DiscussMormonism.com

Symmachus wrote:I absolutely love this:

probably Daniel Peterson, but possibly copied and pasted, wrote:And their very existence constitutes powerful evidence against those who would dismiss the Book of Mormon as Joseph's subjective fantasy. THAT'S useful, too.

The very object whose existence can't be verified is irrefutable proof that some guy had said object. Ok.

That is kind of the apologetic argument in a nutshell: we cannot produce the evidence, but its on you to prove it wrong or insufficient if you don't accept the claims we base on this non-existent evidence.

I had to do a double take when I read that, thinking surely the author is not referring to “the very existence” of the object as proof, an object whose existence is supported ONLY by statements that the object existed.

Kishkumen wrote:The wonderful thing about this film is that it will portray the witnesses as Joseph Smith only saw in his fondest wishes. In this way, fiction improves on history as it so often does.

What? Are you next going to tell me that Jack and Rose really didn't meet romantically on the Titanic and Jack didn't freeze to death as he slipped into the chilly waters?

Holy Ghost wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:The wonderful thing about this film is that it will portray the witnesses as Joseph Smith only saw in his fondest wishes. In this way, fiction improves on history as it so often does.

What? Are you next going to tell me that Jack and Rose really didn't meet romantically on the Titanic and Jack didn't freeze to death as he slipped into the chilly waters?

With an orchestra in the background, no less.

Scene from Witnesses
Notice the brilliant cinematographic use of Pythonesque imagery.

Lemmie wrote:I had to do a double take when I read that, thinking surely the author is not referring to “the very existence” of the object as proof, an object whose existence is supported ONLY by statements that the object existed.

Does it resemble this: The same author claims that the actor playing Joseph Smith was able to complete his action scenes carrying the heavy plates, the "realistic" set rather than the light set, thus proving the critics who question Joseph Smith running with the plates wrong. But the "realistic" set, is based on the eyewitness testimony of Emma Smith and Martin Harris, who could both easily heft them, who say they weighed 40-50 pounds. A fraudulent prophet wouldn't have been able to obtain anything with a realistic density, and even if he could have, it would have been impractical to build something that nobody could pick up. So the fact that in the case the prophet was a fraud and constrained to produce an unrealistically light set of plates proves that the critics are wrong for questioning Joseph Smith's ability to run with them.

(a side question: was Emma in on it?)

For any lurkers who need a red pill on the ‘witnesses’:

http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#sumof11

- Doc

Little known but surely to be a part of this film is a short back in time portrayal of Moroni hefting the plates doing crunches as part of his Crossfit training at the Zarahemla gym to get ready for his 6000 mile trip to New York! Hundreds of Nephites witnessed this ! Man that seals the authenticity deal!

k

I love what Dr. William D. Russell has to say about Anderson’s book about the witnesses:

"Perhaps one should not expect that a book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon published by Deseret Book Company would be anything other than an attempt to strengthen the reader's faith in the Book of Mormon. This book will be convincing to those already certain that the gold plates actually existed and that the eleven witnesses saw them. And even the detached reader will probably be convinced by Anderson's research that the witnesses were honest men who sincerely believed their signed testimony and probably stuck by their story as long as they lived. But Anderson is really trying to have us conclude more than this. He would have the reader be convinced that because these men were honest and reaffirmed their testimony when asked, they actually saw and handled plates which contained the records of an ancient people. I believe that Anderson-- like the eleven witnesses--is an honest and sincere man when he writes: 'After years of working with their lives and their words, I am deeply convinced that their printed testimonies must be taken at face value' (p. xii). But I don't believe that his research by itself requires this conclusion. As he admits, 'spiritual truths must be spiritually verified' (p. 82). Believers must make a 'leap of faith,' apprehending with their 'spiritual eyes' rather than their 'natural eyes' ("Investigating the Investigation," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.16, No.2, pp.132-133).

The witnesses supposedly never changed their story. However, looking at the witnesses themselves one finds over-enthusiastic believers who wanted to believe in the supernatural and so were easily convinced. Martin Harris thought Jesus appeared to him in the form of a deer, speaking to him for a mile while he walked along side. He also was one of the Strang witnesses to Strang's hoax, yet came back to the Mormons in SLC. He also told the Book of Mormon printer that he didn't see the plates with his eyes, but with his "spiritual eyes" or imagination. David Whitmer claims an angel was under his shed. Oliver Cowdery claimed he had a vision of the plates after being told of them by Joseph Smith's family. He said that was all he could think about. The eight witnesses were comprised of two families primarily, joseph smith's and David Whitmers. Family pressure to believe a story that outsiders were already accusing as being a hoax is strong. People tend to get defensive and fall back to the group story when attacked. The credulous are more easily duped and group conformity easily explains the witnesses. Also, it isn't remarkable if I go to a UFO convention, claim to have been visited, and leave having a few believers in my story. These believers might even be true to their beliefs until they die.

So, for me, a good counter to Dr. Anderson's claim that the witnesses never recanted is so what. They were duped and were probably embarrassed by being a part of it and didn't want to admit they were wrong or continued to retrench just like members do today when confronted with sketchy evidence regarding the Mormon church's truth claims.

Kishkumen wrote:I love what Dr. William D. Russell has to say about Anderson’s book about the witnesses:

"Perhaps one should not expect that a book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon published by Deseret Book Company would be anything other than an attempt to strengthen the reader's faith in the Book of Mormon. This book will be convincing to those already certain that the gold plates actually existed and that the eleven witnesses saw them. And even the detached reader will probably be convinced by Anderson's research that the witnesses were honest men who sincerely believed their signed testimony and probably stuck by their story as long as they lived. But Anderson is really trying to have us conclude more than this. He would have the reader be convinced that because these men were honest and reaffirmed their testimony when asked, they actually saw and handled plates which contained the records of an ancient people. I believe that Anderson-- like the eleven witnesses--is an honest and sincere man when he writes: 'After years of working with their lives and their words, I am deeply convinced that their printed testimonies must be taken at face value' (p. xii). But I don't believe that his research by itself requires this conclusion. As he admits, 'spiritual truths must be spiritually verified' (p. 82). Believers must make a 'leap of faith,' apprehending with their 'spiritual eyes' rather than their 'natural eyes' ("Investigating the Investigation," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.16, No.2, pp.132-133).

Wow, Kishkumen, thanks, that’s a really powerful comment from Russell.

Didn’t Peterson say his movie was intended to answer all critiques of the witnesses? What are the odds that a comment such as Russell’s will be addressed?

All that work for a movie, based on an illogical, invalid premise, that the existence of witness testimony, however sincere, somehow is sufficient to conclude that the golden plates really came from an angel and really contained a true historical record.

What a waste of a million dollars.