Details of The Resurrection versus Details of the angel with Golden Plates

[The Nice Centurion]

In another Thread I wanted to debate possible mechanics and details of The Resurrection and everyine avoids that like Plague.
My thread is good and long now, but no interest in the topic.
viewtopic.php?t=41349

Now I want to start another thread with a different approach.

I found out that the angel with Golden Plates, showed to the Three Witnesses according to Mormon Mythology has the same handycap.

Not even the Three Witnesses bothered to tell details about the angel.

Of them three, David Whitmer was the one who got the most thuroughly interviewed guy.
https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/ ... tatements/

One day a man named John Murphy asked him about details.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... _June_1880

[Murphy]: "First of all, I heard you saw an angel. I never saw one. I want your description of [the] shape, voice, brogue and the construction of his language. I mean as to his style of speaking. You know that we can often determine the class a man belongs to by his language."

[Whitmer]: "It had no appearance or shape."

[Murphy]: "Then you saw nothing nor heard nothing?"

[Whitmer]: "Nothing, in the way you understand it."

[Murphy]: "How, then, could you have borne testimony that you saw and heard an angel?"

[Whitmer]: "Have you never had impressions?"

[Murphy]: "Then you had impressions as the quaker when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience, a feeling?"

[Whitmer]: "Just so."

When David Whitmer read the Murphy interview, he published a rebuttal to John Murphy's portrayal of his witness experience.
But it was a rebuttal in name only. For since it hold no substance and didnt even try to finally give out details about the angel with the Golden Plates Haircut, Clothing, Eyecolor et cetera, the pseudo-rebuttal in fact reassured that Whitmer really saw nothing. Empty Phrases;

Unto all Nations, Kindreds, tongues and people unto whom this present Shall come.

It having been represented by one John Murphy of Polo Mo. that I in a conversation with him last Summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

To the end therefore, that he may understand me now if he did not then, and that the world may know the truth, I wish now standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public Statement;

That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.

Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—

And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.

He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; It was no Delusion. What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.

Either David never saw the angel with the Golden Plates or for some strange reason did not want to talk details.

Resembling the strange reason for no one in this forum wanting to talk details about The Resurrection.

I give another chance. Lets talk about possible details of the angel with Golden Plates in relation to research mechanics of the resurrection.

Why seems everyone so rejecting to talk about details of miraculous things like Gold-Plate-Angels and Risings from the death of Godlings

Why were neither the Three Witnesses, nor the Apostles of Christ interested to talk details about their founding Wonder

Is anyone on this forum who, while avoiding to debate The Resurrections mechanics like plague, will still debate here the details of the angel with the Golden Plates

[POI]

Why seems everyone so rejecting to talk about details of miraculous things like Gold-Plate-Angels and Risings from the death of Godlings

I'll respond here in saying I doubt there exists much Mormon traffic here at all. Hence, it is not a very interesting topic, since there exists no one to debate (in favor of) Mormonism. Just my 2 cents....

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40778

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to POI in post #2]
Am aware here of loss of mormon traffic of course.

Dianaid was one and even used to be moderator here. But gone.

Still you misunderstood the aim of my topic
I was so full of desperation about that everyone on this forum avoids like plague to debate the mechanics of The Resurrection that now I want to debate why details of all miraculous happenings are so shady presented and seldom researched in detail.

David Whitmer was just an example that come to my mind.

[Difflugia]

I want to debate why details of all miraculous happenings are so shady presented and seldom researched in detail.

We've never documented a miracle. We have unreliable stories about miracles and meager documentation of potential miracles. Whenever the documentation is both of sufficient reliability and quality to actually determine what happened, though, the event turns out to be something other than a miracle.

In my experience, the strongest evidence for miracles is that if one squints hard enough, possible and probable sometimes look alike.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #4]

I need new glasses. The first time I read that graphic I thought it said "... carrying campers everywhere ...". I was scratching my head wondering what more RV enthusiasts had to do with anything.

Then I reread it a couple times, LOLed to myself, then wondered if more people camping in the woods might also help (since that's where UFOs, bigfoot, and other things are often sighted).

Sorry, back to the OP now.

I think it's not lost on many that the more technology we have to easily document things, the less these kind of stories seem to hold any weight. The first thing people ask now is "Did you get some video?". Yet some of those same people happily swallow wild tales written down in 'special' books from long ago.

[POI]

I want to debate why details of all miraculous happenings are so shady presented and seldom researched in detail.

We've never documented a miracle. We have unreliable stories about miracles and meager documentation of potential miracles. Whenever the documentation is both of sufficient reliability and quality to actually determine what happened, though, the event turns out to be something other than a miracle.

In my experience, the strongest evidence for miracles is that if one squints hard enough, possible and probable sometimes look alike.

And also, don't forget:

[img]]

**********************

I also find it interesting regarding the high level of scrutiny applied by Christians themselves, when assessing other claims of the "extraordinary"; outside of the one they hold -- that "a man rose from his grave and went on a resurrection tour". Cognitive dissonance, gotta love it...

[Purple Knight]

However, the camera has verified things that were considered to be impossible before, such as fish raining from the sky. Before people were carrying cameras everywhere, this used to be an example of paranormal claptrap that doesn't happen except in peoples' imaginations. Well, now it isn't. Those weird lights in the sky that move in ways airplanes cannot? Can't deny those either, not anymore. Not saying they're aliens but they're something.

One possibility no one seems to at least include (probably because it's not likely, but I'll suggest it anyway) is that since angels are actually incredibly trippy, the guy really did see something but decided to lie about what he saw, and say it was just a presence, rather than describe what he did see, because being a fairly crafty fellow, he might have well known that saying he saw a four-dimensional wheel with eyes (or whatever he did see) wasn't likely to make his religion catch on. It's also more inclusive to say it was simply a presence. Imagine if he said the angel had blue eyes. Well, every anti-racist now supposes he's lying and racist. If he knew people were likely to be small-minded about it, and reject descriptions that didn't match their presuppositions about angels, that's most potential followers gone, while leaving it appearance-less just lets people maintain those ideas.

The idea that the thing had no appearance may have been rehearsed, but that may have been in response to the thing seen by those three people looking horrifying, trippy, or even downright demonic.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #7]
I am here in this topic not arguing for the existence of miracles, nor against it.

I want to debate why so sloppy documented sometimes that it comes out as David Whitmer saying he saw nothing at the end. (And he was the most and bes inquired one of the three Witnesses).

The Catholic church uses to document all kinds of miracles for propaganda reasons.
Here for example an amputated leg growing back on a man.
Miracle of Calanda 1740
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #4]
Although it is claimed that a lot of early mormons saw The Angel with the Golden Plates/Moroni/Brother Nephi, descriptions about details of his appearance are suspiciously sparse.

Here is what I found so far:

In one of Smith's histories, he described him as an "angel of light" who "had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen .… His hands were naked and his arms also a little above the wrists .… Not only was his robe exceedingly white but his whole person was glorious beyond description".According to Smith's sister Katharine, the angel "was dressed in white raiment, of whiteness beyond anything Joseph had ever seen in his life, and had a girdle about his waist. He saw his hands and wrists, and they were pure and white".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni
Again; What I write here is not to attack mormonism. I use Morony as an example of how people tend to develop the distasting habit of refusing to give exact details about their otherworldly revelations.