If someone doesn’t believe the Witnesses, it’s because they haven’t studied them

[Informant]

No critic has refuted the Patterson–Gimlin film, alien abductions, and DMT experiences.

Yes, they have.

[Philo Sofee]

The place one is supposed to study the witnesses is at Church, in seminary and institute. Lot's have people have been through those courses and found the witnesses claims unbelievable. Dan is criticising the Church for not doing a good enough teaching job on members. Has he volunteered his services (for free) to rewrite those curriculums so that the witnesses are studied properly? No, he spent everyone else's time and everyone else's money (co)producing a sub standard film that has convinced nobody about the witnesses.

And that’s the best they’ve got. Despite the decades of research, study, trips, etc etc etc Peterson has said on more than one occasion, the testimonies of the witnesses is the best evidence they’ve got in favour of the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be. Think about that. Let it sink in. It’s basically admitting that all those years of research, all that funding, trying to find tangible evidence of Nephites and Lamanites, all those archeology trips to Central America, have turned up nothing more persuasive than the word of 11 of Joseph Smiths close family and friends. I wonder if the Dales can calculate the odds of that…

No, the “best they’ve got” is the book even the great Tanners couldn’t refute: Anderson’s book. Refute that with actual evidence and I’ll begin to take you seriously. No critic has ever done so.

(And I’m not active anymore, but the Witnesses are pretty rock solid.)

I will see your Anderson and raise you a Vogel and an Anderson.
1. Dan Vogel, "The Validity of the Witnesses," in Dan Vogel & Brent Lee Metcalfe, Editors, American Apocrypha, Signature Books, 2002; Chapter 4.
2. Rodger I Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-Examined, Signature Books, 1990.

[Informant]

No, the “best they’ve got” is the book even the great Tanners couldn’t refute: Anderson’s book. Refute that with actual evidence and I’ll begin to take you seriously. No critic has ever done so.

This is what is so frustrating. The null hypothesis is that Joseph made it up, like so many other conmen do.

The burden of proof is on DCP, and you, and anyone else who thinks “no one has refuted Anderson” to actually show your work.

I’m very interested to know what you base that statement on. Which parts of Anderson’s book *specifically* have not been addressed by critics? Because I’m pretty sure they have been addressed, maybe just not to your individual satisfaction.

DCP is claiming that this evidence is good enough to convince an unbiased judge and jury. And that only ex-Mormons with an axe to grind would ever dispute it. That’s a very bold claim that he has zero evidence to back up.

Oh, sorry. Thought you wanted to know. I guess stick with your null hypothesis. Why even bring it up?

Also I wrote a story about you but it got moved to a forum nobody ever visits. Probably because I don’t hate the church enough.

[Informant]

No, the “best they’ve got” is the book even the great Tanners couldn’t refute: Anderson’s book. Refute that with actual evidence and I’ll begin to take you seriously. No critic has ever done so.

(And I’m not active anymore, but the Witnesses are pretty rock solid.)

I will see your Anderson and raise you a Vogel and an Anderson.
1. Dan Vogel, "The Validity of the Witnesses," in Dan Vogel & Brent Lee Metcalfe, Editors, American Apocrypha, Signature Books, 2002; Chapter 4.
2. Rodger I Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-Examined, Signature Books, 1990.

Will you? Vogel is a Prius fraud.

[Philo Sofee]

I will see your Anderson and raise you a Vogel and an Anderson.
1. Dan Vogel, "The Validity of the Witnesses," in Dan Vogel & Brent Lee Metcalfe, Editors, American Apocrypha, Signature Books, 2002; Chapter 4.
2. Rodger I Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-Examined, Signature Books, 1990.

Will you? Vogel is a Prius fraud.

Irrelevant ad hominem, the task is find someone who has refuted Anderson, I have two witnesses demonstrating Anderson's book on the witnesses is flawed, and wrong. That is what was asked for, that is exactly what I have given. STICK WITH THE ISSUE.

[bill4long]

The Witnesses lost me at the whole "no blood transfusions to save a life" thing.

(Enjoying a blood-dripping rare Ribeye. Yowza!)

[Philo Sofee]

The Witnesses lost me at the whole "no blood transfusions to save a life" thing.

(Enjoying a blood-dripping rare Ribeye. Yowza!)

[Informant]

Will you? Vogel is a Prius fraud.

Irrelevant ad hominem, the task is find someone who has refuted Anderson, I have two witnesses demonstrating Anderson's book on the witnesses is flawed, and wrong. That is what was asked for, that is exactly what I have given. STICK WITH THE ISSUE.

Tsk tsk, how dare you use red!

What specifically in those sources are you referring to?

[doubtingthomas]

Yes, they have.

Prove it.

[Doctor Scratch]

This is a very old-school Mopologetic tactic—I.e., to claim that your opinion is invalid because you haven’t read this mountain of “scholarship” that would prove how wrong you are. Hamblin tried to use this tactic on Phillip Jenkins and Jenkins laughed him out of the building—and very rightfully so. There isn’t a single bit of legitimate scholarship outside of Mormonism that argues that the witnesses are valid proof of the Church’s claims.