possibly matter to you that some hicks did or didn't see this.

My interests are wide-ranging. There are few things that don't interest me, least of all hicks.

[il Padrino Ute]

Seattle, I get the feeling that you are a "seeing is believing" kind of guy.

And I ask again - if Brodie is to be taken seriously, why does she only present the facts as she sees them?