The Lord's Earthquake Warning

[NeuroTypical]

I wasn't talking about 2-3 witnesses. I was wondering if you really think this letter is a fake. If you don't, then why not take it at face value and believe it?

I don't think it's fake. I just understand the large distance between 'fake', and '100% unvarnished unbiased unembelleshed truth'.

It's impossible for two people to witness the same event, and give a completely 100% similar accounting of it. That's why additional data points can be useful.

LM

[Honor]

Hey Loudmouth, is this a source you might trust? :)

LDS Church News - Report on earthquake from Chile Santiago East Mission

[Wingnut]

I don't think it's fake. I just understand the large distance between 'fake', and '100% unvarnished unbiased unembelleshed truth'.

It's impossible for two people to witness the same event, and give a completely 100% similar accounting of it. That's why additional data points can be useful.

LM

Well, according to the letter, the mission president and his wife didn't tell the missionaries about their prompting, or anything very specific, so it's not like the missionaries would be able to verify anything other than that the mission president and his wife visited them.

Hey Loudmouth, is this a source you might trust? :)

LDS Church News - Report on earthquake from Chile Santiago East Mission

The source is probably irrelevant, since the text is the same.

[Honor]

The source is probably irrelevant, since the text is the same.

I dunno, I might trust the validity of a story more or less based on who chooses to report it. Don't know what length the Church News would go to in checking out a story like this, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't report something when there's a likelihood that someone could pop up with viable information that could discredit the story.

(I should be saying this to LM instead of you Wing, huh?)

[Wingnut]

I dunno, I might trust the validity of a story more or less based on who chooses to report it. Don't know what length the Church News would go to in checking out a story like this, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't report something when there's a likelihood that someone could pop up with viable information that could discredit the story.

(I should be saying this to LM instead of you Wing, huh?)

In this case, I think I trust the Church News to publish something that -- while possibly embellished -- is an excellent demonstration of the Lord being mindful of us. It's also an example to point to amid cries of "how could a loving God do this [earthquakes and destruction] to His children?"

[marts1]

By the way I felt when I read that story, I cannot help but believe it, which is highly unusal for me when it comes to writings in a newspaper.

[NeuroTypical]

I think I trust the Church News to publish something that -- while possibly embellished -- is an excellent demonstration of the Lord being mindful of us.

We have no disagreement.

It's also an example to point to amid cries of "how could a loving God do this [earthquakes and destruction] to His children?"

Well, don't expect pointing to this example to have a dent on those doing the crying. They just start crying another tune. I've already heard from people all ticked off because God didn't see fit to warn any of the 800 people who died, ticked off because the missionaries didn't warn anyone, ticked off because nobody warned the missionaries that died in another country a while ago.

LM