[003]
209.20.103.246
Current Version
Changed line(s) 9 from:
n
2. The 3 and 8 witnesses of the golden plates should be treated separately. Three of them saw the plates in conjunction with an angel, and this might be described as a “spiritual or mystical” experience because of that. One of the three witnesses, David Whitmer, never returned to the LDS Church, so calling his experience a “brief relapse” is inaccurate. Martin Harris left the Church for more than 40 years, so calling that “brief” is also rather inaccurate. Even Oliver Cowdery was out of the Church for 10 years. That might be called “brief” in relation to the other two, I suppose. The 8 witnesses simply went into the woods with Joseph and watched while he produced the plates, and then they were allowed to examine and “heft” them. There was nothing spiritual/mystical about their experience. Possibilities for fraud there include that the witnesses simply lied or possibly that Joseph had a mock-up of the plates to show them which fooled them. You should probably break the groups into separate points to reflect the differences in their experiences and accounts.
to:
2. The 3 and 8 witnesses of the golden plates should be treated separately. Three of them saw the plates in conjunction with an angel, and this might be described as a “spiritual or mystical” experience because of that. One of the three witnesses, David Whitmer, never returned to the LDS Church, so calling his experience a “brief relapse” is inaccurate. Martin Harris left the Church for more than 40 years, so calling that “brief” is also rather inaccurate. Even Oliver Cowdery was out of the Church for 10 years. That might be called “brief” in relation to the other two, I suppose. The 8 witnesses simply went into the woods with Joseph and watched while he produced the plates from a hollow log, and then they were allowed to examine and “heft” them. There was nothing spiritual/mystical about their experience. Possibilities for fraud there include that the witnesses simply lied or possibly that Joseph had a mock-up of the plates to show them which fooled them. You should probably break the groups into separate points to reflect the differences in their experiences and accounts.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
First of all, remove the likelihood [Possible], [Extemely Unlikely], etc. qualifiers after each point. I think you should present a fact as you see it and leave how likely a point is to the judgment of the reader. Likewise the conclusion that it’s very unlikely.
to:
Changed line(s) 3 from:
to:
First of all, remove the likelihood [Possible], [Extemely Unlikely], etc. qualifiers after each point. I think you should present a fact as you see it and leave how likely a point is to the judgment of the reader. Likewise the conclusion that it’s very unlikely.
