DiscussMormonism.com

Would anyone care to comment on this article? He seems to make a good case.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7656 ... -lied.html

I think not....

http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm

ETA: what a great site...

It's statements like this one that show DCP to be somewhat less than a credible witness himself...

More than 120 witnesses must have falsely testified about Brigham Young's transformation before their eyes upon his succession to the presidency of the church.

So, did 120 people testify that Brigham Young was transformed? Or did one person write down his own personal (solitary) view that Brigham Young was transformed in front of 120 people?

See the difference, one is honest, one is misleading.

For further contemplation: http://www.mormonthink.com/backup/transfiguration.pdf

It is also interesting that DCP rejects witness statements that don't fit with his own personal belief. For instance, Dr P doesn't believe these people are credible:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, to whom this Book of the Law of the Lord shall come, that James J. Strang has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses, from which he translated this law, and has shown them to us. We examined them with our eyes, and handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long, occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures.

And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.

SAMUEL GRAHAM,
SAMUEL P. BACON,
WARREN POST,
PHINEAS WRIGHT,
ALBERT N. HOSMER,
EBENEZER PAGE,
JEHIEL SAVAGE.

Daniels article is mere personal testimony bearing.

Drifting wrote:It's statements like this one that show DCP to be somewhat less than a credible witness himself...

More than 120 witnesses must have falsely testified about Brigham Young's transformation before their eyes upon his succession to the presidency of the church.

So, did 120 people testify that Brigham Young was transformed? Or did one person write down his own personal (solitary) view that Brigham Young was transformed in front of 120 people?

See the difference, one is honest, one is misleading.

For further contemplation: http://www.mormonthink.com/backup/transfiguration.pdf

Wow.

Dan Vogel has done a great job responding to this witness tripe. http://signaturebooks.com/2012/03/book- ... revisited/

Almost, I am tempted to create a DesNews account just so I can comment and respond to this tripe.


Almost.

But not quite.

Hellooo
Salt Lake City, UT
Re: JoeBlow Please provide an example of the other faiths you mention that suggests its establishment was based on direct revelation from God, which revelations are confirmed and attested to by two or more witnesses participating in the revelation. Certainly, this is not the case with the majority of Christian faiths (Catholic and Protestant),which I am familiar with. It is not even claimed. And, it is not the case with Islam, nor is it claimed. I do appreciate your other points, but Mormon's establishment and claims are quite unique in this area of confirming witnesses to events.

So we use a yardstick mostly invented by Mormons, to push the veracity of Mormonism, to verify the veracity of others' claims?

DCP wrote:More than 120 witnesses must have falsely testified about Brigham Young's transformation before their eyes upon his succession to the presidency of the church.

So in an article arguing that so many people would have to lie for Joseph Smith to have lied (or something; the logic is, shall we say, imprecise), Peterson himself generates a new lie--that 120 witnesses testified about a so-called "transformation before their eyes." The first mention of any sort of "transformation" of BY into Joseph Smith came 13 years after the incident allegedly occurred. There are no "120 witnesses" to the event. The fact that no one mentioned this myth for more than a decade after the event is strong and compelling evidence that nothing of the kind occurred.

Why does DCP deceive in this way? Why does he continue to perpetuate a lie, to lead the Saints into continuing to believe in this story of highly dubious historical provenance? He must be familiar with the Van Wagoner article linked above. He must know there are not 120 witnesses testifying about it. He must know he is peddling a falsehood. And how ironic that he is doing it in an article where he is trying to defend Mormon honesty.

Please provide an example of the other faiths you mention that suggests its establishment was based on direct revelation from God, which revelations are confirmed and attested to by two or more witnesses participating in the revelation.

The Strangites?

Witness testimony is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence. It is well documented. Peterson is smart enough to know this. He believes he is convincing the "dumb masses".

Equality wrote:

Please provide an example of the other faiths you mention that suggests its establishment was based on direct revelation from God, which revelations are confirmed and attested to by two or more witnesses participating in the revelation.

The Strangites?

And a bunch of other weird religions.